Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

.
  Archive Message Manager
.

March  2003

Subject: libnw Digest of: get.1601_1700
Date: 22 Mar 2003 10:23:05 -0000
From: libnw-help@immosys.com
To: admin@liberty-northwest.org

libnw Digest of: get.1601_1700

Topics (messages 1601 through 1700):

ted, who the hell is the publicity committie.....
1601 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

SICK BITCH -Re: so, michelle.....
1602 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1603 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

bill - Re: LIBERTY!!! - Re: your turn
1604 by: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
1607 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
1612 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
1641 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
1670 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
1681 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>

Robert - Re: bill - Re: LIBERTY!!! - Re: your turn
1605 by: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
1613 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
1614 by: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
1632 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
1661 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
1680 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>

a free country, as commonly understood
1606 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
1608 by: Ken <happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com>
1640 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
1671 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>

Ken - Re: a free country, as commonly understood
1609 by: Ken <happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com>
1610 by: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
1634 by: Ken <happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com>
1636 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
1637 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
1668 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>

[idaholibertarians] Re: SICK BITCH -Re: so, michelle.....
1611 by: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>

Bill (MICHELLE) - A PERFECT EXAMPLE!!!
1615 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

GET IT ON, BILL.....
1616 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

BULLSHIT, BILL.........
1617 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

oops, i left the "l" off html - Re: the rights of man....
1618 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

Checking Account . . .
1619 by: service@e-gold.com<servicå@e-gold.com>
1633 by: service@e-gold.com <servicå@e-gold.com>
1682 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
1687 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>

michelle's lies!!!!!!!! Re: SICK BITCH -Re: so, michelle.....
1620 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

futher lies from _ Re: michelle's lies!!!!!!!! Re: SICK BITCH -Re: so,
michelle.....
1621 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

SO, BITCH, I WANT MY BRACELET BACK....
1622 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1623 by: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
1624 by: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
1638 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>

minutes of the tonight, Bannock lp meeting - Re: SO, BITCH, I WANT MY
BRACELET BACK....
1625 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

IT'S SATURDAY - LATE NIGHT.....
1626 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

UHH, MICHELLE, THE BANNOCK COUNTY CHAIR WANTS TO CALL YOU......
1627 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1628 by: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>

it hurts me to say....
1629 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

sick fucks......frank!!!!
1630 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1631 by: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
1639 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>

paulbaiersf,I'M YOUR LEADER" and "PRODUCT ONLY
1635 by: "Miskell"<4tewg43@juno.com>

Liberty Northwest Policies & Guidelines
1642 by: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>

Weekly subscriber update
1643 by: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>

Fw: Tibor Machan's new essay on philosopersnet
1644 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>

I've no damned idea.......
1645 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

apology, explanation, boredom, pain - see it how you want.....
1646 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

Cain's World: A Just and Libertarian War
1647 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1685 by: "Monica Pignotti" <pignotti@worldnet.att.net>
1688 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
1700 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

paris.....
1648 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1649 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1664 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
1693 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

Fw: PRESS RELEASE: Portland, Oregon Nude for Peace Demonstration
1650 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>

ALLAN - Re: Cain's World: A Just and Libertarian War
1651 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1662 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
1676 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>

"A Just & Libertarian War"
1652 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

frank,
1653 by: "larryfullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1663 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
1673 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>

hey, frank....II
1654 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1655 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
1665 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
1675 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>

Bill, well, I ain't getting no damned mail - Re: hey, frank....II
1656 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1660 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>

wear an anti-war t-shirt, go to jail for liberty....
1657 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

gawd, satan, bush and war.....
1658 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

the instruments of faith......
1659 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

Sorry folks!
1666 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
1692 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

SO, BITCH, I WANT MY BRACELET BACK
1667 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>

sick fucks.....frank!!! eml
1669 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>

bill, robert - neeked ladies, eh??? Re: PRESS RELEASE: Portland, Oregon
Nude for Peace Demonstration
1672 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1674 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>

[Fwd: Re: Is immosys still up?]
1677 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>

[Fwd: ezmlm response]
1678 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>

Cain's world
1679 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>

I've been assigned to your account
1683 by: Jean <455rich@hotmail.com>
1690 by: Oscar <jackie34@ffa.net>

Lucrative Home Based Business
1684 by: Mike <robin@aol.com>

Make money from home
1686 by: Joan <jackie34@ffa.net>

Thought Field Therapy
1689 by: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
1691 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1695 by: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>

beating a dead horse....
1694 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

spatio-visual thought/feeling/emotional manipulation...
1696 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

Problem must have been resolved...
1697 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>

Frank/Robert - Re: bill - Re: LIBERTY!!! - Re: your turn
1698 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

not for me - Re: Problem must have been resolved...
1699 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

Administrivia:

--- Administrative commands for the libnw list ---

I can handle administrative requests automatically. Please
do not send them to the list address! Instead, send
your message to the correct command address:

To subscribe to the list, send a message to:
<libnw-subscribe@immosys.com>

To remove your address from the list, send a message to:
<libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com>

Send mail to the following for info and FAQ for this list:
<libnw-info@immosys.com>
<libnw-faq@immosys.com>

To get messages 123 through 145 (a maximum of 100 per request), mail:
<libnw-get.123_145@immosys.com>

To get an index with subject and author for messages 123-456 , mail:
<libnw-index.123_456@immosys.com>

They are always returned as sets of 100, max 2000 per request,
so you'll actually get 100-499.

To receive all messages with the same subject as message 12345,
send an empty message to:
<libnw-thread.12345@immosys.com>

The messages do not really need to be empty, but I will ignore
their content. Only the ADDRESS you send to is important.

You can start a subscription for an alternate address,
for example "john@host.domain", just add a hyphen and your
address (with '=' instead of '@') after the command word:
<libnw-subscribe-john=host.domain@immosys.com>

To stop subscription for this address, mail:
<libnw-unsubscribe-john=host.domain@immosys.com>

In both cases, I'll send a confirmation message to that address. When
you receive it, simply reply to it to complete your subscription.

If despite following these instructions, you do not get the
desired results, please contact my owner at
libnw-owner@immosys.com. Please be patient, my owner is a
lot slower than I am ;-)

--- Enclosed is a copy of the request I received.

Return-Path: <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
Received: (qmail 23645 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2003 10:22:56 -0000
Received: from cmsrelay02.mx.net (165.212.11.111)
by ucntcme224.dsl.micron.net with SMTP; 22 Mar 2003 10:22:56 -0000
Received: from cmsapps02.cms.usa.net (HELO localhost) (165.212.11.138)
by cmsoutbound.mx.net with SMTP; 22 Mar 2003 10:22:30 -0000
Received: from liberty-northwest.org [203.148.66.242] by
cmsapps02.cms.usa.net
(ASMTP/libnw@usa.net) via mtad (C8.MAIN.2.05)
with ESMTP id 675HcVkV70253M38; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 10:22:24 GMT
Return-Path: <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
Message-ID: <3E7C38C5.E746B290@liberty-northwest.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:19:49 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
Organization: Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup
http://www.liberty-northwest.org
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en,en-GB
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: libnw-get.101_200@immosys.com, libnw-get.201_300@immosys.com,
libnw-get.301_400@immosys.com, libnw-get.401_500@immosys.com,
libnw-get.501_600@immosys.com, libnw-get.601_700@immosys.com,
libnw-get.701_800@immosys.com, libnw-get.801_900@immosys.com,
libnw-get.901_1000@immosys.com, libnw-get.1001_1100@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1101_1200@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1201_1300@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1301_1400@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1401_1500@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1501_1600@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1601_1700@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1701_1800@immosys.com, libnw-get.1801_1900@immosys.com
Subject: (no subject)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

--
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe or unsubscribe: http://www.liberty-northwest.org/

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

----------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: ted, who the hell is the publicity committie.....
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 02:10:20 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>,
<libnw@immosys.com>

Ted,

I figure the "publicity committie" can vote to give you free reign.

Who the hell are they anyway. I want names and addresses.

The fuxing "publicity committie" is damned asleep at the wheel.

I want humans to write too!!

They've passed up the "death penalty" horsecrap, and now Asscroft's
raid on the states!! Not to mention the up-coming war.

What the fux are they doing but sitting on their butts?

I figure you're a lot like the Governor, blaiming his horsecrap on the
"blueribbbon"
commission.

I WANT FUXING NAMES AND ADDRESS, NOW!!!! THERE ARE SOME FOLKS I WANT TO
WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!! I GOTTA A BOMB!! WANNA REPORT ME TO ASSCROFT?

LF

on 2/28/03 11:13 PM, larry fullmer at lfullmer1@cableone.net wrote:

Ted,

Interspersed below:

on 2/28/03 7:27 AM, Ted Dunlap at teddunlap@outdrs.net wrote:

Don't be torturing me, Larry...

UHH, TED, I FIGURE THE ONLY DAMNED REASON YOU TOOK THE
JOB IS 'CAUSE YOU ARE A MASOCHIST!!

QUTI IT WITH COMPLAINING ABOUT TORTURE!!!

YOU PUT YOURSELF ON THE RACK!!!

NOW, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE ILP HAS HAD NOTHING TO
SAY ABOUT THE ASSCROFT CRACK DOWN!!!!!!!

IF YOUR EXCUSE IS THE PUBLICTY COMMITTE, WELL, HELL, I
FIGURE YOU REMEMBER I RAILED AGAINST THAT BULLSHIT AT
THE SCC MEETING!!!

I NOTICE YOU WROTE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR, WITHOUT
"PUBLICY COMMITIE" APPROVAL.

ANY CHANCE YOU WORLD RISK SCORN TO TO THAT AGAIN??

ARE YOU A BUDDING ANARCHIST OR WHAT?? FUCK THE
PUBLICITY COMMITTIE, ON THEIR ASSESS AS THEY OBVIOUSLY
ARE. I'VE BEEN KICKED OUT MANY TIMES FOR ARGUING
LIBERTY IN LIBERTARIAN GROUPS. SHOW YOUR METTLE, TED,
OR EXPERIENCE PAIN.

LF
You were at the last EC meeting wherein I was ordered to
speak for
the IDLP only when the Publicity Committee puts words in
my mouth.

FUXS THAT PURE BULLSHIT. COMMITIES ARE *ALWAYS* BEHIND
THE CURVE!!

No, the days of the Chairman speaking for the party died
with Ryan.

WELL, THAT'S BULLSHIT. RYAN WAS A SICK FUCK. HE GOT
BOOTED OUT. IF THE CHAIR OF THE ILP CAN'T SPEAK TO THE
MEDIA, 'CAUSE OF RYAN'S BULLSHIT, WELL, HE DID EVEN MORE
DAMAGE THAN I THOUHGT HE DID.

I'M READING ESCUSES, TED. WHEN THE HELL SHOULD A
RATIONAL HUMAN MODERATE THEIR RESPONSES IN RELATION TO
SICK BULLSHIT, JUST 'CAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE APPROVAL
OF THE "PUBLICITY COMMITIE". DID YOU EVEN FUCKING ASK
FOR APPROVAL??!!! I FIGURE NOT!!!

YOU HAVE WRITTEN WITH EXCUSES, WHILE THE RIECHSTAG
BURNS.

sigh, in deep pain, liberty being lost,

lf

It would be nice if someone formed a team of
Letter-to-the-Editor
writers and regularly sent them outlines for suggested
articles. We
will get to that someday, cuz I want it to happen.

Reason will overcome power-grabbing in the long run cuz
it's RIGHT.
Patience and intelligence will get us there.

Ted

----- Original Message -----
From: larry fullmer
<mailto:lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: larry fullmer
<mailto:lfullmer1@cableone.net> ;
lawrencebeaty@SSGroup.US ; libnw@immosys.com ;
idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 1:41 AM
Subject: [idaholibertarians] J. Asscroft
defends liberty from terroist pipe sellers...

Folks,

I figure you all know about this.

The only damned thing I can't figure is why
Ted and the Publicity Committie
ain't garned headlines in relation to the
news!!!!!!!

In a nationwide sting, John Asscroft cracked
down on those who sell crack
parphenilia (uhhmm, likely mispelling the
word, it reminds me of sex.
Sorry).

So, there was a federal sting, closing down
three small-businesses in
Pocatello, not to mention the rest of the
nation.

That was truly sick!! But the sickest thing
is, we libs, except for a few,
ain't gonna have shit to say about squat!!!

What the fuck, Ted??!! Get the Publicity
Committie off their ass, except
that I know all the damned thing you want to
talk about is taxes, while we
descend into full-blown fascism.

Once again, as radical republicans, we pass up
the headlines we
diserve!!!!!!!

Well, sorry, Ted, Peter is working on a letter
to the editor, and soon the
Bannock County LIbs will have shit to say
about squat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't wanna embarrases ya, Ted, except for
your silence. Thank Gawd this
Party is organized from the bottom up.

Asscroft is a sick fuck!! That's the headline
i'm hoping for in Pocatello,
though I figure they'll edit it a bit.

FUCKING TAXES ARE THE LEAST OF OUR
WORRIES!!!!!!!

LF

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
idaholibertarians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
idaholibertarians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
idaholibertarians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: SICK BITCH -Re: so, michelle.....
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 02:40:56 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

MICHELLE, OTHERS,

Michelle, I call you nearly every damned night. If you felt so strongly
that I am a sick dumb-fuck, as you have written below, it would have been
nice to get a call from you. But, no. You went public, with no call.

Well, Michelle, you demand an apology for my claim that you have alligned
yourself with Robert and Bill, re morality - you don't get one.

That **is** what you did. And I despise you for it. No apolgy from me!!
Ever!!!

I figure you are a lady who wants to fight for the helluva it, including
fighting for chickens "rights" while you, bill, and robert claim humans
don't have any.

That's "short-dick" stuff, as I see it.

> I have no desire to ever speak
> with you on any subject ever again.

Ohh, really, region III leader. Fux you too!!

LF

on 3/1/03 1:03 AM, Michelle at quicksilver810@yahoo.com wrote:

> --- larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
>> Michelle, Others,
>>
>> I notice,Michelle, that you've signed on to
>> defending Robert and Bill, with
>> their BS arguments that morality is beside the
>> point, and "rights" don't
>> exist, and liberty is not a moral claim.
>
> Oh good grief, Larry. Do you ever bother to read what
> other people write? Or is your only manner of
> relating to others to project your own ideas about
> what they're saying onto them? It is quite rare for
> you to ever give *any* indication that you understand
> anyone's point of view but your own.
>
> Until you reach the level of intelligence that
> enculturated chimpanzees have (specifically, being
> able to recognize that "other minds" than their own
> exist), I give up on trying to communicate with you
> about anything whatsoever. You are as boneheaded as
> they come.
>
>
>> Well, Michelle, if humans don't have a moral right
>> to "rights", it certainly
>> must be true that chickens don't!!
>>
>> You don't happen to have the "short dick" problem,
>> do you?
>>
>> Just wondering, given your new allies.
>
> As a bonus, it would be nice if you could evolve
> beyond the maturity level of a sixth grader.
> Perceiving everything in terms of "fucking" and
> "penises" and using a vocabulary that consists
> primarily of swear words may have been impressive in
> junior high, but it is not terribly noteworthy in
> adult conversation.
>
> You reached the last straw with Bill tonight; you've
> also reached the last straw with me. Short of an
> apology and a promise to desist with your habit of
> claiming that anyone who says something you dislike
> has a "short dick," I have no desire to ever speak
> with you on any subject ever again.
>
> Sincerely,
> Michelle Eilers
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: SICK BITCH -Re: so, michelle.....
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 02:51:07 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>,
<libnw@immosys.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>

So, Folks,

I called Michelle tonight, as I do nearly every damned night, with no
complaint from her.

And what do I get tonight: "I'm gonna call the cops on you".

Soap Opera, Folks. Just thought I'd clue 'fore a so-called libertarian puts
me in jail.

I'll keep ya posted, as long as I can. I figure jail will limit my posts.

LF

on 3/1/03 2:40 AM, larry fullmer at lfullmer1@cableone.net wrote:

> MICHELLE, OTHERS,
>
> Michelle, I call you nearly every damned night. If you felt so strongly
that
> I am a sick dumb-fuck, as you have written below, it would have been nice
to
> get a call from you. But, no. You went public, with no call.
>
> Well, Michelle, you demand an apology for my claim that you have alligned
> yourself with Robert and Bill, re morality - you don't get one.
>
> That **is** what you did. And I despise you for it. No apolgy from me!!
> Ever!!!
>
> I figure you are a lady who wants to fight for the helluva it, including
> fighting for chickens "rights" while you, bill, and robert claim humans
don't
> have any.
>
> That's "short-dick" stuff, as I see it.
>
>> I have no desire to ever speak
>> with you on any subject ever again.
>
> Ohh, really, region III leader. Fux you too!!
>
> LF
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> on 3/1/03 1:03 AM, Michelle at quicksilver810@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> --- larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
>>> Michelle, Others,
>>>
>>> I notice,Michelle, that you've signed on to
>>> defending Robert and Bill, with
>>> their BS arguments that morality is beside the
>>> point, and "rights" don't
>>> exist, and liberty is not a moral claim.
>>
>> Oh good grief, Larry. Do you ever bother to read what
>> other people write? Or is your only manner of
>> relating to others to project your own ideas about
>> what they're saying onto them? It is quite rare for
>> you to ever give *any* indication that you understand
>> anyone's point of view but your own.
>>
>> Until you reach the level of intelligence that
>> enculturated chimpanzees have (specifically, being
>> able to recognize that "other minds" than their own
>> exist), I give up on trying to communicate with you
>> about anything whatsoever. You are as boneheaded as
>> they come.
>>
>>
>>> Well, Michelle, if humans don't have a moral right
>>> to "rights", it certainly
>>> must be true that chickens don't!!
>>>
>>> You don't happen to have the "short dick" problem,
>>> do you?
>>>
>>> Just wondering, given your new allies.
>>
>> As a bonus, it would be nice if you could evolve
>> beyond the maturity level of a sixth grader.
>> Perceiving everything in terms of "fucking" and
>> "penises" and using a vocabulary that consists
>> primarily of swear words may have been impressive in
>> junior high, but it is not terribly noteworthy in
>> adult conversation.
>>
>> You reached the last straw with Bill tonight; you've
>> also reached the last straw with me. Short of an
>> apology and a promise to desist with your habit of
>> claiming that anyone who says something you dislike
>> has a "short dick," I have no desire to ever speak
>> with you on any subject ever again.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Michelle Eilers
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do you Yahoo!?
>> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
>> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>>
>> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>>
>> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: bill - Re: LIBERTY!!! - Re: your turn
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 22:30:43 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote to Michelle Eilers:
> > I really want to get back with you on the rest of your fine post here.
But a
> > simple question:
> >
> > Is the Libertarian Party 'Statement of Principles' a moral document, or
> > merely a political one? Caution: I'm NOT saying 'either/or' here.
Obviously
> > it involves politics, as it is written specifically in a political
> > deminsion, but it also touches on a lot of social and economic issues as
> > well.

> First:
> I think the writing on the SoP is crap.

Unclear. Is the SOP crap? If so, why?

> I label it a political document that people attach a morality concept to
> to justify their arguments.

So, you suggest that there is no morality behind the motivation for
creating the SOP? Not trying to twist your words, only trying to
figure out whether or not you believe that morality was the driving
force behind the Statement of Principles?

Secondly. Is there any moral assumptions behind Locke's and
Jefferson's view of apriori individual rights as the basis for
government and politics?

I have to believe that this question is important.

> Just like the Non-Violence pledge.

You can call it that if you want to. But the words are all about
opposing aggression, not necessary violence, per se. The words are:
"initiation of force". It is true in a sense I guess, that "violence"
is a derivative of "violate", which entails some direct corollary with
force, which is usually a violation over someone else's behaviour. But
violence usually is defined in terms of deliberate force to violate
another.

> Back to the SoP ...
> With the possible exception of the crap-filled opening "...the cult of
> the omnipotent state..." it says nothing about "right or wrong"
> (morality), it states positions. Thus to me, a political document.

So, you seem to infer on the basis of this that morality was not the
operative basis for making such political judgements. Again, not
trying to put words into your mouth -- only trying to discover how you
separate morality from the context of opposing or approving of various
contexts in which government has a "right" or "wrong" mandate for
existence.

In other words: Is it "right" or "wrong" on each and every issue in
the SOP? I understand you probably don't want to see it in that
context, nevertheless it is germane. Does the LP, as a whole, believe
that such principles are "right" versus "wrong"? Or, is that for you
unnecessary? If it is unnecessary, then on what pretext do you choose
to use to justify such positions?

Seems to me, it boils down to something else. If it is neither right
or wrong for government to act in a certain way, then it is
essentially self-serving and irrelevant to even discuss such
conditions as such. To put this differently, as my old college
room-mate used to suggest, "nothing really matters". If you live, you
die, you rape, or don't rape, murder or don't murder, either way, it
doesn't really matter. Either way, you live, and you die, so,
therefore about the only thing that is important is to lessen your own
personal pain.

But even that suggests what may be morally right, or wrong, at least
subjectively. Thankfully human history has other lessons to ensure
that such nihilism isn't the answer for the human species. Such
history has been full of evil (another word you likely don't want to
hear). But how do you describe Auchwich?

John Loche's idealism was based entirely upon the clear record of
human history. When he spoke of natural law supporting human rights,
it was not a mere play on words, but rather a clear record of what
occurs when human, individual rights have been abused. Which is why he
discovered, and as Jefferson followed, that individual rights are
inviolate and inalienable, and forms the very basis for why government
really exists as all, vis-a-vis, to protect such rights as inviolate.
This is pure morality at its finest.

Which is why, I have to believe, any philosophical definition in the
political sphere, must have a solid moral basis. If it does not, then
we really have little left to argue about. Either a government
operates under the assumption of morally correct parameters, and
thereby is legitimate, or it is not, or it does, and is supportive
(and defends) basic human individual rights.

Again, as I wrote to Larry earlier, this is the antithesis of
accepting the usual notion that government is relative to such
questions. A legitimate government never creates such rights, only
assumes its natural condition and supports and defends natural rights
as such. All other governments should be opposed and overthrown as
Cicero stated so eloquently.

This IS the history of human liberty. It is based necessarily upon
that morality. And the science of human history rightfully attests to
such as being something well beyond speculation and relative morality
and points itself to something that is specific and essential to what
is right, and what is wrong. And here, we have to deal with morality
as the substance for such discussions.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: bill - Re: LIBERTY!!! - Re: your turn
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 10:47:23 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Frank Reichert" <libnw@usa.net> wrote in part:

> John Loche's idealism was based entirely upon the clear record of
> human history. When he spoke of natural law supporting human rights,
> it was not a mere play on words, but rather a clear record of what
> occurs when human, individual rights have been abused. Which is why he
> discovered, and as Jefferson followed, that individual rights are
> inviolate and inalienable, and forms the very basis for why government
> really exists as all, vis-a-vis, to protect such rights as inviolate.

How did he discover that? (I read the 2nd "Treatise" a long time ago.)

> Which is why, I have to believe, any philosophical definition in the
> political sphere, must have a solid moral basis. If it does not, then
> we really have little left to argue about. Either a government
> operates under the assumption of morally correct parameters, and
> thereby is legitimate, or it is not, or it does, and is supportive
> (and defends) basic human individual rights.

How do they GET those morals?

> Again, as I wrote to Larry earlier, this is the antithesis of
> accepting the usual notion that government is relative to such
> questions. A legitimate government never creates such rights, only
> assumes its natural condition and supports and defends natural rights
> as such.

How did those rights become "natural"?

> This IS the history of human liberty. It is based necessarily upon
> that morality. And the science of human history rightfully attests to
> such as being something well beyond speculation and relative morality
> and points itself to something that is specific and essential to what
> is right, and what is wrong.

How were these scientific discoveries made?

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: bill - Re: LIBERTY!!! - Re: your turn
Date: 01 Mar 2003 15:00:42 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sat, 2003-03-01 at 07:30, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again Bill!
>
> Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> I previously wrote to Michelle Eilers:
> > > I really want to get back with you on the rest of your fine post here.
But a
> > > simple question:
> > >
> > > Is the Libertarian Party 'Statement of Principles' a moral document,
or
> > > merely a political one? Caution: I'm NOT saying 'either/or' here.
Obviously
> > > it involves politics, as it is written specifically in a political
> > > deminsion, but it also touches on a lot of social and economic issues
as
> > > well.
>
> > First:
> > I think the writing on the SoP is crap.
>
> Unclear. Is the SOP crap? If so, why?

I think the WRITING on the SoP is crap. how is that not clear that I
think the WRITING is crap?

>
> > I label it a political document that people attach a morality concept to
> > to justify their arguments.
>
> So, you suggest that there is no morality behind the motivation for
> creating the SOP? Not trying to twist your words, only trying to
> figure out whether or not you believe that morality was the driving
> force behind the Statement of Principles?

You didn't ask that. You asked if the SoP was a moral document or a
political one (or a combination). I answered that it is, IMV, a
political one. If you want to know *why* the authors of the SoP took the
positions, ask them. I'm not one of them, nor will I ascribe a morality
to those individuals; as you have done with the Pledge.

> Secondly. Is there any moral assumptions behind Locke's and
> Jefferson's view of apriori individual rights as the basis for
> government and politics?

I can't say, you'd have to ask them.

>
> I have to believe that this question is important.

Important to what? Whether or not the SoP is a political or morality
document in my opinion? I assure you -as master of my own opinion and
views- it is not. The SoP makes no claim that certain things are right
or wrong, merely stating the position on certain issues of the Party. A
position can be based on morality, convenience, political advantage,
spite, ignorance, arrogance, economic advantage, flip of a coin,
self-protection, CYA, etc..

> > Just like the Non-Violence pledge.
>
> You can call it that if you want to. But the words are all about
> opposing aggression, not necessary violence, per se. The words are:
> "initiation of force". It is true in a sense I guess, that "violence"
> is a derivative of "violate", which entails some direct corollary with
> force, which is usually a violation over someone else's behaviour. But
> violence usually is defined in terms of deliberate force to violate
> another.

You didn't catch it, and you cut the relevant part:
to wit:
"""
I label it a political document that people attach a morality concept to
to justify their arguments.

Just like the Non-Violence pledge.
"""

Thus, the NVP is a document that people, such as yourself, have attached
a morality to. I even clarified exactly what I meant. in the following:
"""The *author* said it had nothing to
do with morals; that it was a CYA to keep it clear that the LP was not
an "overthrow the government" rebellion like so many at the time (early
70's) were."": Which is the immediately following sentence to the one
you snipped out.

>
> > Back to the SoP ...
> > With the possible exception of the crap-filled opening "...the cult of
> > the omnipotent state..." it says nothing about "right or wrong"
> > (morality), it states positions. Thus to me, a political document.
>
> So, you seem to infer on the basis of this that morality was not the
> operative basis for making such political judgements. Again, not
> trying to put words into your mouth -- only trying to discover how you
> separate morality from the context of opposing or approving of various
> contexts in which government has a "right" or "wrong" mandate for
> existence.

*You* added "right or wrong". The SoP does not use those terms. As I've
said, and you should understand, positions on things are not required to
be statements of morality, or based on them. See above.

> In other words: Is it "right" or "wrong" on each and every issue in
> the SOP? I understand you probably don't want to see it in that
> context, nevertheless it is germane. Does the LP, as a whole, believe
> that such principles are "right" versus "wrong"? Or, is that for you
> unnecessary? If it is unnecessary, then on what pretext do you choose
> to use to justify such positions?

Take your pick, I didn't write the positions and as such feel no need to
"justify" them.

As I've said before, and you apparently disregard entirely, I arrived at
my libertarian stances *without* morality coming into play, and without
it being a driving factor. As such, I know for a fact it can be done;
your single-minded bend on making it morality based (which is to me a
desperate argument) prevents you, it seems, from understanding that.

In the final analysis, short of universal omniscience, morality is
entirely subjective and relative. That is why I consider arguments base
don morality as a form of desperate argumentation. It is essentially
"because I say so", which is fundamentally no different from "might
makes right".

This is all related, IMV, to something Robert has (I think) tried to get
across here. Libertarians claim they believe that no rights and
"liberties" should be infringed on. Then they promote a system that does
exactly that, and live in denial of it. Yes, putting someone in jail
*IS* a violation of their freedoms. Note, I did not say rights. There
*IS* a difference.

Yes, putting a criminal in jail *IS* a violation of freedom. However, it
is one we accept when we feel the cause is "just"; a murderer being a
prime example. Fines and imprisonment are but two examples of
limitations on the freedom of an individual; *whatever the cause for
them being levied*.

However, Larry at least, goes off on the individual person and crime, as
opposed to the understanding that putting --to use *Larry's* example--
Ted Bundy in jail is indeed an abridgment of his freedom to move about
peaceably and many others. However, it is one that, as Robert I think
showed, is acceptable because individuals do not exist in a vacuum, and
the abridging of his rights in that regard increase communal liberty by
keeping him from abridging the various rights of others.

Thus, in some circumstances, limiting the freedoms of a group or
individual can result in a net increase to others. While I can not speak
for Robert on this, it looks like he has arrived at many of the same
conclusions and judgments thereof that I have.

Just this week I see you, Frank, posting that you don't understand why
putting someone in jail is a violation of their liberty/rights/freedom
(I forget which word was used). While a foolish consistency may indeed
be the hobgoblin of little minds, disregard for non-trivial
inconsistency is indicative of a failure to think through.

That is how I personally judge a person in relation to their morals. Are
they acting/advocating consistent with their stated morals? For you to
say that it is "wrong" for people to push their morals into law, and
then insist that your morals be ensconced is hypocritical, or at least
inconsistent to me.

Indeed, I have two uses of the words/concepts "right and wrong" in these
contexts. Their is my definition of them, and what most people here use.
You'd probably not like nor agree with them; even though they have
served you well. ;)

For me government is a technical response to a technical problem, and
most effective therefor when using technical answers. For you it is a
battleground for morality wars. So be it; just do not be so suprised
when we disagree on it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: bill - Re: LIBERTY!!! - Re: your turn
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 20:40:14 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings Robert!

I'll try and answer this, since at least you captured my commentary leading
up to your usual one-liner response questions.

I previously wrote:
> > John Loche's idealism was based entirely upon the clear record of
> > human history. When he spoke of natural law supporting human rights,
> > it was not a mere play on words, but rather a clear record of what
> > occurs when human, individual rights have been abused. Which is why he
> > discovered, and as Jefferson followed, that individual rights are
> > inviolate and inalienable, and forms the very basis for why government
> > really exists as all, vis-a-vis, to protect such rights as inviolate.

> How did he discover that? (I read the 2nd "Treatise" a long time ago.)

Perhaps by a scientific analysis of recorded human history for starters.
Both Locke and Jefferson were highly educated, and certainly were able to
discover scientifically the record for individual rights in the context of
historical human progression. They built their conclusions on the basis of
discovering human rights, and its progression, based upon important
historical thinkers of prior generations, including Cicero and others.

Again, I wrote:
> > Which is why, I have to believe, any philosophical definition in the
> > political sphere, must have a solid moral basis. If it does not, then
> > we really have little left to argue about. Either a government
> > operates under the assumption of morally correct parameters, and
> > thereby is legitimate, or it is not, or it does, and is supportive
> > (and defends) basic human individual rights.

> How do they GET those morals?

Again, reason played the dominant role, in a scientific analysis of the
progression of various other former civilizations, their rises and declines.
Maybe the Ten Commandments and the Codes of Hamarabi were considered within
this analysis, both of which were certainly a part of the then educational
curriculum that both Locke and Jefferson were familiar with. Maybe perhaps
you might like to think that most of Libertarian idealism is the direct
result of what took place in the late 1960s and early 1970s, culminating
with the birth of the Libertarian Party in the US. Any rational historian
would claim that human history, and the inalienable rights of man derived
spontaneously with the birth of the Libertarian Party, or what many define
as dogmatic libertarian ideology today.

In saying this, even the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution is hardly
more than a simple summary of what recorded history has shown to be
essential in terms of recognizing individual human rights. That's about all
we really can say, e.g.: it is a summary of what at that time was well
known. Larry was right, I believe, that these are moral statements, rather
than predominately political statements. The rational development of human
law, and code, also has a basis in nature itself through historical analysis
using reason as its basis.

> > Again, as I wrote to Larry earlier, this is the antithesis of
> > accepting the usual notion that government is relative to such
> > questions. A legitimate government never creates such rights, only
> > assumes its natural condition and supports and defends natural rights
> > as such.

> How did those rights become "natural"?

Through the natural historical progression of human history. Dah.

> > This IS the history of human liberty. It is based necessarily upon
> > that morality. And the science of human history rightfully attests to
> > such as being something well beyond speculation and relative morality
> > and points itself to something that is specific and essential to what
> > is right, and what is wrong.

> How were these scientific discoveries made?

Again dah. Through reason and scientific analysis of human history.

Which, in spite of Larry's profound irritating language and belligerence, I
really am sorry to see him leave, again. I'm tired of debating this
endlessly with you, as I have been doing, off and on, for about a decade.
I'd rather just sit back and watch Larry take you on, while sitting on the
sidelines. Yes. I would hope he cleans up his propensity for vulgar language
and personal attacks upon personalities, but at least when he is cognizant
of the issues regarding morality and the underlying tenants of libertarian
principles, he is usually very accurate.

Let me just add this. If libertarians have no moral base for human liberty,
then we have no basis at all for such liberty accept as applied by brute
force. According to YOU, you base all such rights, as they are, only on the
basis of government force. If some government code grants such rights, then
well and good. There is no basis therefore in saying that these rights are
right versus wrong. A government code says they are right. If any government
does not support such rights, then you still have no rational basis for
claiming at all that such rights exist for all humanity, including yourself,
except if you are strong and powerful enough to use brute force to give you
the liberty that you want for yourself.

The usual libertarian argument is that rights exist independent of any
government code, edict, or law. Such rights exist insofar as to their merit
regardless of whether or not ANY government even recognizes such rights. It
is best, as Cicero pointed out, for government to defend such rights as
necessary for its own legitimacy. He pointed out also, that any government
that refuses to do so should be overthrown and destroyed. Such government
has no legitimacy. It deserves to be destroyed. And, it is right (and even
obligation) for the people to overthrow it and dispense with any such
tyranny. And, for Cicero, this was a moral obligation placed upon humanity
itself to defend such rights as a moral duty.

Probably I'm wasting my time with you again. I don't really know why I'm
taking the time and trouble to restate what I have often stated countless
times before. It isn't because I state this as true, or believable, but
because human history itself demands it. That too is just as natural. And
rational. Since only humans have the capacity for rational analysis and
examination of empirical information. Recorded history shows that such
natural rights have been the recondition for success or failure in human
development. That's about as 'natural' as it can be.

So Robert, pick this one apart, again. I fully expect that you likely will.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: bill - Re: LIBERTY!!! - Re: your turn
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:13:28 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Re bill - Re
LIBERTY!!! - Re your
turn.eml
Re bill - Re LIBERTY!!! - Re your turn.eml Type: Microsoft MHTML
Document 5.0
(message/rfc822)
Encoding: 7bit

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: bill - Re: LIBERTY!!! - Re: your turn
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:00:49 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com> wrote in part:

> If libertarians have no moral base for human liberty,
> then we have no basis at all for such liberty accept as applied by
brute
> force. According to YOU, you base all such rights, as they are, only
on the
> basis of government force. If some government code grants such
rights, then
> well and good. There is no basis therefore in saying that these
rights are
> right versus wrong. A government code says they are right. If any
government
> does not support such rights, then you still have no rational basis
for
> claiming at all that such rights exist for all humanity, including
yourself,
> except if you are strong and powerful enough to use brute force to
give you
> the liberty that you want for yourself.

I don't claim that rights exist in some super-governmental sense, no.
What I do is state what I WANT there to be in terms of rights, and use
the same methods of persuasion that I would in any other interaction
with human beings.

You don't get anywhere in terms of persuasion by stating to other
people, "I'm right (i.e. THIS is "right" in some sense that transcends
either of our thinking), and you're wrong, now do as I say!" Rather,
you present to other people, "Consider the advantages..." of hiring you,
buying your goods, loving you, or adopting a certain set of rights.

If you can show that societies which adopted certain rules (rights) have
been more pleasant ones to live in than those that adopted others (r
none at all), then those are the terms you should state it in. I guess
you could say history was an experiment by which "rights" (defined as
the best set of legal-rights) have been "discovered", but it's far
clearer to say history shows certain legal-rights to give more pleasant
results than other legal-rights.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Robert - Re: bill - Re: LIBERTY!!! - Re: your turn
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 23:03:06 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote to Larry Fullmer...

Larry wrote to Robert Goodman:
> > Hey, dummie, the "statement" & the "pledge" ****obviously**** makes
moral
> > claims. I figure that was the question Frank raised, whether or not
anyone,

You replied:
> The statement, perhaps, the pledge, no.
> The pledge is only an agreement not to do something. You could assign a
> morality to the agreed upon choices, but the pledge on it's own does not
> such thing.

So. How do you separate the pledge from the 'Statement of Principles'?

Again, morality does come into play directly in such an association.
Is it morally right, or wrong, to initiate force to achieve social or
political goals? The LP says it is NOT! Is that morality? If not why?
Is the initiation of force wrong, or right to accomplish such ends?
The 'Pledge' is probably the highest moral statement that the LP has
ever made. If anything, it should be considered as the addendum to
the Statement of Principles.

Again, not trying to reflect your answer in return, only seeking
clarification on why you believe the 'pledge' and 'statement of
principles' here may be disjointed. If you assume morality might be
the basis for the former, then how, or why, has the pledge violated
that association?

Kindest regards,
Frank

>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

--
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Robert - Re: bill - Re: LIBERTY!!! - Re: your turn
Date: 01 Mar 2003 15:11:33 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sat, 2003-03-01 at 08:03, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again Bill!
>
> Bill Anderson wrote to Larry Fullmer...
>
> Larry wrote to Robert Goodman:
> > > Hey, dummie, the "statement" & the "pledge" ****obviously**** makes
moral
> > > claims. I figure that was the question Frank raised, whether or not
anyone,
>
> You replied:
> > The statement, perhaps, the pledge, no.
> > The pledge is only an agreement not to do something. You could assign a
> > morality to the agreed upon choices, but the pledge on it's own does not
> > such thing.
>
> So. How do you separate the pledge from the 'Statement of Principles'?

They are by definition separate, I don't have to separate them. You
refer to them as separate entities, they were written separately, they
serve separate functions and purposes, and were written for different
purposes. How do you not separate them?

> Again, morality does come into play directly in such an association.

No it doesn't. It *might* for some people, such as you, but it does not
for everyone.

> Is it morally right, or wrong, to initiate force to achieve social or
> political goals? The LP says it is NOT! Is that morality? If not why?

Depends on the situation (ooh scary concept,I know). Where does the
Pledge say something is *wrong*? Where does the SoP? Truth is, they do
not, YOU assign a morality to them, You assign that something is right
or wrong.

> Is the initiation of force wrong, or right to accomplish such ends?
> The 'Pledge' is probably the highest moral statement that the LP has
> ever made. If anything, it should be considered as the addendum to

The author of the pledge disagrees with your assertion. David Nolan said
the pledge was to show that the LP was not a militant organization.

> the Statement of Principles.
>
> Again, not trying to reflect your answer in return, only seeking
> clarification on why you believe the 'pledge' and 'statement of
> principles' here may be disjointed. If you assume morality might be
> the basis for the former, then how, or why, has the pledge violated
> that association?

New concept: I don't assume either. Quit assuming I think and assume the
same way/things you do.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Robert - Re: bill - Re: LIBERTY!!! - Re: your turn
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 14:31:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Bill,

> > Is the initiation of force wrong, or right to
> accomplish such ends?
> > The 'Pledge' is probably the highest moral
> statement that the LP has
> > ever made. If anything, it should be considered
> as the addendum to
>
> The author of the pledge disagrees with your
> assertion. David Nolan said
> the pledge was to show that the LP was not a
> militant organization.

It may be that the person who came up with the
*wording* of the LP's pledge didn't think the pledge
was central to libertarian views and/or didn't view it
as a moral concept. But Nolan was hardly the author
of the nonaggression principle. What I've heard is
that Ayn Rand actually formulated the principle in
Atlas Shrugged. Murray Rothbard also describes the
nonaggression principle in "For a New Liberty"
(published in 1973 apparently) and in his view the
nonaggression principle is central to libertarian
thought and his discussion of the principle at least
implies that it is a moral concept.

Moreover, according to some people who were involved
in the LP's founding (like Ron Wittig), the pledge was
intended to be the central axiom guiding the party and
was intended to be a moral concept. It seems quite
natural that not everyone involved in forming the LP
would have agreed with that view and, IMO, that
explains Nolan's statements about the pledge "only"
being intended to characterize the LP as a nonmilitant
group.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Robert - Re: bill - Re: LIBERTY!!! - Re: your turn
Date: 02 Mar 2003 13:22:00 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sat, 2003-03-01 at 15:31, Michelle wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> > > Is the initiation of force wrong, or right to
> > accomplish such ends?
> > > The 'Pledge' is probably the highest moral
> > statement that the LP has
> > > ever made. If anything, it should be considered
> > as the addendum to
> >
> > The author of the pledge disagrees with your
> > assertion. David Nolan said
> > the pledge was to show that the LP was not a
> > militant organization.
>
> It may be that the person who came up with the
> *wording* of the LP's pledge didn't think the pledge
> was central to libertarian views and/or didn't view it
> as a moral concept. But Nolan was hardly the author
> of the nonaggression principle. What I've heard is

I said he (Nolan) was the author of the pledge/oath, which is what Frank
asked about. Specifically, Frank asked about the SoP, and then when I
noted that the SoP was political just as the oath was amoral (without
morals, not immoral), he asserted the oath was the "highest moral
statement the LP has ever made" and that the SoP and oath were
inseparable.

Nolan, as founder of the LP and author of the oath (at the same time),
holds ultimate authority as to what it was intended to be. Just as you
are the ultimate authority on your views and intentions in what you
write.

It is my understanding that Nolan has said as well that Rand had no
influence on his wording of the oath/pledge. Indeed, as I understand it
Rand was a vehement opponent of the LP.

> that Ayn Rand actually formulated the principle in
> Atlas Shrugged. Murray Rothbard also describes the
> nonaggression principle in "For a New Liberty"
> (published in 1973 apparently) and in his view the
> nonaggression principle is central to libertarian
> thought and his discussion of the principle at least
> implies that it is a moral concept.

Rothbard's view is his, view. However, when we have the statements of
the *author* of something, I am loath to take someone *else's*
"interpretation" over the author's. In this particular case, we have
Nolan repeatedly saying that the sole purpose of the oath was to
separate the party from the "bombthrowers" that were prevalent back
then. it was a statement that said "We are a political party, not a
militant group". Frank asked if we thought it was a political or moral
document. I have given my answer that it is a political document, and
have given my reasonings. Consider for a moment the following:

"We the undersigned do not advocate or believe in the imposition of
taxes for political or social goals."

The above statement is not a statement of morality, merely a statement
that the undersigned have taken a position that taxes are not
appropriate tools to achieve the goals listed. The signatories may have
many disparate reasons for their accepting of that oath. Some may sign
it because they will not be permitted to join the organization;
regardless of the veracity of their oath. Some may see taxes as a
morally acceptable yet economically inefficient means to achieve the
goals listed.

Note further what the oath does *not* say. Now, I ask the reader to be
cautious and not ascribe the following to me as personal beliefs.

Does the oath say anything about economic goals? Nope. Personal goals
that are neither political or social? Nope. How about "moral" goals?
Nope.

[Second note to the "fighters": note that I did not say I approve of the
initiation of force in those fields, just that the oath did not comment
on them.]

Logically and technically speaking, if person A initiates force against
person b, and person C steps in and uses force against person A, they
have initiated force; person C had no force initiated against them.

Yet, whether it be a private organization or a government one (private
or government police), a corps of people that do exactly that initiates
force *on behalf of someone else*. With the oath as a "fundamental moral
principle from which you can derive all others", one can not derive that
any form of policing on behalf of another is immoral.

Yet, even those who feel the government should not do policing
acknowledge some form of policing that ultimately results in the use of
force by one initiating it against another.

A more temporal example is the 1992 Gulf War. Libertarians say we should
not have done it; we were not Kuwait, no force was initiated against us.
These same people say that we should apply libertarian principles to
international relations. If we do so, then we must treat the case of
County 1 invading country 2 as the same as Person a attacking person B.
if we were to apply these principles from the micro to the macro, then
we must acknowledge that if it is OK for a cop (government or private)
to enjoin person A from hitting person B, then it is equally OK for
country 3 to do the same with regard to country 1 attacking country 2.

Ultimately, moral arguments are nothing more than "I'm right because I'm
right". Morals are not mathematically simple, and as such have no
proofs, merely evidence read in a way to support one's choice. Morality
can not, be deduced from a single axiom.

Indeed, this is where I quite distinctly separate from the claim that we
can arrive at all Libertarian positions form the oath (or even the
principle). It does not include such things as property rights.

> Moreover, according to some people who were involved
> in the LP's founding (like Ron Wittig), the pledge was
> intended to be the central axiom guiding the party and
> was intended to be a moral concept. It seems quite
> natural that not everyone involved in forming the LP
> would have agreed with that view and, IMO, that
> explains Nolan's statements about the pledge "only"
> being intended to characterize the LP as a nonmilitant
> group.

David Nolan was the founder of the LP. Ron Wittig was around at the
time, and was around for the forming of the *Idaho* LP, but was not in
David Nolan's Colorado living room in December of 72 to my knowledge,
and thus not one of the founders. As such, while I respect Ron's
contributions, I can not accept his opinions on what David Nolan
intended when he devised the oath. especially when we have heard form
Nolan repeatedly what *he* intended it to serve as. Since David Nolan is
the founder of the LP *and* the author of the oath, it is his intention
and his explanation that matters wrt. what it was intended to be.

Indeed, the Dallas Accords demonstrated a clear and powerful
disagreement regarding what was being hung upon the oath.

Further, the idea that all libertarian values and positions can be
derived from the oath is indeed a violation of the Incompleteness
Theorem. One particular problem is that such a claim carries the effect
that if that were true, and one claims that the oath is a moral
statement, then anything not derived from it is immoral (not amoral, but
immoral). One of the key issues regarding initiation of force, is what
people consider force. All government is force. All government. Thus,
anything government does can be considered force. If a libertarian
accepts the government doing anything, that could be seen as a violation
of the oath. Hence, one of the fallacies in the claim that the oath is a
moral foundation, or that one can deduce all libertarian/moral
positions/beliefs from.

Fraud is not force, nor is the threat of force, yet we are against the
improper use of those as well (I say improper because the *threat* of
force can often be used properly). You can not logically derive
prohibitions on the use of fraud of the threat of force form the oath.

Nolan himself (whom I expect will receive the nomination for LP
presidential candidate in 04) has provided what he calls the
"indispensable five" points to be a libertarian.

Indeed, these five are:
1) You own yourself. As such you can not be forced in to service for
others.

2) The right to self-defense.

3) No "criminal possession". Anything you own and peaceably use is OK.
it is when you harm others through the use or threat of force.

4) No taxes on productivity. This specifically means income tax (I
believe sales tax should be included in that but that is up for debate).

5) Sound money system. In which he includes precluding fiat money

If you choose to accept the oath as a morality statement, that is your
choice. If you want to say what the intended purpose of the oath is, and
it is not in agreement with the author if it says, I'll say you are
incorrect. Just as when Larry takes what we say and says it means
something else; and is wrong. You are certainly welcome to attach your
own morality to the oath, so long as you acknowledge it as your own
attachment. As for me, I choose to accept the author and founder's
stated intention of the oath as authoritative to what it was intended
for, and thus, what it is.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Robert - Re: bill - Re: LIBERTY!!! - Re: your turn
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:34:06 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Michelle!

Michelle Eilers, writing to Bill Anderson wrote...

> I said he (Nolan) was the author of the pledge/oath, which is what Frank
> asked about. Specifically, Frank asked about the SoP, and then when I
> noted that the SoP was political just as the oath was amoral (without
> morals, not immoral), he asserted the oath was the "highest moral
> statement the LP has ever made" and that the SoP and oath were
> inseparable.

It still is, at least in my opinion. Certainly, at least in the words of
the pledge itself, there is no mention of "right versus wrong", although
that is implied. It is assumed elsewhere within the SOP, as well as the
development of the Libertarian Party Platform, that initiation of force to
achieve social or political goals, is morally wrong. The writings of a
plethora of other great libertarian writers attest to this assumption, not
to mention David Berglund and a host of others, including current LP Press
Releases on various issues. In Idaho, former State Chair Gordon Wilmoth
wrote splendid articles decrying the immorality of "force" on various social
issues, for example. Most Libertarians (I believe) assume that the pledge
is laced with a moral foundation. If it were not, or if I believed that it
did not, I would be very reluctant to sign on myself.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Robert - Re: bill - Re: LIBERTY!!! - Re: your turn
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:34:42 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org> wrote in part:

> Nolan, as founder of the LP and author of the oath (at the same time),
> holds ultimate authority as to what it was intended to be.

At this point I'd like to inject:

(1) David Nolan was not "founder of the LP", but an important
co-founder.

(2) Some who were there or heard about it soon afterward dispute that he
was the author (it was a committee product, though he did present that
wording to the committee).

(3) They also dispute that that's what they understood it to mean at the
time.

I first heard David Nolan give this explanation of the non-aggression
certification on a bus at the 1991 LP national convention. However, its
wording is almost exactly that of John Galt's in "Atlas Shrugged".

My guess is that it had dual purposes, being both the disclaimer David
Nolan now says it has and a hook for Objectivists.

> It is my understanding that Nolan has said as well that Rand had no
> influence on his wording of the oath/pledge. Indeed, as I understand
it
> Rand was a vehement opponent of the LP.

Yes, but it was not certain at LP's founding that her followers would
continue to oppose it. BTW, you're getting this from someone who has
recently concluded it'd be better if LP had never been founded, and that
the sooner it disbands the better -- so libertarians in the USA can get
down to more serious politics, and also more effective education &
protest.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: a free country, as commonly understood
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 10:28:15 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org> wrote:

> > > I disagree with that conclusion. I think here in this country,
most
> > *do*
> > > believe in freedom, though they disagree on how/what and how much,
> > what
> > > it is, etc.. They think they *have* a lot more freedom than the
do,
> > and
> > > will indignantly tell you so when you tell them the opposite.

> > Any ideas why they think that? Think they're mentally comparing
their
> > situation with some imagined one of far less freedom?

> 1) Yes, I think they do compare like you suggest. The media seems to
> constantly do this. Especially wrt Iraq or China or such.

That's important. Regimes serve as examples for each other, whether for
good or ill.

> 2) They don't see the erosions that take place by the government. This
> comes by a combination of simply not knowing about them, and not
> understanding them as such when they do know.

Hmm...examples? I can think of one sort of situation. There may be a
law against providing a certain type of product or service, and people
either don't think of that as a choice that might've been there --
because they've never seen it -- or they imagine such a choice, don't
realize there's a law preventing or discouraging it, and hence don't
blame public policy but instead blame business for lack of good service
or imagination.

Also, I think:

3) People don't think of freedom in quantitative terms. They don't
think of tax increases, for instance, as reductions in their financial
freedom, or of tax cuts as increases in freedom. Unfortunately I'm
afraid many libertarians don't think of freedom in quantitative terms
either, and hence have trouble making useful comparisons.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: a free country, as commonly understood
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 11:16:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Ken <happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- "Frank M. Reichert"
> Free will. It's an interesting concept, but just how
> free is the common man
> anyway?
>
> Man is largely a conditioned beast based upon
> environmental factors. One
> could rightly argue that the airline suicide bombers
> were entirely free to
> choose to kill themselves and thousands more, for
> their own freely chosen
> choice for a higher good. You can agrue all you want
> to about free choice,
> but choices are largely a matter of one's own
> conditioning.

If someone commits a crime, we hold them accountable.
I think we're past the trend where lawyers are saying
that the defendant had a bad childhood and thus isn't
responsible for his actions. Trust me, Frank, I'm very
familiar with the idea that someone's hereditary
features plus their life experience dictates their
behavior, but I refuse to believe that has dominates
anyone 100%, except for children and those with very
low IQs.

In my experience I have found that most people are
reasonable and you can hold an intelligent
conversation with them. You may not be able to change
their views, but you can at least let them reach an
understanding of why you believe the way you do. We
talk about humanity as a whole, or society as a whole,

but I have difficulty reaching those conclusions when
I judge them compared to my own experiences. Isn't the
Libertarian Party that of the individual? They're the
ones who talk about individual rights and
responsibilities, and not "social justice" or
"inequities of the system" or any of these phrases
that reduce us all down to statistics. I have trouble
believing that people who are members of such a party
can then make broad generalizations and speak from an
elitist stance.

Ken

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: a free country, as commonly understood
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:53:40 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Ken!

Ken Butler wrote to Frank Reichert...

Frank originally wrote:
> > Man is largely a conditioned beast based upon
> > environmental factors. One
> > could rightly argue that the airline suicide bombers
> > were entirely free to
> > choose to kill themselves and thousands more, for
> > their own freely chosen
> > choice for a higher good. You can agrue all you want
> > to about free choice,
> > but choices are largely a matter of one's own
> > conditioning.

And, you replied:
> If someone commits a crime, we hold them accountable.
> I think we're past the trend where lawyers are saying
> that the defendant had a bad childhood and thus isn't
> responsible for his actions. Trust me, Frank, I'm very
> familiar with the idea that someone's hereditary
> features plus their life experience dictates their
> behavior, but I refuse to believe that has dominates
> anyone 100%, except for children and those with very
> low IQs.

Nice try. Unfortunately, no cigar. In the case of the airline suicide
bombers, and much of al-Queida, this shoe doesn't fit. Most were highly
educated, not 'low IQ' types. Those who were trained in al-Quaida's training
camps were the cream of the crop. Plus, we now see emerging even University
professors in the US as a part of this organization. Nowhere is there any
suggestion that al-Queida's network is a bunch of children, or individuals
with low IQs. The case can't be made.

> In my experience I have found that most people are
> reasonable and you can hold an intelligent
> conversation with them. You may not be able to change
> their views, but you can at least let them reach an
> understanding of why you believe the way you do. We
> talk about humanity as a whole, or society as a whole,

And, how big is YOUR universe? I don't mean this sarcastically at all. How
many people do you know outside of the US or western culture? I've spent
most of my adult life outside of such culture, and I can tell you that
"reason" (as you describe it) takes second place to cultural conditioning!
It is pure fantasy to suggest that people will accept or even necessarily
approve of your reason. Only politicians might see it the way you do, for
practical reasons, such as Saddam Hussein's current political shenanigans
with the UN, and destroying the missiles. Even that is conditional to reach
a consensus that the US and UK are the aggressors, which they are of course.
Britain or the US has no moral mandate for regime changes unless they are
attacked as such by an aggressor.

Humanity as a whole, and society as a whole are incompatible, and therefore
irrelevant. Humanity as a whole is made up of a great many societies.
Thousands of them really. Many of which differ greatly over such things as
morality, culture, and

> but I have difficulty reaching those conclusions when
> I judge them compared to my own experiences.

Maybe that's the point. How much experience have you had in living or
dealing with cultures that are not your own.

> Isn't the
> Libertarian Party that of the individual? They're the
> ones who talk about individual rights and
> responsibilities, and not "social justice" or
> "inequities of the system" or any of these phrases
> that reduce us all down to statistics.

You forget that US libertarians who believe in individual liberty don't mesh
very well with various other cultural conditions on a global scale. Various
cultures may also believe in individual liberty, insofar as it may exist in
the context of their cultural environment (which obviously you don't
understand). The uprising at Tenninimen Square, for example, was also a
quest for liberty, but I doubt very much it could be scene in the context of
what US libertarians believe it should be. It had much more to do with
democratic change, but that too suggests a democracy under other
environmental assumptions and conditions resident with the activists at hand
and in their own cultural environment such as it is.

> I have trouble
> believing that people who are members of such a party
> can then make broad generalizations and speak from an
> elitist stance.

How this fits, I have no idea, except maybe to say that US 'elitists' on any
level of the political spectrum don't have solutions to cultural
differentiation or appliation of forced solutions toward resolving cultural
differences within any given culture other than perhaps our own.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: a free country, as commonly understood
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:14:31 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Re a free
country, as
commonly
Re a free country, as commonly understood.eml understood.eml
Type: Microsoft MHTML
Document 5.0
(message/rfc822)
Encoding: 7bit

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ken - Re: a free country, as commonly understood
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 12:09:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Ken <happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
> Ken, Others,
>
> response below:
>
>
> on 2/27/03 1:14 PM, Ken at
> happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com wrote:

> Finally someone has understood me!!!!! I **meant**
> to show contempt for the
> "common man". The "common man", brain dead, thanks
> to the government's
> "education" monoploy, with his brain further
> embalmed by TV and religion,
> believes he has a right to run my life with his
> vote.

As I mentioned to Frank, most people I speak to are
reasonable, and can have intelligent conversations.
They may not agree with everything I have to say, but
they are entitled to their opinions.

> What Ya think, Ken, about the "common German man"
> who thought it was just
> fine to gass 6-million jews, after they elected
> Hitler, with their vote.

Neither Hitler or the Nazis were elected with a
majority. In the parliamentary system of the Weimer
Republic, the Nazis were a large minority and Hitler
was raised as chancellor. When the ancient German
Prime Minister died, Hitler assumed power, after which
there were no more elections. The closest American
equivalent would be if Clinton and Gore had both died,
and Newt Gingrich assumed the presidency, I don't
think Newt would have been Hitler, but he'd have about
as legitimate a claim to having been elected
president.

> "F" the "common man"!! I respect his liberty, but i
> have **nothing* but
> contempt for his opinions!!!!!!!

I think this attitude is your problem, Larry. People
come from all different backgrounds and have any
number of opinions. You cannot expect everyone to
agree with you, or assume they're some kind of "dumb
fuck fascist" for having a different point of view.
The same applies to the list. A debate does not
usually result in one side changing their views.
However, as Carl Rogers wrote, the purpose of a debate
is to build consensus and find common ground. The two
sides can understand each other's positions and have
respect for them, even while disagreeing.

For example, look at Frank's relationship with the
late Roger Erdman. Roger's views were very far to the
left, and as a result he was very far from Frank on
many issues. However, they respected one another's
opinions and focused on the views they had in common,
and had some worthwhile discussion as a result. On the
other hand, Larry, if you'd been talking to Roger you
would likely have just called him a socialist
motherfucker or something similiar, accomplishing
nothing.

Indeed, Larry, you seem to have alienated much of this
list, including many people who probably agree with
your views 90% of the time. Instead of approaching
with a black-and-white, antagonistic stance, try to
come in as civil and respectful of other opinions. I
realize this is difficult, and I myself am guilty of
not always taking this approach. However, if you tried
to at least begin with that in mind, I think you'd
find you'd get a lot more accomplished and get your
ideas across more effectively.

> >I would say most of the country probably does agree
> on
> >what he has written.
>
> Yeah, and most Germans..........

Knock off the German comments already. My
great-grandparents immigrated from Germany, and I am
proud of my German heritage. One bad period in German
history does not condemn all Germans anymore than the
practice of slavery in US history condemns all
Americans.

> RIGHT ABOUT WHAT, THE CONSENSUS OF THE "COMMON MAN"?
> OR THE THE
> MORAL/ETHICAL VALUE OF LIBERTY (with him denying the
> value of
> morality/ethics).
>
I was referring to that statement alone about what
most people in fact agree on.

While I disagree with the idea tht rights are "natural
law" purely based on a code of morality, I am warming
to Frank's idea that human rights are backed by
history. States that protect human freedoms accomplish
more in terms of art, science, technology, literature,
economic success, and so on, while the citizens of
oppressive states don't have the opportunity. It's a
rough correlation right now; I would need to study
history and ethics more if I really wanted to put them
together to where I could call it "law", but I like
the hypothesis.

Ken

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ken - Re: a free country, as commonly understood
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 16:03:43 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Ken:

It could be my approach too, but I haven't found the average debating man
willing to "agree to disagree", something that is really quite necessary
when two people just don't agree on the axioms by which they base a common
argument about some particular topic, i.e. the topic they are debating is
truly the target of their conversation, they both understand what the other
is talking about, but they can never reconcile their different opinions and
conclusions simply because they start with different axioms about the
situation.
I such a situation, either one will have to change his mind about his axioms
(which rarely happens), or they will have to agree to disagree. It is tough
to change another person's opinion about some axiom, because at that level
of conclusion (about the viability of the axiom) there is little to reason
or discuss, it is usually a gutteral instinct that makes us believe or not
in some fundamental ism.

You also presume that most people are egalitarian (we are all morally on par
with each other), and most may be in the circle of friends and aquaintances
you interact with.
However there is another mentality (perhaps larry f is of that mindset, and
I will stand corrected whether he is or isn't ;^), and that is of the alpha
dog presumption.
The person you are interacting with comes from the position that he is
simply superior to you, that whatever you say has very little value compare
to his opinion (since he is superior after all), and will be unconciously
dissatisfied talking with you until you submit deference to his superiority.
Another outcome in interacting with such persons, is that they (rarely)
conclude that in fact you are superior to them, in which case you generally
need to reaffirm that status to them periodically.
Strangley they will be almost as satisfied with their perspective of your
superiority over them as they would be with the presumption that they are
superior to you.
One thing they will never be satisfied with, is that you are both equal in
status/stature; such an egalitarian relationship makes them uneasy and feel
ungrounded.
The end result in such a thing is, if you have a difference of agreement
with them, they will either totally disrespect what you say, and not accept
a truce, or they will gush affirmation and adulations upon your opinion
without question or reason.
Its a big world out there Ken, and mentalities often simply refuse to remain
in a state of dynamic equalibrium; it is only the cream of the crop, the
rare intellectuals who can juxtapose themselves into another's shoes even
w/o agreeing with the other's axioms, that can agree to disagree, because
they respect the others' wherewithal even if they don't agree with their
presumptions.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken" <happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: Ken - Re: a free country, as commonly understood

> --- larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
> > Ken, Others,
> >
> > response below:
> >
> >
> > on 2/27/03 1:14 PM, Ken at
> > happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Finally someone has understood me!!!!! I **meant**
> > to show contempt for the
> > "common man". The "common man", brain dead, thanks
> > to the government's
> > "education" monoploy, with his brain further
> > embalmed by TV and religion,
> > believes he has a right to run my life with his
> > vote.
>
> As I mentioned to Frank, most people I speak to are
> reasonable, and can have intelligent conversations.
> They may not agree with everything I have to say, but
> they are entitled to their opinions.
>
>
> > What Ya think, Ken, about the "common German man"
> > who thought it was just
> > fine to gass 6-million jews, after they elected
> > Hitler, with their vote.
>
> Neither Hitler or the Nazis were elected with a
> majority. In the parliamentary system of the Weimer
> Republic, the Nazis were a large minority and Hitler
> was raised as chancellor. When the ancient German
> Prime Minister died, Hitler assumed power, after which
> there were no more elections. The closest American
> equivalent would be if Clinton and Gore had both died,
> and Newt Gingrich assumed the presidency, I don't
> think Newt would have been Hitler, but he'd have about
> as legitimate a claim to having been elected
> president.
>
> > "F" the "common man"!! I respect his liberty, but i
> > have **nothing* but
> > contempt for his opinions!!!!!!!
>
> I think this attitude is your problem, Larry. People
> come from all different backgrounds and have any
> number of opinions. You cannot expect everyone to
> agree with you, or assume they're some kind of "dumb
> fuck fascist" for having a different point of view.
> The same applies to the list. A debate does not
> usually result in one side changing their views.
> However, as Carl Rogers wrote, the purpose of a debate
> is to build consensus and find common ground. The two
> sides can understand each other's positions and have
> respect for them, even while disagreeing.
>
> For example, look at Frank's relationship with the
> late Roger Erdman. Roger's views were very far to the
> left, and as a result he was very far from Frank on
> many issues. However, they respected one another's
> opinions and focused on the views they had in common,
> and had some worthwhile discussion as a result. On the
> other hand, Larry, if you'd been talking to Roger you
> would likely have just called him a socialist
> motherfucker or something similiar, accomplishing
> nothing.
>
> Indeed, Larry, you seem to have alienated much of this
> list, including many people who probably agree with
> your views 90% of the time. Instead of approaching
> with a black-and-white, antagonistic stance, try to
> come in as civil and respectful of other opinions. I
> realize this is difficult, and I myself am guilty of
> not always taking this approach. However, if you tried
> to at least begin with that in mind, I think you'd
> find you'd get a lot more accomplished and get your
> ideas across more effectively.
>
>
> > >I would say most of the country probably does agree
> > on
> > >what he has written.
> >
> > Yeah, and most Germans..........
>
> Knock off the German comments already. My
> great-grandparents immigrated from Germany, and I am
> proud of my German heritage. One bad period in German
> history does not condemn all Germans anymore than the
> practice of slavery in US history condemns all
> Americans.
>
>
> > RIGHT ABOUT WHAT, THE CONSENSUS OF THE "COMMON MAN"?
> > OR THE THE
> > MORAL/ETHICAL VALUE OF LIBERTY (with him denying the
> > value of
> > morality/ethics).
> >
> I was referring to that statement alone about what
> most people in fact agree on.
>
> While I disagree with the idea tht rights are "natural
> law" purely based on a code of morality, I am warming
> to Frank's idea that human rights are backed by
> history. States that protect human freedoms accomplish
> more in terms of art, science, technology, literature,
> economic success, and so on, while the citizens of
> oppressive states don't have the opportunity. It's a
> rough correlation right now; I would need to study
> history and ethics more if I really wanted to put them
> together to where I could call it "law", but I like
> the hypothesis.
>
> Ken
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ken - Re: a free country, as commonly understood
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 20:06:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Ken <happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- G Triest <garyonthenet@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ken:
>
> It could be my approach too, but I haven't found the
> average debating man
> willing to "agree to disagree", something that is
> really quite necessary
> when two people just don't agree on the axioms by
> which they base a common
> argument about some particular topic, i.e. the topic
> they are debating is
> truly the target of their conversation, they both
> understand what the other
> is talking about, but they can never reconcile their
> different opinions and
> conclusions simply because they start with different
> axioms about the
> situation.

If I've had my eyes open at all, I will notice that
other people disagree with me, and when I try to
persuade them about my point of view, they don't
suddenly convert. I can walk around thinking that I'm
superior, but eventually if I don't have my head up my
ass, I will notice that some of these people are
fairly intelligent and have reasons for why they
believe what they do.

> I such a situation, either one will have to change
> his mind about his axioms
> (which rarely happens), or they will have to agree
> to disagree. It is tough
> to change another person's opinion about some axiom,
> because at that level
> of conclusion (about the viability of the axiom)
> there is little to reason
> or discuss, it is usually a gutteral instinct that
> makes us believe or not
> in some fundamental ism.
>
I agree with you here that most people have some
opinion and then form reasons why, rather than the
reverse. I think, however, that we have to re-examine
our views from time to time, and decide exactly why we
believe the way we do. A debate where people show
respect for one another gives us an opportunity to do
that, so when evaluating ourselves we may not change,
but at least have considered the reasons behind the
other viewpoint. A couple times I have actually
changed my mind as a result of discussions like these.

There are certain things I would consider as clearly
right or wrong, with valid arguments on one side only.
If you think one race is inferior, if you think the
earth is flat, or if you think the human race was
created six thousand years ago out of nothing, I can't
help you. However, in many other cases there are valid
arguments on both sides of an issue.

> You also presume that most people are egalitarian
> (we are all morally on par
> with each other), and most may be in the circle of
> friends and aquaintances
> you interact with.

I'm working on them :-)

> The end result in such a thing is, if you have a
> difference of agreement
> with them, they will either totally disrespect what
> you say, and not accept
> a truce, or they will gush affirmation and
> adulations upon your opinion
> without question or reason.

That probably describes a lot of people, and while I
detest the mentality, I think I understand the idea of
proving yourself right. Even from that perspective, I
don't see how Larry accomplishes anything, because
he's not so much trying to persuade people with his
superior logic as he screams, calling us rapist
assholes with short dicks.

> Its a big world out there Ken, and mentalities often
> simply refuse to remain
> in a state of dynamic equalibrium; it is only the
> cream of the crop, the
> rare intellectuals who can juxtapose themselves into
> another's shoes even
> w/o agreeing with the other's axioms, that can agree
> to disagree, because
> they respect the others' wherewithal even if they
> don't agree with their
> presumptions.

I think in a lot of situations, I can discuss ideas
with friends and we still respect each other even when
disagreeing. I think that's true of most people;
Catholics marry Jews, Republicans are friends with
Democrats, and so on. However, in the internet we lose
the personal contact and take on the roles of
anonymous speakers. In that case it becomes much
harder to separate the person from the opinion.

Ken

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ken - Re: a free country, as commonly understood
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 18:43:34 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Ken!

Ken Butler wrote to Gary Triest, e.g.: Larry Fuller...

> The person you are interacting with comes from the position that he is
> simply superior to you, that whatever you say has very little value
compare
> to his opinion (since he is superior after all), and will be unconciously
> dissatisfied talking with you until you submit deference to his
superiority.

Boy! That could pertain to a good many others on this list as well,
including myself from time to time! But it makes sense. So, what if Person A
and Person B, both are both in the category of the "Alpha Dog" assumption?
How is such a conversation likely to proceed?

> Another outcome in interacting with such persons, is that they (rarely)
> conclude that in fact you are superior to them, in which case you
generally
> need to reaffirm that status to them periodically.

So again, in other words if BOTH conversationalists are in such a category,
I presume both would normally consider such reminders (coming from each
other) as insulting, or perhaps "off topic" or some other unsavoury
description.

> Strangley they will be almost as satisfied with their perspective of your
> superiority over them as they would be with the presumption that they are
> superior to you.

You got me on that one. Care to explain a bit further?

> Its a big world out there Ken, and mentalities often simply refuse to
remain
> in a state of dynamic equalibrium; it is only the cream of the crop, the
> rare intellectuals who can juxtapose themselves into another's shoes even
> w/o agreeing with the other's axioms, that can agree to disagree, because
> they respect the others' wherewithal even if they don't agree with their
> presumptions.

You can say that again.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ken - Re: a free country, as commonly understood
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:13:35 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Ken!

Ken Butler wrote to Larry Fullmer...

> For example, look at Frank's relationship with the
> late Roger Erdman. Roger's views were very far to the
> left, and as a result he was very far from Frank on
> many issues. However, they respected one another's
> opinions and focused on the views they had in common,
> and had some worthwhile discussion as a result. On the
> other hand, Larry, if you'd been talking to Roger you
> would likely have just called him a socialist
> motherfucker or something similiar, accomplishing
> nothing.

Maybe so, but Roger and I did have our difficulties on many issues,
particularly economic issues. I also had the advantage of knowing Roger
personally, having met him several times over a good many years, as well as
a long term discussion on a variety of lists and platforms.

It is also true, as you point out, that Roger was a pretty consistent
radical socialist. However on social issues, he was more of a libertarian
than many on this list profess to be, particularly on foreign policy issues,
and the use of the US military to settle disputes that are essentially
propping up US imperialism and hegemony. He assumed that such a foreign
policy was pure, unadulterated aggression, and was very close to the
Libertarian Party's own Platform as a result. Roger and I were pretty
closely aligned on all such issues, although we certainly disagreed
dramatically on economic issues.

But Roger DID admit to me privately a time or two, that he believed that
humans should be free, even in economic matters if left alone to do so
without government interference and aggression from corporate monopolists
(which work in tandem with government policy). So, he wasn't really THAT far
from libertarian idealism, only believing it would be impossible given the
power of monopolistic corporate interests using government power to ensure
their monopolies.

Roger and I often came together in support of various real contingencies,
sometimes for different reasons. We both stood shoulder to shoulder in
expressing support for the WTO protests in Seattle in 2000, and subsequent
protests against economic globalisation efforts in such places as
Washington, DC, and elsewhere. One of Roger's famous reputations, is "The
enemy of my enemy is my friend!" In other words, Roger knew very well how
to form alliances against a common enemy.

How this relates exactly to Larry's recent communications, I don't know.
First, Larry has met with in face-to-face encounters with Michelle Eilers
and Bill Anderson. So, even face-to-face relationships do not always
exactly mean that hostilities will not flare up, or that trust and 'agreeing
to disagree' will be the end result in subsequent electronic forums such as
Liberty Northwest. Secondly, Larry considers himself a dogmatic libertarian
anarchist, along with Michelle, or at least a "libertarian" along with Bill.
So why Roger and I were able to remain friends, with me being a dogmatic
individualist in doctrinaire libertarian fashion, and Roger coming from a
radical socialist bent, while Larry, Bill, Michelle and others can't seem to
agree to disagree on much of anything -- I don't have any definitive answer
on why that may be. Accept maybe that in any organization that is grounded
by fundamental principles seems to have its own dogmatists who will seek
blood for what they believe is any deviation at all against how they
perceive such principles to be.

Maybe part of the answer too is that I KNEW Roger was NOT a libertarian, so
I never expected him to take the high ground and defend libertarian
principles as a libertarian. He didn't have to do that. No rational human
could or should expect him to have acted in such a way. He wasn't bound to
such constraints. At the same time, Roger saw, within libertarianism, a
"friend" (under the definition that I provided above) -- we had a common
enemy. Which is why under certain conditions Roger was able to argue on
behalf of libertarian social principles in a way that many libertarians
failed to do on this list (MY OPINION!).

Interesting thoughts on where we are now in relation to some of the current
conversations taking place.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ken - RE: a free country, as commonly understood
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:12:53 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Re Ken - Re a
free country, as
commonly
Re Ken - Re a free country, as commonly understood.eml understood.eml
Type: Microsoft MHTML
Document 5.0
(message/rfc822)
Encoding: 7bit

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [idaholibertarians] Re: SICK BITCH -Re: so, michelle.....
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 13:00:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com, libnw@immosys.com

Hello everyone,

I figure I should provide a little context for Larry's
accusation below. I did, in fact, threaten to "call
the cops" on him, but Larry left out a few *minor*
details regarding what led me to that point.

For the past six months or so, Larry has been verbally
abusing me on the internet - and, even more often on
the telephone - on a regular basis. I have been
becoming increasingly fed up with his abusive behavior
and when, last night, Larry once again started
attacking me over something I said that he didn't
like, I reached my limit of what I could tolerate. I
told him that short of an apology and a promise to
desist with his name calling when people say things he
doesn't approve of, I didn't ever wish to speak to him
again.

Larry's response after reading my e-mail (enclosed
below) was to start calling me incessantly on my cell
phone, to such an extent I finally had to just turn
the power off. When he realized he couldn't get
through to me on my cell phone, he started calling my
home phone. This was after 2:30 in the morning. (It
is also not the first time he has called my home phone
at an extremely late hour. Just Thursday night he
called my home phone around midnight because he didn't
think I was responding to his calls to my cell phone
in a timely enough manner.)

My parents are not night people and are usually in bed
by 11:00. They have to get up at 5:30 to go to work.
They do not need to be wakened up in the middle of the
night by Larry calling my home phone over and over and
over again.

I did not wish to speak to Larry last night because 1)
I had already told him short of an apology I *would
not* speak to him again and 2) I knew from experience
his only purpose in calling me would be to call me
names and otherwise verbally abuse me.

The first time he called, I told him to never call my
parents' house after 10:00 in the evening ever again
and hung up. The second time, I simply hung up on him
without answering. The third time, I had reached my
limits of patience, and asked him if I needed to call
the cops on him for harrassing me. That apparently
convinced him to quit calling, since he did not do so
again.

I would have simply taken the phone off the hook, but
I really couldn't do that because my grandfather is
dying and the phone line needs to be open if something
changes in his condition. Indeed, I had informed
Larry of my grandfather's condition the night before
and had explained that for that reason - among several
others - this is an extremely busy, difficult,
stressful week for me and I am not going to be able to
be as "available" to him to talk on the phone as he
might like. Obviously he didn't care. When I got
home from shopping last night (which was after
midnight), I learned he had been repeatedly calling my
cell phone and had apparently called my home phone at
least once, during the time I was gone.

I certainly hope that I do not have to take out a
restraining order - or some other such thing - against
Larry if he continues harrassing me. It certainly is
not going to be a good thing for Region III if the
Bannock County Chair and the Region Chair cannot be in
the same room together. It is also certainly going to
make Region III activities difficult if Larry and I
are not on speaking terms. Unfortunately, for my
emotional health, I cannot continue putting up with
Larry's rude and obnoxious behavior.

I am sorry to bother you all with the above
information, but since Larry brought the subject up, I
figured some people might like to know the full story.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

--- larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
> So, Folks,
>
> I called Michelle tonight, as I do nearly every
> damned night, with no
> complaint from her.
>
> And what do I get tonight: "I'm gonna call the cops
> on you".
>
> Soap Opera, Folks. Just thought I'd clue 'fore a
> so-called libertarian puts
> me in jail.
>
> I'll keep ya posted, as long as I can. I figure
> jail will limit my posts.
>
> LF

--- larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
Larry:
Michelle, Others,

I notice,Michelle, that you've signed on to defending
Robert and Bill, with their BS arguments that morality
is beside the point, and "rights" don't exist, and
liberty is not a moral claim.

[What I had said to inspire this rant was to express
agreement with something Bill Anderson said - namely
that what is "legal" and what is "moral" are two
separate things. Something may be immoral - such as
adultery - but still be legal. Larry chose to
interpet what I said to mean all sorts of things I
didn't say - and the he knows I don't think - and work
himself into a great dither over the ASSumptions he
made about my views.]

Me:
Oh good grief, Larry. Do you ever bother to read what
other people write? Or is your only manner of
relating to others to project your own ideas about
what they're saying onto them? It is quite rare for
you to ever give *any* indication that you understand
anyone's point of view but your own.

Until you reach the level of intelligence that
enculturated chimpanzees have (specifically, being
able to recognize that "other minds" than their own
exist), I give up on trying to communicate with you
about anything whatsoever. You are as boneheaded as
they come.

Larry:
Well, Michelle, if humans don't have a moral right to
"rights", it certainly must be true that chickens
don't!!

You don't happen to have the "short dick" problem, do
you?

Just wondering, given your new allies.

Me:
As a bonus, it would be nice if you could evolve
beyond the maturity level of a sixth grader.
Perceiving everything in terms of "fucking" and
"penises" and using a vocabulary that consists
primarily of swear words may have been impressive in
junior high, but it is not terribly noteworthy in
adult conversation.

You reached the last straw with Bill tonight; you've
also reached the last straw with me. Short of an
apology and a promise to desist with your habit of
claiming that anyone who says something you dislike
has a "short dick," I have no desire to ever speak
with you on any subject ever again.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

> on 3/1/03 2:40 AM, larry fullmer at
> lfullmer1@cableone.net wrote:
>
> > MICHELLE, OTHERS,
> >
> > Michelle, I call you nearly every damned night.
> If you felt so strongly that
> > I am a sick dumb-fuck, as you have written below,
> it would have been nice to
> > get a call from you. But, no. You went public,
> with no call.
> >
> > Well, Michelle, you demand an apology for my claim
> that you have alligned
> > yourself with Robert and Bill, re morality - you
> don't get one.
> >
> > That **is** what you did. And I despise you for
> it. No apolgy from me!!
> > Ever!!!
> >
> > I figure you are a lady who wants to fight for the
> helluva it, including
> > fighting for chickens "rights" while you, bill,
> and robert claim humans don't
> > have any.
> >
> > That's "short-dick" stuff, as I see it.
> >
> >> I have no desire to ever speak
> >> with you on any subject ever again.
> >
> > Ohh, really, region III leader. Fux you too!!
> >
> > LF
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > on 3/1/03 1:03 AM, Michelle at
> quicksilver810@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> --- larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
> >>> Michelle, Others,
> >>>
> >>> I notice,Michelle, that you've signed on to
> >>> defending Robert and Bill, with
> >>> their BS arguments that morality is beside the
> >>> point, and "rights" don't
> >>> exist, and liberty is not a moral claim.
> >>
> >> Oh good grief, Larry. Do you ever bother to read
> what
> >> other people write? Or is your only manner of
> >> relating to others to project your own ideas
> about
> >> what they're saying onto them? It is quite rare
> for
> >> you to ever give *any* indication that you
> understand
> >> anyone's point of view but your own.
> >>
> >> Until you reach the level of intelligence that
> >> enculturated chimpanzees have (specifically,
> being
> >> able to recognize that "other minds" than their
> own
> >> exist), I give up on trying to communicate with
> you
> >> about anything whatsoever. You are as boneheaded
> as
> >> they come.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Well, Michelle, if humans don't have a moral
> right
> >>> to "rights", it certainly
> >>> must be true that chickens don't!!
> >>>
> >>> You don't happen to have the "short dick"
> problem,
> >>> do you?
> >>>
> >>> Just wondering, given your new allies.
> >>
> >> As a bonus, it would be nice if you could evolve
> >> beyond the maturity level of a sixth grader.
> >> Perceiving everything in terms of "fucking" and
> >> "penises" and using a vocabulary that consists
> >> primarily of swear words may have been impressive
> in
> >> junior high, but it is not terribly noteworthy in
> >> adult conversation.
> >>
> >> You reached the last straw with Bill tonight;
> you've
> >> also reached the last straw with me. Short of an
> >> apology and a promise to desist with your habit
> of
> >> claiming that anyone who says something you
> dislike
> >> has a "short dick," I have no desire to ever
> speak
> >> with you on any subject ever again.
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >> Michelle Eilers
> >>
> >>
> __________________________________________________
> >> Do you Yahoo!?
> >> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips,
> more
> >> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> >>
> >>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
> >>
> >> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> >> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> >> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> >> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
> >>
> >> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> >> Archives and Polls:
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> >> Liberty Northwest Main Page:
> http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> >>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> idaholibertarians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Bill (MICHELLE) - A PERFECT EXAMPLE!!!
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 16:19:33 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

on 2/28/03 4:40 PM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:

>> Of course, Michelle, that is true for any libertarian, and for most
others.
>> However, oral sex is illegal in Idaho, last I knew, under the sodomy
laws.
>> You were writing to me, apparently, when it looks to be the case that you
>> should have been writing to those who claim they have a right to impose
>> their morality, enlisting the guns of the state.
>> *My point was that it is immoral/unethical for nuttsos to pass laws in
>> relation to sex in any regard, so long as it is consensual.

>> It's a moral/ethical question for them, and it's a moral/ethical question
>> for me. Somebody is ***right*** on this question and somebody is
>> ***wrong***. It is very important that we humans put our minds to
>> determining who is *right* and who is *wrong* in relation to such
>> moral/legal questions. Dispensing with morality/ethics, particularly
when
>> the **law** is involved, as Bill and Robert have argued, is, well, ***not
>> good***.
>
> So, then you think it is OK to force your morality on others? Thought
> so.

So, Bill you write as if I'm an agressor here, employing force to make
others
comply with *my* morality. How the hell did you come to write that, given
what i wrote, above (see the bold, if you don't want to read it all).

You're right, though, I would employ force (if practical), in self-defense,
in
relation to those who initiate force against me or others. Would you not?
It's called defending the *moral* claim of liberty, and the *moral* right to
my own life.

With your implied claim that I'm willing to initiate agression to impose
*my*
morality, you return full-circle to your claim, backing up Robert, that a
woman
who uses force to defend herself from a rapist is abridging his liberty, and
that *she* "is imposing her will on him" - forcing her morality on him,
exactly
as you claim i'm doing by "forcing my morality on others".

Ya want the quotes from the past, Bill??!

Liberty!!!!!! is a profoundly moral claim, and it's true, I will enforce it
any time
it is practical for me to do so - in self-defense, and in the defense of
others.

So, Bill, this comunication between you and I represents perfectly why it
has
been such a damned waste of my time to try to communicate with you.

And, now, reading it, I figure Michelle will again write about how I'm less
than a
chimp for putting words in the mouths of others, not reading them, and
swearing
with no justification. At least she's not called me a liar, yet, unlike
you.

Larry

You apparently want to arrive at amoral choice, and then codify that
> into law. Can't say I'm suprised. What is "moral" about stop signs
> solving a physical problem of two cars being able safely to occupy the
> same spot of land at the same time? Oh, wait, that "bores" you. Not
> enough "fight" in it for you, so you have to make up crap.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: GET IT ON, BILL.....
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 16:54:13 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

BILL,

RESPONSE BELOW:

on 2/28/03 7:22 PM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:

> "morality" is a very, very slippery slope to
> fascism/communism. Basing rights on morality is *a* problem.

REALLY, AND I FIND YOUR ONE SENTENCE CLAIM TO BE FULLY
UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE/ARGUMENT. WHY IS IT A PROBLEM??

AND WHAT THE HELL ELSE DO YOU PROPOSE TO "BASE RIGHTS ON"??

>> Uhhh, Bill, "rights" and "liberty" are absolutely, fundamental moral
claims.
>> They can not even be defined short of morality/ethics. Liberty and
rights
>
> I disagree.

AGAIN, BILL, TWO WORDS IS NOT ARGUMENT/EVIDENCE. I FIGURED
YOU'D DISAGREE. SO WHAT ELSE IS NEW? WHAT I WANT, AND DID NOT GET,
WAS ARGUMENT/EVIDENCE.

> Uhhh, Bill, "rights" lack a definition, without a moral argument. "Rights
> are right" some sane human said, once.

Not true. Are you willing to walk down a path with me, with an open
mind? I'll show you how you can do "rights" w/o injecting "morals". if
you are willing to do it one step at a time, and not make assumptions
about what I say, say so.

I "SAY SO", BILL!

BILL, I'D NEARLY DIE TO WALK THAT PATH. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK I'VE
BEEN
ASKING FOR, FOR NEARLY A DAMNED YEAR! I WANNA READ THE ARGUMENT/EVIDENCE
FOR
YOUR POSITION. I WILL ***PROMISE*** TO DO **NOTHING** BUT ASK QUESTIONS.

NOW, I FIGURE YOU'RE GONNA FIND A WAY TO WEASEL OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT, BUT
YOU
ASKED ME, AND I HAVE ACCEPTED.

GET IT ON, PLUUZE!!

LARRY

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: BULLSHIT, BILL.........
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 17:00:12 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

BILL, OTHERS,

response below:

on 2/28/03 7:25 PM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:

>> Hey, dummie, the "statement" & the "pledge" ****obviously**** makes moral
>> claims. I figure that was the question Frank raised, whether or not
anyone,
>
>
> The statement, perhaps, the pledge, no.
>
> The pledge is only an agreement not to do something.

Oh, really, bill. And why the hell do libs make that agreement, except for
the fact
that we view initiated agression as immoral/impractical??!!

Why the hell have we agreed "not to do something"????

Why bill??!!

Larry

You could assign a
> morality to the agreed upon choices, but the pledge on it's own does not
> such thing.
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: oops, i left the "l" off html - Re: the rights of man....
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 17:12:45 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>

Sorry,

Try this for true wisdom from a dead guy.

lf

http://www.dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc/books/government.html

>
> lf

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Checking Account . . .
From: service@e-gold.com<servicå@e-gold.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

[Audit total circulation; compare to physical reserves.] [Current e-metal exchange rates] |Home |Terms of Use |Contact |
[Click for SSL info...] [e-gold logo]

[Image]




Dear E-Gold Customer

This e-mail is the notification of recent innovations taken by E-gold to
detect inactive customers.

The inactive customers are subject to restriction and removal in the next 3
months.

Please confirm your passphrase by logging in to your E-gold account using
the form below:

[Be secure by checking SSL Lock Icon and Location]

Account Number:
Passphrase:
Turing Number:

Forgotten Passphrase?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2000 e-gold Ltd.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Checking Account . . .
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 04:46:39 +0300 (MSK)
From: service@e-gold.com <servicå@e-gold.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

[Audit total circulation; compare to physical reserves.] [Current e-metal exchange rates] |Home |Terms of Use |Contact |
[Click for SSL info...] [e-gold logo]

[Image]




Dear E-Gold Customer

This e-mail is the notification of recent innovations taken by E-gold to
detect inactive customers.

The inactive customers are subject to restriction and removal in the next 3
months.

Please confirm your passphrase by logging in to your E-gold account using
the form below:

[Be secure by checking SSL Lock Icon and Location]

Account Number:
Passphrase:
Turing Number:

Forgotten Passphrase?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2000 e-gold Ltd.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Checking Account . . .
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:09:19 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Have all of you been getting these e-gold solicitations thru this list
periodically? Something in its HTML causes MS Outlook Express to jump
to the next message.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Checking Account . . .
Date: 05 Mar 2003 11:57:45 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 09:09, Robert Goodman wrote:
> Have all of you been getting these e-gold solicitations thru this list
> periodically? Something in its HTML causes MS Outlook Express to jump
> to the next message.

Yes, I've been getting them on nearly all my email addresses. Can't say
about the outlook next message thing, as I don't run it. Fortunately,
I've taught my spamfilter about it and don't see them anymore except
when clearing my spam box. :)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: michelle's lies!!!!!!!! Re: SICK BITCH -Re: so, michelle.....
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 17:43:17 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>

So, Folks,

The cops didn't show up last night (whew!).

So, Bill has accused me of being a liar, and michelle has accused me
of being dumber that a chimp, routinely, purposefully misrepresenting
the position of folks, swearing at them for no reason, and otherwise
being an irrational bore.

Well, here are the facts, folks. She and I had an affair, if you want
to call it that. I was a little skeptical of such, since she was a 28
year old virgin, still living with mommy and daddy. But I tried. When
the evidence was finally in that she had no use for sex, and never had,
I got real nervous (having been there before with the frozen-chosen).
Anyway, I ended the "affair", and in the process, Michelle told me not to
call her again. Well, we patched it up, as **friends** only. I gave her
a ride to the last SCC meeting, for instance. And, with her approval, I
started calling her again.

She never had the slightest compliant. In fact, in fact, the night before
last, she laughed and laughed at what I had to say, enjoying herself, with
not the slightest complaint!!

AND THEN SHE WRITES THE BELOW!!!

DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT, MICHELLE, AFTER LAST NIGHT, WITH THE BULLSHIT
YOU POSTED TO THE LIST ABOUT ME, AND YOUR THREAT TO CALL THE COPS,
I AIN'T GONNA BE CALLING YOU AGAIN. IN FACT, I NEVER WANT TO BE IN THE
SAME ROOM WITH YOU. AND DON'T GO BEGGING FOR A RIDE FROM ME AGAIN.

YOU TRULY ARE A SICK-FUCK, MICHELLE, AND A LIAR, TOO!!!

ANY FEMALE WHO HAS NO USE FOR SEX IS AN UPTIGHT BITCH, ON THE PROWL FOR
A FIGHT. JUST LIKE A GUY WHO CAN'T GET IT UP.

I HAVE SOME MORE SHIT TO SAY ABOUT YOU, MICHELLE. YA WANT TO HEAR IT,
OR DO YOU PREFER SILENCE. YOUR CHOICE!!!!!

YOU STARTED THIS BULLSHIT, MICHELLE, ONLY YOU CAN END IT WITH SILENCE.

NO MORE RIDES FOR SICK BITCHES WHO HAVE NO USE FOR SEX, OR ANY OTHER DAMN
THING BUT PROVING THEY ARE MORALLY SUPERIOUR TO FOLKS WHO EAT MEAT.

GAWD, I GOTTA GO TAKE A SHOWER, NOW, AS I OFTEN DO AFTER READING, ROBERT
AND BILL, AND NOW MICHELLE.

LARRY

LF

on 3/1/03 1:00 PM, Michelle at quicksilver810@yahoo.com wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> I figure I should provide a little context for Larry's
> accusation below. I did, in fact, threaten to "call
> the cops" on him, but Larry left out a few *minor*
> details regarding what led me to that point.
>
> For the past six months or so, Larry has been verbally
> abusing me on the internet - and, even more often on
> the telephone - on a regular basis. I have been
> becoming increasingly fed up with his abusive behavior
> and when, last night, Larry once again started
> attacking me over something I said that he didn't
> like, I reached my limit of what I could tolerate. I
> told him that short of an apology and a promise to
> desist with his name calling when people say things he
> doesn't approve of, I didn't ever wish to speak to him
> again.
>
> Larry's response after reading my e-mail (enclosed
> below) was to start calling me incessantly on my cell
> phone, to such an extent I finally had to just turn
> the power off. When he realized he couldn't get
> through to me on my cell phone, he started calling my
> home phone. This was after 2:30 in the morning. (It
> is also not the first time he has called my home phone
> at an extremely late hour. Just Thursday night he
> called my home phone around midnight because he didn't
> think I was responding to his calls to my cell phone
> in a timely enough manner.)
>
> My parents are not night people and are usually in bed
> by 11:00. They have to get up at 5:30 to go to work.
> They do not need to be wakened up in the middle of the
> night by Larry calling my home phone over and over and
> over again.
>
> I did not wish to speak to Larry last night because 1)
> I had already told him short of an apology I *would
> not* speak to him again and 2) I knew from experience
> his only purpose in calling me would be to call me
> names and otherwise verbally abuse me.
>
> The first time he called, I told him to never call my
> parents' house after 10:00 in the evening ever again
> and hung up. The second time, I simply hung up on him
> without answering. The third time, I had reached my
> limits of patience, and asked him if I needed to call
> the cops on him for harrassing me. That apparently
> convinced him to quit calling, since he did not do so
> again.
>
> I would have simply taken the phone off the hook, but
> I really couldn't do that because my grandfather is
> dying and the phone line needs to be open if something
> changes in his condition. Indeed, I had informed
> Larry of my grandfather's condition the night before
> and had explained that for that reason - among several
> others - this is an extremely busy, difficult,
> stressful week for me and I am not going to be able to
> be as "available" to him to talk on the phone as he
> might like. Obviously he didn't care. When I got
> home from shopping last night (which was after
> midnight), I learned he had been repeatedly calling my
> cell phone and had apparently called my home phone at
> least once, during the time I was gone.
>
> I certainly hope that I do not have to take out a
> restraining order - or some other such thing - against
> Larry if he continues harrassing me. It certainly is
> not going to be a good thing for Region III if the
> Bannock County Chair and the Region Chair cannot be in
> the same room together. It is also certainly going to
> make Region III activities difficult if Larry and I
> are not on speaking terms. Unfortunately, for my
> emotional health, I cannot continue putting up with
> Larry's rude and obnoxious behavior.
>
> I am sorry to bother you all with the above
> information, but since Larry brought the subject up, I
> figured some people might like to know the full story.
>
> Sincerely,
> Michelle Eilers
>
>
>
> --- larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
>> So, Folks,
>>
>> I called Michelle tonight, as I do nearly every
>> damned night, with no
>> complaint from her.
>>
>> And what do I get tonight: "I'm gonna call the cops
>> on you".
>>
>> Soap Opera, Folks. Just thought I'd clue 'fore a
>> so-called libertarian puts
>> me in jail.
>>
>> I'll keep ya posted, as long as I can. I figure
>> jail will limit my posts.
>>
>> LF
>
>
> --- larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
> Larry:
> Michelle, Others,
>
> I notice,Michelle, that you've signed on to defending
> Robert and Bill, with their BS arguments that morality
> is beside the point, and "rights" don't exist, and
> liberty is not a moral claim.
>
> [What I had said to inspire this rant was to express
> agreement with something Bill Anderson said - namely
> that what is "legal" and what is "moral" are two
> separate things. Something may be immoral - such as
> adultery - but still be legal. Larry chose to
> interpet what I said to mean all sorts of things I
> didn't say - and the he knows I don't think - and work
> himself into a great dither over the ASSumptions he
> made about my views.]
>
> Me:
> Oh good grief, Larry. Do you ever bother to read what
> other people write? Or is your only manner of
> relating to others to project your own ideas about
> what they're saying onto them? It is quite rare for
> you to ever give *any* indication that you understand
> anyone's point of view but your own.
>
> Until you reach the level of intelligence that
> enculturated chimpanzees have (specifically, being
> able to recognize that "other minds" than their own
> exist), I give up on trying to communicate with you
> about anything whatsoever. You are as boneheaded as
> they come.
>
>
> Larry:
> Well, Michelle, if humans don't have a moral right to
> "rights", it certainly must be true that chickens
> don't!!
>
> You don't happen to have the "short dick" problem, do
> you?
>
> Just wondering, given your new allies.
>
> Me:
> As a bonus, it would be nice if you could evolve
> beyond the maturity level of a sixth grader.
> Perceiving everything in terms of "fucking" and
> "penises" and using a vocabulary that consists
> primarily of swear words may have been impressive in
> junior high, but it is not terribly noteworthy in
> adult conversation.
>
> You reached the last straw with Bill tonight; you've
> also reached the last straw with me. Short of an
> apology and a promise to desist with your habit of
> claiming that anyone who says something you dislike
> has a "short dick," I have no desire to ever speak
> with you on any subject ever again.
>
> Sincerely,
> Michelle Eilers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> on 3/1/03 2:40 AM, larry fullmer at
>> lfullmer1@cableone.net wrote:
>>
>>> MICHELLE, OTHERS,
>>>
>>> Michelle, I call you nearly every damned night.
>> If you felt so strongly that
>>> I am a sick dumb-fuck, as you have written below,
>> it would have been nice to
>>> get a call from you. But, no. You went public,
>> with no call.
>>>
>>> Well, Michelle, you demand an apology for my claim
>> that you have alligned
>>> yourself with Robert and Bill, re morality - you
>> don't get one.
>>>
>>> That **is** what you did. And I despise you for
>> it. No apolgy from me!!
>>> Ever!!!
>>>
>>> I figure you are a lady who wants to fight for the
>> helluva it, including
>>> fighting for chickens "rights" while you, bill,
>> and robert claim humans don't
>>> have any.
>>>
>>> That's "short-dick" stuff, as I see it.
>>>
>>>> I have no desire to ever speak
>>>> with you on any subject ever again.
>>>
>>> Ohh, really, region III leader. Fux you too!!
>>>
>>> LF
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> on 3/1/03 1:03 AM, Michelle at
>> quicksilver810@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> --- larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
>>>>> Michelle, Others,
>>>>>
>>>>> I notice,Michelle, that you've signed on to
>>>>> defending Robert and Bill, with
>>>>> their BS arguments that morality is beside the
>>>>> point, and "rights" don't
>>>>> exist, and liberty is not a moral claim.
>>>>
>>>> Oh good grief, Larry. Do you ever bother to read
>> what
>>>> other people write? Or is your only manner of
>>>> relating to others to project your own ideas
>> about
>>>> what they're saying onto them? It is quite rare
>> for
>>>> you to ever give *any* indication that you
>> understand
>>>> anyone's point of view but your own.
>>>>
>>>> Until you reach the level of intelligence that
>>>> enculturated chimpanzees have (specifically,
>> being
>>>> able to recognize that "other minds" than their
>> own
>>>> exist), I give up on trying to communicate with
>> you
>>>> about anything whatsoever. You are as boneheaded
>> as
>>>> they come.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Well, Michelle, if humans don't have a moral
>> right
>>>>> to "rights", it certainly
>>>>> must be true that chickens don't!!
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't happen to have the "short dick"
>> problem,
>>>>> do you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just wondering, given your new allies.
>>>>
>>>> As a bonus, it would be nice if you could evolve
>>>> beyond the maturity level of a sixth grader.
>>>> Perceiving everything in terms of "fucking" and
>>>> "penises" and using a vocabulary that consists
>>>> primarily of swear words may have been impressive
>> in
>>>> junior high, but it is not terribly noteworthy in
>>>> adult conversation.
>>>>
>>>> You reached the last straw with Bill tonight;
>> you've
>>>> also reached the last straw with me. Short of an
>>>> apology and a promise to desist with your habit
>> of
>>>> claiming that anyone who says something you
>> dislike
>>>> has a "short dick," I have no desire to ever
>> speak
>>>> with you on any subject ever again.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> Michelle Eilers
>>>>
>>>>
>> __________________________________________________
>>>> Do you Yahoo!?
>>>> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips,
>> more
>>>> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>>>>
>>>> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>>>> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>>>> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>>>> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>>>>
>>>> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>>>> Archives and Polls:
>> http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>>>> Liberty Northwest Main Page:
>> http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>>>>
>>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>> idaholibertarians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: futher lies from _ Re: michelle's lies!!!!!!!! Re: SICK BITCH
-Re: so, michelle.....
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 18:59:52 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>

so, folks, michelle,

i called michelle a couple nights ago. "What' up I asked?" "Well, I'm
working on
my book", she relpied (and she's been doing that for years, and still ain't
made
it past chapter one).

"Opps, soory for interupting", I said. "No problem" she replied, "I've time
for you, but it oughta be short, cause I gotta get some sleep". I kept it
short,
as she requested.

Now, folks, Michelle writes that I was a horrible evil person to call her at
evil
hours of the morning. What you may not know, is that Michelle is a **night
person**. If you want to talk to her you damned well better call her in the
evil hours. Sucking off her parents as she is, she doesn't crawl out of bed
'till
noon, at best, given that she's a part-time professor, teaching he classes
at
night.

Just wanted to clear that up for you day-persons. The **horror** of calling
her
at 2:00 am is just *exactly* what she wanted!!!!

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!

LF

on 3/1/03 5:43 PM, larry fullmer at lfullmer1@cableone.net wrote:

So, Folks,

The cops didn't show up last night (whew!).

So, Bill has accused me of being a liar, and michelle has accused
me
of being dumber that a chimp, routinely, purposefully
misrepresenting
the position of folks, swearing at them for no reason, and
otherwise
being an irrational bore.

Well, here are the facts, folks. She and I had an affair, if you
want
to call it that. I was a little skeptical of such, since she was
a 28
year old virgin, still living with mommy and daddy. But I tried.
When
the evidence was finally in that she had no use for sex, and never
had,
I got real nervous (having been there before with the
frozen-chosen).
Anyway, I ended the "affair", and in the process, Michelle told me
not to
call her again. Well, we patched it up, as **friends** only. I
gave her
a ride to the last SCC meeting, for instance. And, with her
approval, I
started calling her again.

She never had the slightest compliant. In fact, in fact, the
night before
last, she laughed and laughed at what I had to say, enjoying
herself, with
not the slightest complaint!!

AND THEN SHE WRITES THE BELOW!!!

DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT, MICHELLE, AFTER LAST NIGHT, WITH THE
BULLSHIT
YOU POSTED TO THE LIST ABOUT ME, AND YOUR THREAT TO CALL THE COPS,
I AIN'T GONNA BE CALLING YOU AGAIN. IN FACT, I NEVER WANT TO BE
IN THE
SAME ROOM WITH YOU. AND DON'T GO BEGGING FOR A RIDE FROM ME
AGAIN.

YOU TRULY ARE A SICK-FUCK, MICHELLE, AND A LIAR, TOO!!!

ANY FEMALE WHO HAS NO USE FOR SEX IS AN UPTIGHT BITCH, ON THE
PROWL FOR
A FIGHT. JUST LIKE A GUY WHO CAN'T GET IT UP.

I HAVE SOME MORE SHIT TO SAY ABOUT YOU, MICHELLE. YA WANT TO HEAR
IT,
OR DO YOU PREFER SILENCE. YOUR CHOICE!!!!!

YOU STARTED THIS BULLSHIT, MICHELLE, ONLY YOU CAN END IT WITH
SILENCE.

NO MORE RIDES FOR SICK BITCHES WHO HAVE NO USE FOR SEX, OR ANY
OTHER DAMN THING BUT PROVING THEY ARE MORALLY SUPERIOUR TO FOLKS
WHO EAT MEAT.

GAWD, I GOTTA GO TAKE A SHOWER, NOW, AS I OFTEN DO AFTER READING,
ROBERT
AND BILL, AND NOW MICHELLE.

LARRY

LF

on 3/1/03 1:00 PM, Michelle at quicksilver810@yahoo.com wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> I figure I should provide a little context for Larry's
> accusation below. I did, in fact, threaten to "call
> the cops" on him, but Larry left out a few *minor*
> details regarding what led me to that point.
>
> For the past six months or so, Larry has been verbally
> abusing me on the internet - and, even more often on
> the telephone - on a regular basis. I have been
> becoming increasingly fed up with his abusive behavior
> and when, last night, Larry once again started
> attacking me over something I said that he didn't
> like, I reached my limit of what I could tolerate. I
> told him that short of an apology and a promise to
> desist with his name calling when people say things he
> doesn't approve of, I didn't ever wish to speak to him
> again.
>
> Larry's response after reading my e-mail (enclosed
> below) was to start calling me incessantly on my cell
> phone, to such an extent I finally had to just turn
> the power off. When he realized he couldn't get
> through to me on my cell phone, he started calling my
> home phone. This was after 2:30 in the morning. (It
> is also not the first time he has called my home phone
> at an extremely late hour. Just Thursday night he
> called my home phone around midnight because he didn't
> think I was responding to his calls to my cell phone
> in a timely enough manner.)
>
> My parents are not night people and are usually in bed
> by 11:00. They have to get up at 5:30 to go to work.
> They do not need to be wakened up in the middle of the
> night by Larry calling my home phone over and over and
> over again.
>
> I did not wish to speak to Larry last night because 1)
> I had already told him short of an apology I *would
> not* speak to him again and 2) I knew from experience
> his only purpose in calling me would be to call me
> names and otherwise verbally abuse me.
>
> The first time he called, I told him to never call my
> parents' house after 10:00 in the evening ever again
> and hung up. The second time, I simply hung up on him
> without answering. The third time, I had reached my
> limits of patience, and asked him if I needed to call
> the cops on him for harrassing me. That apparently
> convinced him to quit calling, since he did not do so
> again.
>
> I would have simply taken the phone off the hook, but
> I really couldn't do that because my grandfather is
> dying and the phone line needs to be open if something
> changes in his condition. Indeed, I had informed
> Larry of my grandfather's condition the night before
> and had explained that for that reason - among several
> others - this is an extremely busy, difficult,
> stressful week for me and I am not going to be able to
> be as "available" to him to talk on the phone as he
> might like. Obviously he didn't care. When I got
> home from shopping last night (which was after
> midnight), I learned he had been repeatedly calling my
> cell phone and had apparently called my home phone at
> least once, during the time I was gone.
>
> I certainly hope that I do not have to take out a
> restraining order - or some other such thing - against
> Larry if he continues harrassing me. It certainly is
> not going to be a good thing for Region III if the
> Bannock County Chair and the Region Chair cannot be in
> the same room together. It is also certainly going to
> make Region III activities difficult if Larry and I
> are not on speaking terms. Unfortunately, for my
> emotional health, I cannot continue putting up with
> Larry's rude and obnoxious behavior.
>
> I am sorry to bother you all with the above
> information, but since Larry brought the subject up, I
> figured some people might like to know the full story.
>
> Sincerely,
> Michelle Eilers
>
>
>
> --- larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
>> So, Folks,
>>
>> I called Michelle tonight, as I do nearly every
>> damned night, with no
>> complaint from her.
>>
>> And what do I get tonight: "I'm gonna call the cops
>> on you".
>>
>> Soap Opera, Folks. Just thought I'd clue 'fore a
>> so-called libertarian puts
>> me in jail.
>>
>> I'll keep ya posted, as long as I can. I figure
>> jail will limit my posts.
>>
>> LF
>
>
> --- larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
> Larry:
> Michelle, Others,
>
> I notice,Michelle, that you've signed on to defending
> Robert and Bill, with their BS arguments that morality
> is beside the point, and "rights" don't exist, and
> liberty is not a moral claim.
>
> [What I had said to inspire this rant was to express
> agreement with something Bill Anderson said - namely
> that what is "legal" and what is "moral" are two
> separate things. Something may be immoral - such as
> adultery - but still be legal. Larry chose to
> interpet what I said to mean all sorts of things I
> didn't say - and the he knows I don't think - and work
> himself into a great dither over the ASSumptions he
> made about my views.]
>
> Me:
> Oh good grief, Larry. Do you ever bother to read what
> other people write? Or is your only manner of
> relating to others to project your own ideas about
> what they're saying onto them? It is quite rare for
> you to ever give *any* indication that you understand
> anyone's point of view but your own.
>
> Until you reach the level of intelligence that
> enculturated chimpanzees have (specifically, being
> able to recognize that "other minds" than their own
> exist), I give up on trying to communicate with you
> about anything whatsoever. You are as boneheaded as
> they come.
>
>
> Larry:
> Well, Michelle, if humans don't have a moral right to
> "rights", it certainly must be true that chickens
> don't!!
>
> You don't happen to have the "short dick" problem, do
> you?
>
> Just wondering, given your new allies.
>
> Me:
> As a bonus, it would be nice if you could evolve
> beyond the maturity level of a sixth grader.
> Perceiving everything in terms of "fucking" and
> "penises" and using a vocabulary that consists
> primarily of swear words may have been impressive in
> junior high, but it is not terribly noteworthy in
> adult conversation.
>
> You reached the last straw with Bill tonight; you've
> also reached the last straw with me. Short of an
> apology and a promise to desist with your habit of
> claiming that anyone who says something you dislike
> has a "short dick," I have no desire to ever speak
> with you on any subject ever again.
>
> Sincerely,
> Michelle Eilers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> on 3/1/03 2:40 AM, larry fullmer at
>> lfullmer1@cableone.net wrote:
>>
>>> MICHELLE, OTHERS,
>>>
>>> Michelle, I call you nearly every damned night.
>> If you felt so strongly that
>>> I am a sick dumb-fuck, as you have written below,
>> it would have been nice to
>>> get a call from you. But, no. You went public,
>> with no call.
>>>
>>> Well, Michelle, you demand an apology for my claim
>> that you have alligned
>>> yourself with Robert and Bill, re morality - you
>> don't get one.
>>>
>>> That **is** what you did. And I despise you for
>> it. No apolgy from me!!
>>> Ever!!!
>>>
>>> I figure you are a lady who wants to fight for the
>> helluva it, including
>>> fighting for chickens "rights" while you, bill,
>> and robert claim humans don't
>>> have any.
>>>
>>> That's "short-dick" stuff, as I see it.
>>>
>>>> I have no desire to ever speak
>>>> with you on any subject ever again.
>>>
>>> Ohh, really, region III leader. Fux you too!!
>>>
>>> LF
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> on 3/1/03 1:03 AM, Michelle at
>> quicksilver810@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> --- larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
>>>>> Michelle, Others,
>>>>>
>>>>> I notice,Michelle, that you've signed on to
>>>>> defending Robert and Bill, with
>>>>> their BS arguments that morality is beside the
>>>>> point, and "rights" don't
>>>>> exist, and liberty is not a moral claim.
>>>>
>>>> Oh good grief, Larry. Do you ever bother to read
>> what
>>>> other people write? Or is your only manner of
>>>> relating to others to project your own ideas
>> about
>>>> what they're saying onto them? It is quite rare
>> for
>>>> you to ever give *any* indication that you
>> understand
>>>> anyone's point of view but your own.
>>>>
>>>> Until you reach the level of intelligence that
>>>> enculturated chimpanzees have (specifically,
>> being
>>>> able to recognize that "other minds" than their
>> own
>>>> exist), I give up on trying to communicate with
>> you
>>>> about anything whatsoever. You are as boneheaded
>> as
>>>> they come.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Well, Michelle, if humans don't have a moral
>> right
>>>>> to "rights", it certainly
>>>>> must be true that chickens don't!!
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't happen to have the "short dick"
>> problem,
>>>>> do you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just wondering, given your new allies.
>>>>
>>>> As a bonus, it would be nice if you could evolve
>>>> beyond the maturity level of a sixth grader.
>>>> Perceiving everything in terms of "fucking" and
>>>> "penises" and using a vocabulary that consists
>>>> primarily of swear words may have been impressive
>> in
>>>> junior high, but it is not terribly noteworthy in
>>>> adult conversation.
>>>>
>>>> You reached the last straw with Bill tonight;
>> you've
>>>> also reached the last straw with me. Short of an
>>>> apology and a promise to desist with your habit
>> of
>>>> claiming that anyone who says something you
>> dislike
>>>> has a "short dick," I have no desire to ever
>> speak
>>>> with you on any subject ever again.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> Michelle Eilers
>>>>
>>>>
>> __________________________________________________
>>>> Do you Yahoo!?
>>>> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips,
>> more
>>>> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>>>>
>>>> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>>>> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>>>> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>>>> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>>>>
>>>> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>>>> Archives and Polls:
>> http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>>>> Liberty Northwest Main Page:
>> http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>>>>
>>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>> idaholibertarians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: SO, BITCH, I WANT MY BRACELET BACK....
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 19:07:09 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

SO, MICHELLE,

I WANT MY BRACELET BACK.

I GAVE IT TO YOU PROVISIONALLY!!!

YOU HAVE NO DAMNED RIGHT TO IT NOW.

GIVE IT BACK!!!

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: SO, BITCH, I WANT MY BRACELET BACK....
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 21:02:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

It'll be in the mail Monday.

--- larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
> SO, MICHELLE,
>
> I WANT MY BRACELET BACK.
>
> I GAVE IT TO YOU PROVISIONALLY!!!
>
> YOU HAVE NO DAMNED RIGHT TO IT NOW.
>
> GIVE IT BACK!!!
>
> LF
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls:
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page:
> http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: SO, BITCH, I WANT MY BRACELET BACK....
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 21:10:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Oops! Sorry everyone. I hit send before I realize
Larry posted the below e-mail to the group(???).
Whatever. I'm intending to ignore any further posts
Larry makes regarding me, since I figure he could go
on for days spewing crap.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

--- Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It'll be in the mail Monday.
>
> --- larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
> > SO, MICHELLE,
> >
> > I WANT MY BRACELET BACK.
> >
> > I GAVE IT TO YOU PROVISIONALLY!!!
> >
> > YOU HAVE NO DAMNED RIGHT TO IT NOW.
> >
> > GIVE IT BACK!!!
> >
> > LF
> >
> >
> >
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
> >
> > To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> > To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> > Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> > Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
> >
> > URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> > Archives and Polls:
> > http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> > Liberty Northwest Main Page:
> > http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> >
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls:
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page:
> http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: SO, BITCH, I WANT MY BRACELET BACK....
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:19:03 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings Michelle!

Michelle Eilers wrote to Larry Fullmer...

> It'll be in the mail Monday.

Larry Fullmer previously wrote:
> > SO, MICHELLE,
> > I WANT MY BRACELET BACK.
> > I GAVE IT TO YOU PROVISIONALLY!!!
> > YOU HAVE NO DAMNED RIGHT TO IT NOW.
> > GIVE IT BACK!!!

Now THIS is a first, even on Liberty Northwest!

What's up with this conversation, may I ask? Is this a bracelet enscribed
with the "pledge" or what?

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: minutes of the tonight, Bannock lp meeting - Re: SO, BITCH, I
WANT MY BRACELET BACK....
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 00:28:55 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>

Michelle, Region IIi rep,

Lawrence cooked a meatless meal, just for you.

And i was gonna volunteer to drive to Rupert to pick you up, 'till
I read your sick bullshit at 2:00 AM last night.

Sorry ya missed the meatless meeting - the second official one of the
Bannock County LP.

There were two new women there. Bannock Couty has grown from 3 to 5.

I figure that exceeds any published growth rate for libs. And this very
next week were gonna have a table of literature in the ISU student union.

The County Committie Man has assented to let the County Chair be there, but
only if i put duct tape on my lips. I thought about it, and I thought "duct
tape" is in the news these days. What better way to promote liberty."

So, region III rep, i'll write ya with the minutes when I get the notes from
the designated note taker.

I'd prefer never, ever, to talk to you again, but "Athortiiii" is
autoritiii, so says Cartman on Southpark!!

Sorry you missed the meatless meeting of the Bannock County LP, designed
just for you. Soory you are so sexually deprived (or is it depraved).

Minutes to follow, as time allows,

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: IT'S SATURDAY - LATE NIGHT.....
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 00:42:48 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>

HEY, FOLKS,

IT'S SATURDAY, LATE NIGHT. I'VE BEEN CONDUCTING BANNOCK LP MEETINGS.

WHAT THE "F" HAVE YOU BEEN DOING??!!

REIGION III REP, SPEAK UP!!

THE "SOUNDS OF SILENCE" ARE JUST THAT.

ON A LATE SATURDAY NIGHT, I GET NOTHING BUT SILENCE FROM DIP-SHITS LIKE
ROBERT, BILL, AND MICHELLE.

SILENCE PROVES MY POINT. SPEAK UP ASSHOLES, OR FOREVER HOLD YOU PEACE!!

LF


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: UHH, MICHELLE, THE BANNOCK COUNTY CHAIR WANTS TO CALL YOU......
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 01:03:41 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>,
<libnw@immosys.com>

MICHELLE, OTHERS,

IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT THE BANNOCK COUNTY CHAIR WANTS TO CALL
HIS REGION III REP (she'd call the cops on me)!!!

HELL, NO. HE'S JUST A SICK FUCK WHO PUTS WORDS IN PEOPLES MOUTHS, LIKE
ROBERT AND BILL. HE LIES AND MISREPRESENTS WHENEVER THE HELL HE GETS A
CHANCE, SO SAYS THE ILP, REGION III REP.,

WELL FUCK HER!!! I TRIED TO DO THAT. SHE WAS NOT INTERESTED. MAYBE MY
DICK
WAS TOO SHORT, EH?

Or maybe she was just deprived and depraved??!!

You decide, but who the hell am i suposed to post the minutes of the Bannock
County LP
meeting to but Michelle.??!! Am I gonna get arrested for that?

Christ shed his bood for me. Why should I have to put up with this sick
bullsit??!!

LARRY

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: UHH, MICHELLE, THE BANNOCK COUNTY CHAIR WANTS TO CALL YOU......
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 00:11:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Larry,

Frank is pretty lenient about what he allows discussed
on libnw, but it is not an Idaho libertarians list and
Region III business is not appropriate here. (Posting
to idaholibertarians is, of course, no big deal,
though I'm no longer registered there and I know some
other members have left due to your most recent
outbreak of bad behavior.)

Please e-mail me the minutes once you have them (but
please don't call me - I don't want to talk to you
anymore than you want to talk to me). If Bannock
County has elected a Secretary, then that person can
e-mail me the minutes.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

--- larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
> MICHELLE, OTHERS,
>
> IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT THE BANNOCK COUNTY CHAIR
> WANTS TO CALL
> HIS REGION III REP (she'd call the cops on me)!!!
>
> HELL, NO. HE'S JUST A SICK FUCK WHO PUTS WORDS IN
> PEOPLES MOUTHS, LIKE
> ROBERT AND BILL. HE LIES AND MISREPRESENTS
> WHENEVER THE HELL HE GETS A
> CHANCE, SO SAYS THE ILP, REGION III REP.,
>
> WELL FUCK HER!!! I TRIED TO DO THAT. SHE WAS NOT
> INTERESTED. MAYBE MY
> DICK
> WAS TOO SHORT, EH?
>
> Or maybe she was just deprived and depraved??!!
>
> You decide, but who the hell am i suposed to post
> the minutes of the Bannock
> County LP
> meeting to but Michelle.??!! Am I gonna get
> arrested for that?
>
> Christ shed his bood for me. Why should I have to
> put up with this sick
> bullsit??!!
>
> LARRY
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: it hurts me to say....
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 01:28:18 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>,
<libnw@immosys.com>

folks,

I thought Frank was a truly dumb fuck. An yet, he is the only human who has
spoken reason in this group.

So,I was wrong. Make of that what you will, Robert, Bill, and Michelle-
short dicks all of you!!!!

Liberty is a moral principle. The damned fact is, the principle says a
dumb-fuck, with hard-on doesn't get to shove it where he wants to.

Sorry to read you, Michelle, flirting with robert and bill, as you have
been.

Tell ya this, lady, flirting with sick fucks, when you get raped, don't
complain to me.

With no morality to guide 'em, Robert and Bill have no damned way to tell
rape from consensual.

But sex is boring for you, right, so you have told me. I figure your're
begging for rape, so's not to be bored. I figure Robert will comply.

Enjoy!!, bitch!!!,

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: sick fucks......frank!!!!
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 01:52:21 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>

Frank,

I did my responsibiltiy, tonight, as the Bannock Chair.

It was even arranged that Mcihelle would have a "meatless dinner".

And, yet, folks claim that i routinely lie, put words in the mouths of
others, and mis-represent dumb-shits for what they are.

Criminee, Frank, what incentive do i have to mis-represent dumb-shits??!!

Frank, I'm gonna bail out on you. Yup!! There's no more of my time to
spend with sick fucks like robert, bill, and michelle.

Short dicks are as sick as lady's who have "clits" who can't get it up!!

I'm gonna hang arouud for a few days, to read Bill, Robert, and Michelle,
and then I'll be gone.

Sorry to desert Ya, Frank,

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: sick fucks......frank!!!!
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 06:08:59 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Aw c'mon Larry, its obvious that you still love her!!
No one gets that upset if they really didn't care :-D

----- Original Message -----
From: "larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>; <idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 4:52 AM
Subject: sick fucks......frank!!!!

> Frank,
>
> I did my responsibiltiy, tonight, as the Bannock Chair.
>
> It was even arranged that Mcihelle would have a "meatless dinner".
>
> And, yet, folks claim that i routinely lie, put words in the mouths of
> others, and mis-represent dumb-shits for what they are.
>
> Criminee, Frank, what incentive do i have to mis-represent dumb-shits??!!
>
> Frank, I'm gonna bail out on you. Yup!! There's no more of my time to
> spend with sick fucks like robert, bill, and michelle.
>
> Short dicks are as sick as lady's who have "clits" who can't get it up!!
>
> I'm gonna hang arouud for a few days, to read Bill, Robert, and Michelle,
> and then I'll be gone.
>
> Sorry to desert Ya, Frank,
>
> LF
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: sick fucks......frank!!!!
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:29:27 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Gary!

Gary Triest wrote to Larry Fullmer...

> Aw c'mon Larry, its obvious that you still love her!!
> No one gets that upset if they really didn't care :-D

Can't say Gary. I've given up on what's really going on around here right
now. 'The Bracelet' thing was a real first on Liberty Northwest. Still don't
know how that really relates to current conversations. Anyway, I'm
certainly open to how it all fits.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: paulbaiersf,I'M YOUR LEADER" and "PRODUCT ONLY
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 00:46:42 GMT
From: "Miskell"<4tewg43@juno.com>
To: paulbaiersf@aol.com
CC: coloneldax2001@hotmail.com,libnw@immosys.com,email@freedomofeducation.org,snapblaine@hotmail.com,snapboston@yahoo.com,snapclohessy@aol.com,wally@wconger.com

LOOK TEN YEARS YOUNGER
AND GET PAID FOR IT !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over 10,000 People in the U.S. turned 50 YESTERDAY !
Another 10,000+ are turning 50 TODAY !
Another 10,000+ will turn 50 TOMORROW !
GET THE PICTURE?

AND TODAY 90+ Million Baby Boomers...
Will Pay Almost Any Price to Look Younger

WE Have THE BILLION DOLLAR PRODUCT to Fill This Demand!

We Are Proving That Our New, Patented, All Natural Breakthrough HEALTH
Product is the Most Widely Accepted Solution to Skin Damage in the
Marketplace Today. Our Company is Growing at a Phenomenal Rate Since This
Product was Introduced Just a Few Short Months Ago!

Timing is Everything...and WE HAVE THE TIMING!

This Unprecedented Demand Will Create New MILLIONAIRES!

DO YOU WANT TO BE ONE OF THEM?


TO RECEIVE PRODUCT & OPPORTUNITY INFO BY E-MAIL

Please DO NOT click "Reply" to Respond.
Simply Click on....

OPPORTUNITY or PRODUCT ONLY

All Inquiries MUST INCLUDE Name, Phone Number & Best Time to Call
to Receive FREE INFORMATION via email response. NO HYPE.... NO
OBLIGATION...


RESULTS CREATE MOMENTUM!

"This product OUT-PERFORMS every other prescription or over-the-counter
product I've ever recommended or prescribed in my 18 years as a
Dermatologist." R.B., MD - South Carolina

"After 4 months in this business I took my family on a 2 WEEK vacation.
When we returned there was over $5,000 in our mailbox! This business is
DUPLICATING, and we are just getting started! I believe that anyone who
works hard for the next year or two will NEVER HAVE TO WORK AGAIN!" V.C. -
Texas

"I travel constantly, doing technical computer seminars. I always leave a
restaurant with MORE money in my pocket than when I went in to eat. It
seems that EVERYONE, including waitresses and restaurant managers, wants to
LOOK YOUNGER!" T.F. - Pennsylvania


Please send email at this link to be removed rememail@hotmail.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Liberty Northwest Policies & Guidelines
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 15:55:08 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

=========================================================
L I B E R T Y N O R T H W E S T C O N F E R E N C E
A N D N E W S G R O U P

A Fidonet Backbone Echo

FidoNet 1:346/16 -*- Bonners Ferry, Idaho
Email subscriber list: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

E-MAIL - moderator@liberty-northwest.org
=========================================================

MODIFIED AND UPDATED: 13th, July 2002

Liberty Northwest is a moderated Fidonet Backbone echo. Fidonet
Policy applies. The Fidonet TAG is LIB_NW. Fidonet policy is
Contained in the current edition of Policy 4 of the Fidonet
standards. A copy of such Policy will be provided upon request.
In cases of conflict between policy rules for Liberty Northwest
and Fidonet standards, Fidonet Policy hereby supersedes such
policies as contained herein.

PURPOSE: Liberty Northwest Conference and Newsgroup is a discussion
Conference dedicated to promoting various discussions of political,
economic, and social issues in the overall context and perspective of
Libertarian idealism. The overall hope is to promote and discuss
"free choice" as the best and most viable alternative to coerced
or forced solutions and choices made by others for us, and embodied
in the so-called "statist" government "solutions" most prevalent
in the mentality and political reference as institutionalised today.

Therefore, we believe that the best solutions are the free choices
that individuals make for themselves, their families and their own
privately owned property. We believe that individuals have the
unalienable right to not only make their own personal choices for
themselves, but that they have the responsibility for the consequences
of such choices once made.

PARTICIPATION: Bringing people together to discuss these issues is the
goal and objective. However, we are also a genuine Newsgroup, receiving
news and press releases from the national Libertarian Party of the
U.S. and other organisations that are most consistent with these goals.

Although we are a Libertarian-oriented conference, we welcome all
participants. However the topic is "libertarianism" and the Moderator
reserves the right to limit and restrict discussions that fail to
meet this criteria. The Moderator will at all times set overall
policy. Participants disagreeing with the Moderator are directed
to submit such disagreements to the Moderator via NETMAIL, or
private email, not publicly on the Liberty Northwest Conference
and Newsgroup.

Generally, all political, economic and social issues are on-topic.
Therefore a variety of perspectives and philosophy are expected and
encouraged. However, all participants are expected to communicate
in an adult and responsible fashion. Flame throwing is discouraged,
as are personal attacks against the character of others participating
regardless of they're political beliefs! In other words, the Golden
Rule applies here. Respect others as you would wish them to respect
you!

This does NOT mean you necessarily have to respect their beliefs --
you may feel free to debate any issue as you see fit and appropriate.
In doing that however, it is important to remember: you are not
looking into the faces of those you choose to communicate with here.
Some personalities take a while to get to know and appreciate.

The restrictions here are intended to be minimal. Here are a few of
The obvious that are considered necessary:

1. Posting of messages: Communication should be personal communication
between you and other participants on the Conference itself, not
a conversation you are entertaining on another forum or platform
elsewhere. News releases and personal essays are considered within
the above mentioned scope, if the intent is to engender communication
or begin a thread or discussion.

2. Crossposting of messages between members of other conferences are
strictly prohibited unless a clear unbroken dialogue between LIB_NW
participants can be established within the Conference itself.
If it cannot, then it has no place or purpose on LIB_NW. Endless
or voluminous cross posting of material is NOT permitted and is
considered grossly disrespectful to others! It serves no purpose
for personal dialogue and is irritating to almost everyone who has to
download such unwarranted material, most often at personal expense
off a commercial news or mail server.

2. Resource Information: Participants are free to post (sparingly)
resource information to include Conservative, Libertarian and
Constitutionalist meetings, group discussions, and other pertinent
information that back up and supplement ongoing discussion topics on
the Conference. Multiple posting of lengthy and fragmented information
is prohibited without Moderator approval in advance.

3. Human dignity. Regardless of perspective, philosophy or ideology,
all persons deserve the dignity and respect that you feel is due
yourself. Anyone expressing racial, ethnic, religious or slurs or
comments should be ignored, and if done deliberately and with malice,
will not be tolerated. Proselytising and other "salesmanlike" behaviour
will not be tolerated. Matters and concerns of a religious nature are
welcome, but preaching sermons and attempting to entice others to
accept your particular religious views go beyond the purpose of this
Conference.

4. Political restraints: None. All perspectives are invited.

5. Grievances and protocol. If any participant feels personally
offended by another participant on the conference, a private NETMAIL
message to the Moderator would normally be in order if the two
parties in question cannot otherwise resolve a particular
conflict. If subject matter is a source of conflict, then the
offended party should normally post the alleged offence directly to
the Conference itself and not the Moderator, since the input of
others concerning the subject would be pertinent to resolving the
issue.

6. In order to keep the rules and standards of the echo at a bare
minimum, participants are asked to contribute as responsible adults.
The above rules and standards are subject to change at any time
when it becomes necessary to do so.

Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup
---

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 15:55:08 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automated. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fw: Tibor Machan's new essay on philosopersnet
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 18:50:28 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

> The case for libertarianism
> http://www.philosophersnet.com/article.php?id=650

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: I've no damned idea.......
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 23:08:50 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Michelle, Others,

I've no damned idea what I did to cause you to "rag" on me the way you
did, right in the middle me communictaing with s 'sick "f'S", like
Bill and Robert.

Maybe you could fill me in??

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: apology, explanation, boredom, pain - see it how you want.....
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 00:23:30 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Hi, Gary,

response below:

on 3/2/03 3:08 AM, G Triest at garyonthenet@yahoo.com wrote:

> Aw c'mon Larry, its obvious that you still love her!!
> No one gets that upset if they really didn't care :-D

Well, I'm as loose with positive terms as negatives. So, I
guess you could say accurately that the anger was generated
the measured pain.

I did consider her a very good friend, and I do love my friends.
I would ***never*** have attacked her in public as she did me
(below, just to offer required evidence), without first talking
to her, at least. For example, I though she had mispercieved Frank
grossly on the "cats & pain" question (raised as a pure, disconnected
diversion by Robert). So I called her and talked to her about it,
and never did comment in public, even though she worked herself up in
to a rage about it the very next morning, while saying uh huh, I understand,
and even, laughing the night before.

So, Gary, with the below, and a couple which preceded it, I felt *grossly*
betrayed by a person I considered a very good friend (and as one who has
done more than anyone else to look into her 'animal rights' claims, among
other things).

Now, I know this is more than you want to know, or have a interest in.

Thanks for noticing that the anger was generated by pain, as is usually
the case. And I'm sorry for shoving private pain into public!!

I've dealt with it now, and the worst damned thing that remains is that
I've probably given Bill Andersen just the excuse he needs not to explicate
his amoral derivation of rights and liberty!! Kick my butt for that!!

Larry

Some folks don't like the 'f' word, even if it is supported by evidence and
argument. Others folks make all kinds of claims, with no evidence or
argument. I prefer the former to the latter, and I got no evidence or
argument from Michelle in relation to her claims, below. The below is the
message she posted to the list, just before I called her. She knew what
she'd done (with the phone turned off). She's aplogized for that before.
But not that night. Nope. The first damn words I heard was "I'm gonna
call the cops"!

--- larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net> wrote:
> Michelle, Others,
>
> I notice,Michelle, that you've signed on to
> defending Robert and Bill, with
> their BS arguments that morality is beside the
> point, and "rights" don't
> exist, and liberty is not a moral claim.

Oh good grief, Larry. Do you ever bother to read what
other people write? Or is your only manner of
relating to others to project your own ideas about
what they're saying onto them? It is quite rare for
you to ever give *any* indication that you understand
anyone's point of view but your own.

Until you reach the level of intelligence that
enculturated chimpanzees have (specifically, being
able to recognize that "other minds" than their own
exist), I give up on trying to communicate with you
about anything whatsoever. You are as boneheaded as
they come.

> Well, Michelle, if humans don't have a moral right
> to "rights", it certainly
> must be true that chickens don't!!
>
> You don't happen to have the "short dick" problem,
> do you?
>
> Just wondering, given your new allies.

As a bonus, it would be nice if you could evolve
beyond the maturity level of a sixth grader.
Perceiving everything in terms of "fucking" and
"penises" and using a vocabulary that consists
primarily of swear words may have been impressive in
junior high, but it is not terribly noteworthy in
adult conversation.

You reached the last straw with Bill tonight; you've
also reached the last straw with me. Short of an
apology and a promise to desist with your habit of
claiming that anyone who says something you dislike
has a "short dick," I have no desire to ever speak
with you on any subject ever again.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers




---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Cain's World: A Just and Libertarian War
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 19:12:03 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: Wes Bertrand <wes@logicallearning.net>,
frank boring <fdboring@aol.com>,
steve platzer <platzer1@mindspring.com>,
rob aliangan <robnchar@earthlink.net>,
chuck sten <sten@san.rr.com>,
ken mckeown <km@faradaylabs.com>,
michael santoro <michael@kusuma.com>,
troy allison <allisont@charter.net>,
<azbengal@msn.com>,
<teddunlap@outdrs.net>,
<LHbeaty@prodigy.net>,
<libnw@immosys.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>,
<GWilmoth@itd.state.id.us>,
<realtor@idahojoe.com>,
<realtor@idahojoe.com>,
<robbi@velocitus.net>,
<melissa5152@yahoo.com>,
<quicksilver810@yahoo.com>,
<pignotti@worldnet.att.net>,
<gswann@presenceofmind.net>

Wes, Others,

I read "A Just & Libertarian War", as recommended by Monica, the faith
healer. I'm gonna do a 'stream-of-consciousness' response.

First, I would like to see Saddam dead. Yup, I'd shoot himself myself if
could, and pay with my life. BUT THAT DOES *NOT* MEAN THAT I BELIEVE THIS
IS A 'JUST & LIBERTARIAN WAR! Far, far, far from it!

Second, I will agree, with Greg Swann, that there *will* be a war, real
damned soon in fact. And I figure it will be an easy 'victory' in the
short-run, with it costing the U.S. tax-slaves only $2-3 hundred billion
(peanuts for a productive 'free-market' economy, eh? Cheap for a fascist
state, even, I'd say, given the oil reserves of Iraq - 2nd largest on the
Earth). BUT THIS WAR HAS NOTING TO DO WITH JUSTICE, LIBERTY, OR
LIBERTARIANISM.

Athens was once a 'democracy'. It got itself so filled with hubris it
decided it could run the known Earth with its imperial edicts. After a
roughly thirty-year war with Sparta, it fell to the barbarians, bankrupt
financally and spritually. I just was reminded of Lisistrada last night.
The play in which Athens women threatened no sex for their husbands unless
they gave up trying to rule the world with war. Unfortunatley there enough
sluts that Athens fell, anyway.

And then there was Rome, 'with all roads leading to it'. It is as nearly a
duplicate of the U.S. as I can think of - and it fell to the barbarians.

And now the U.S. state claims to rule the Earth in the name of liberty, when
it has no more interest in liberty than Rome or Athens had.

So, some random thoughts:

According to Imprimis, a war-hawk, conservative publication, the U.S.
military annual budget exceeds the **combined budgets** of it's
**TWENTY!!!** nearest competitors. There are 70,000 U.S. troops in
Germany!! Why???!!! Not to even mention the rest of the Earth, including
35,000 in S. Korea. Think about it, Wes. It's nothing but imperialism,
with nothing to do with liberty. Nothing!!!

As the U.S. state prepares to rule the world with war, it is conducting an
evil war on its own 'citizens'. John Asscroft just invaded the fifty
states. Yup, gotta conduct a war internally against those who sell pipes,
and cigarette papers. Three small businesses were shut down in Pocatello,
and it happened statewide, and nationwide, and hardly made the news.

AND THIS IS IRAQ THINGO IS A WAR FOR LIBERTY?!!!!!!!

GIMIE A BREAK. WHEN THE U.S. State's puppet state is in place in Iraq, are
folks there gonna have an unbrideled 2nd Ammendent right, and a right to
somke dope, or have oral sex. FUCK NO!!! NOT TO MENTION THE REST OF
LIBERTY. WHO THE HELL IS THE U.S. STATE TO IMPOSE LIBERTY ON THE WORLD,
WHEN IT DOESN'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT SUCH AT HOME??!!

The only damned thing Rand could think of to say bad about the sick horror
of the Vietnam War was that she didn't like the draft. Well, I got gassed
by the police protectors of U.S. foriegn policy. And I got excommunicated
by Rand for being a 'commmie' anti-war protestor. I figured that was an
honor.

And, still, if the U.S. state does it, it's good, so says ARI, and Kelly.

I swear, most Objectivists would have supported the Krups Munitions Works!

So, Wes, very short history here. The sick, evil asshole, the Shah of Iran,
was installed into power, subverting a democratic election, by the CIA.
***THAT** generated the sickness in Iran, but it was not quite as sick as
the Savak Secret Police had been. The Iraianians taking the u.s. embassy
**was** a 'just and libertarian war"!! - given the Shaw and the Savak,
supported by the CIA!!

AND!! the CIA installed Saddam in power, and even armed him and financed
him, so long as he was killing Irainians. And, when he'd nearly bankruted
himself doing the U.S. bidding, Kuwait called on him to pay his loaned war
debts. And what the the U.S. Say? Okay, Saddam, "we'll" look the other
way, if you invade Iraq. But everybody is a pawn for the U.S. state,
including its own 'citizens'. Giving Saddam the okay, the U.S. went to war
with him nearly the next damned day.

And, then, there is the funding by the CIA of Ossama and the Taliban, so
long as they were killing Russians!!

And, then, there is Columbia, according to Amenisty Ineternationl, the worst
of the worst!!, comes to human rights. And the U.S. State has recently
spent $2 billion buying 'em helicpoters and training their secret police.
Why? To keep Americans from excersing their liberty.

I figure Columbia is the U.S. state's next Vietnam. What the hell, it can
fight a war on many fronts, so I've heard. And so Athens said. And so Rome
said.

So, Wes, if you want to go save Iraq from rape by Saddam, do it. But don't
go writing about "we". Only I get to decided when I will risk my life, my
very small fortune, and my sacred honor. I AIN'T INTERESTED IN SUBDUING ONE
RAPIST SO'S ANOTHER ONE CAN GO AT HER, IN MY NAME!!!!

"A Just & Libertarian War"? ROTFLMAO!!!!

As Greg Swann ended his love for war:

>> This war is Cain versus Abel. If you're not on the side
>> of civilization, you're on the side of savagery.

Well, I figure you are right, Greg, given the bullshit either/or.
The helluva it is, you can't tell the savages from the barbarians.

Remember where that word savages came from, Greg? It was a word used to
justify christian manifest destiney as it conducted genocide.

But you don't give a "F" about genocide do you, so long as you are on the
side of "liberty & reason", with niether being a justification for your
"Just & Libertarian" mutiple wars.

So, Wes. Told ya it would be stream-of-consciousness. I've run out of
stream, with steam short.

Empire has no damned thing to do with liberty. I don't give a "F" what the
ARI Jews say (and I have nothing against Jews, 'cept for those in ARI, and
those who kicked Palestians out of their homes).

LF

>> And
>> Libertarians don't get a pass just because they're
>> politically irrelevant.

Ain't it nice being on the winning side, Greg? Lets se how long that lasts.

If there is a hope of humans, it is liberty. But, you, Greg, have you head
up the stinky butt of Athens, Rome, and the current U.S. Fascist state.

Get you head out of the stinky butt, Gregg.

on 2/28/03 8:13 PM, Wes Bertrand at wes@logicallearning.net wrote:

> something worth reading, in relation to Objectivism and current political
> events.
>
> wes
>
> p.s., the message is from the nathaniel branden yahoo group list.
>
>
>> Message: 25
>> Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 01:57:33 -0000
>> From: "mpignotti2001 <pignotti@worldnet.att.net>"
>> <pignotti@worldnet.att.net>
>> Subject: FWD: Cain's World: A Just and Libertarian War
>>
>> I just found this essay posted on the newsgroup
>> humanities.philosophy.objectivism and since he gives permission to
>> repost it anywhere, I am posting it here, as relevant to our recent
>> discussions, since it brilliantly exemplifies the very values that
>> Madden appears to be laughing at. It would be interesting to know if
>> he has tried to submit this to any Libertarian publication and what
>> the result has been. That link below doesn't work, but if you go to
>> www.presenceofmind.net , the essay is there.
>>
>> Nota bene: There is a link-enriched version of this essay at:
>> http://presenceofmind.net/Iraq3.html
>> ______________________________________________________________
>>
>> Cain's world: A Just and Libertarian war...
>>
>>
>> by Greg Swann
>>
>>
>> I am amused but not angered by the 'anti-war' protests,
>> clothed and otherwise, that have polluted the news of
>> late. If ignorant people want to promote barbarism in
>> blind ignorance, this is their perfect right as ignorant
>> Americans. The amusing part is that the war on Islam
>> will be fought anyway, and the protests are about as
>> important as the yipping and scrapping of puppies trying
>> to scale the walls of a cardboard box. Aren't they just
>> so cute?!
>>
>> I _am_ annoyed, however, with the Libertarians who have
>> arrayed themselves against this war. I think they have
>> become so glued to their slogans that they've lost the
>> ability to think in principles. Whatever one might say
>> about President George W. Bush, about the Republicans,
>> about the state of the American body politic, it remains
>> that this war not only _will_ be fought, but that it
>> _should_ be fought. It _must_ be fought, if the
>> philosophical principles that undergird human liberty
>> are to endure upon the Earth.
>>
>> I have written a lot about this war, and much of it is
>> linked back from a weblog entry, itself summarized here:
>>
>> The objective the United States seeks in making
>> war with Iraq is not any of those that have been
>> imputed, whether by supporters or opponents of the
>> war. The objective is to scare the hell out of the
>> world, generally, and Islam in particular. By
>> means of a minimal effort at wreaking maximum
>> havoc upon Iraq in a very short span of time, the
>> United States will demonstrate to her enemies and
>> allies alike that she is not only the pre-eminent
>> world power, she is in fact an inconquerable
>> power. The anticipated benefits in the Islamic
>> world will be either an immediate rounding-up of
>> terrorists, or swift regime-changes followed by an
>> immediate rounding-up of terrorists. In the Far
>> East, the United States will disarm North Korea,
>> with or without a regime-change, and neither North
>> Korea nor--much more importantly--Red China will
>> do anything to stop it. If all goes as planned--as
>> I surmise it to be planned--Wahabi/Qutbist Islam
>> will be discredited and Islam will return to a
>> self-satisfied navel-contemplation. Red China will
>> apprehend the lesson of the Soviet Union--that no
>> Communist state can compete with the United States
>> in the creation of capital-intensive weapons
>> systems--and will devote its attentions to
>> economic rather than military power.
>>
>> I call this strategy The Cain Doctrine, after the
>> Biblical and Koranic story of Cain and Abel:
>>
>> Abel was a nomad, a shepherd following his
>> flocks. Cain was a farmer, fixed to a plot of
>> land. Abel was a traditionalist, doing what all
>> his (ahem) predecessors had done before him.
>> Cain was an innovator, doing things never done
>> before. Abel roamed the deserts. Cain was bound
>> to the markets of the city. Abel's wealth
>> consisted of tangible chattels. Cain's wealth
>> was speculative, a thing of hopes and promises.
>> Abel was a warrior, defending his own moveable
>> estate by combat and vengeance. Cain was a
>> merchant, depending for his defense on
>> specialists, with his defense often being
>> effected by means of compensation and
>> reconciliation.
>>
>> Abel made a sacrifice of a lamb, thus
>> establishing to God that he was a true Semite.
>> Cain made a sacrifice of grain, demonstrating to
>> God that he had been Hellenized. Forget the
>> murder. The 'bad guy,' from the storyteller's
>> point of view, _always_ does bad things. The
>> point of the story of Cain and Abel is this:
>>
>> Abel was from Jerusalem or Mecca. Cain was from
>> Athens.
>>
>> Abel was the fixed, the unquestioning, the
>> unchanging--and thus was favored by the fixed,
>> unquestionable, unchangeable doctrine. Cain was
>> the fluid, the inquisitive, the innovative--the
>> horrifyingly _Greek_--and thus his offering of
>> the fruits of agriculture, of urbanization, of
>> task-specialization, of commerce, of
>> speculation, of peaceful dispute resolution--his
>> offering of all the fruits of _reason_--was
>> spurned by God.
>>
>> Christians and Jews hate this argument because
>> Christianity and Judaism are such ugly compromises:
>> Brief genuflections at Abel by the otherwise very-busy
>> children of Cain. The important thing to understand is
>> that Abel is a Warrior. He resolves his disputes by
>> violent conquest--or meek surrender. Cain is a Merchant.
>> He resolves disputes by conciliation, especially in the
>> form of compensation. From Cain's point of view, Abel's
>> style of life is suicidally insane, but is ordinarily a
>> matter of complete indifference. From Abel's point of
>> view, Cain's way of living is insufferably corrupt. With
>> emphasis: A corruption not to be suffered.
>>
>> The goal of Islam, established at its beginning,
>> unchanged from that beginning, is to establish a
>> Universal Caliphate. That is to say, every living human
>> being, Muslim or not, is to be subject to Muslim rule
>> under Sharia law. Muslims pursued this goal without
>> abatement for most of a millennium, retrenching only
>> when Europe--newly wakened from its own macrabe
>> nightmare with Abel--pushed it back, starting in the
>> Spains and culminating at the Siege of Vienna. Warrior
>> cultures seek to conquer when they think they can win,
>> but they fade from the battlefield when they become
>> convinced they must lose.
>>
>> This is why, to understand this war, it is necessary to
>> understand Islam. The display of force America will make
>> in Iraq will cause Islam to turn its back on the West
>> for the next 500 years. If you look beatable, Warrior
>> cultures will fight savagely, insanely, suicidally. If
>> you look invincible, Warriors fade. President Bush and
>> his advisors are remarkably astute about the nature of
>> our enemy.
>>
>> Please understand: I am normally opposed to the
>> underlying philosophy of this war--'Teach 'em a
>> lesson!'--even though virtually _all_ Libertarians are
>> normally _for_ it. The reason I am for it _here_ is that
>> Cain is correct: A demonstration of invincibility is the
>> only strategy that will work against Abel--who is
>> anti-rationality-by-choice. To forebear to convince the
>> Muslims to fade is to invite them to persist in fighting
>> savagely, insanely, suicidally against what they see as
>> our insufferable corruption. In the long run, we must
>> conquer Islam culturally. In the short run, we have to
>> get Muslims to stop slaughtering innocents. This war
>> will do this, and nothing else will. (And a very brief
>> hot war will do for the Red Chinese what it took forty
>> years of Cold War to do for the Soviets.)
>>
>> Cain can co-exist peacefully with Abel. Abel cannot live
>> in peace with Cain. If we don't isolate the Muslims now,
>> and assimilate them in due course, they will chew us up.
>> It's what they do, and they're a _lot_ better at it than
>> the Communists, the Nazis, Hillary Clinton or John
>> Ashcroft. We may fight this war and come to have less
>> liberty at the end of it. But if we fail to fight it, we
>> will deliver perpetual tyranny and slaughter to our
>> children--and to every lving mind on Earth.
>>
>> That is to say: This is a Just and Libertarian war. It
>> will be led by people who are less than ideal, using
>> means that are less than ideal, achieving ends that are
>> less than ideal. But to oppose this war is to stand in
>> opposition to all that is uniquely human in human life.
>> To oppose this war is to make common cause with the
>> brutal animality that, with but one shining exception in
>> human history, has always usurped, enslaved and murdered
>> the uniquely human life.
>>
>> This war is Cain versus Abel. If you're not on the side
>> of civilization, you're on the side of savagery. And
>> Libertarians don't get a pass just because they're
>> politically irrelevant.
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>>
>> VIST MY WEBLOG: http://www.presenceofmind.net/
>>
>> gswann@presenceofmind.net
>>
>> Permission is explicitly granted to repost/reprint unmodified.
>>
>> We are what we do, not what we say we do.
>> - Janio Valenta
>
> =====================================
>
> and this as well, by chris sciabarra,
>
> http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=P234_0_1_0
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Cain's World: A Just and Libertarian War
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:51:53 -0800
From: "Monica Pignotti" <pignotti@worldnet.att.net>
To: "larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>,
"Wes Bertrand" <wes@logicallearning.net>,
"frank boring" <fdboring@aol.com>,
"steve platzer" <platzer1@mindspring.com>,
"rob aliangan" <robnchar@earthlink.net>,
"chuck sten" <sten@san.rr.com>,
"ken mckeown" <km@faradaylabs.com>,
"michael santoro" <michael@kusuma.com>,
"troy allison" <allisont@charter.net>,
<azbengal@msn.com>,
<teddunlap@outdrs.net>,
<LHbeaty@prodigy.net>,
<libnw@immosys.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>,
<GWilmoth@itd.state.id.us>,
<realtor@idahojoe.com>,
<robbi@velocitus.net>,
<melissa5152@yahoo.com>,
<quicksilver810@yahoo.com>,
<gswann@presenceofmind.net>

To those of you Larry sent his latest communication to, given that most of
you are probably not familiar with me and what I do, I need to point out
that it contained a slanderous statement of me. I am not a "faith healer"
in any way, shape or form and I have no interest in anything other than
rational, scientific practices. Larry chooses to falsely label a new
therapy I practice, Thought Field Therapy, endorsed by Nathaniel Branden
(which also practices) as "faith healing" when my practice of this therapy
has nothing at all to do with faith, but with the results I predictably get
and my work involves scientific validation for a new therapy. Apparently,
Larry has a problem with pioneers trying to forge new territory. My
convictions about TFT have nothing whatever to do with "faith" or mysticism.

Monica Pignotti

----- Original Message -----
From: "larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: "Wes Bertrand" <wes@logicallearning.net>; "frank boring"
<fdboring@aol.com>; "steve platzer" <platzer1@mindspring.com>; "rob
aliangan" <robnchar@earthlink.net>; "chuck sten" <sten@san.rr.com>; "ken
mckeown" <km@faradaylabs.com>; "michael santoro" <michael@kusuma.com>; "troy
allison" <allisont@charter.net>; <azbengal@msn.com>; <teddunlap@outdrs.net>;
<LHbeaty@prodigy.net>; <libnw@immosys.com>;
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>; <GWilmoth@itd.state.id.us>;
<realtor@idahojoe.com>; <realtor@idahojoe.com>; <robbi@velocitus.net>;
<melissa5152@yahoo.com>; <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>;
<pignotti@worldnet.att.net>; <gswann@presenceofmind.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: Cain's World: A Just and Libertarian War

> Wes, Others,
>
> I read "A Just & Libertarian War", as recommended by Monica, the faith
> healer. I'm gonna do a 'stream-of-consciousness' response.
>
> First, I would like to see Saddam dead. Yup, I'd shoot himself myself if
> could, and pay with my life. BUT THAT DOES *NOT* MEAN THAT I BELIEVE THIS
> IS A 'JUST & LIBERTARIAN WAR! Far, far, far from it!
>
> Second, I will agree, with Greg Swann, that there *will* be a war, real
> damned soon in fact. And I figure it will be an easy 'victory' in the
> short-run, with it costing the U.S. tax-slaves only $2-3 hundred billion
> (peanuts for a productive 'free-market' economy, eh? Cheap for a fascist
> state, even, I'd say, given the oil reserves of Iraq - 2nd largest on the
> Earth). BUT THIS WAR HAS NOTING TO DO WITH JUSTICE, LIBERTY, OR
> LIBERTARIANISM.
>
> Athens was once a 'democracy'. It got itself so filled with hubris it
> decided it could run the known Earth with its imperial edicts. After a
> roughly thirty-year war with Sparta, it fell to the barbarians, bankrupt
> financally and spritually. I just was reminded of Lisistrada last night.
> The play in which Athens women threatened no sex for their husbands unless
> they gave up trying to rule the world with war. Unfortunatley there
enough
> sluts that Athens fell, anyway.
>
> And then there was Rome, 'with all roads leading to it'. It is as nearly
a
> duplicate of the U.S. as I can think of - and it fell to the barbarians.
>
> And now the U.S. state claims to rule the Earth in the name of liberty,
when
> it has no more interest in liberty than Rome or Athens had.
>
> So, some random thoughts:
>
> According to Imprimis, a war-hawk, conservative publication, the U.S.
> military annual budget exceeds the **combined budgets** of it's
> **TWENTY!!!** nearest competitors. There are 70,000 U.S. troops in
> Germany!! Why???!!! Not to even mention the rest of the Earth, including
> 35,000 in S. Korea. Think about it, Wes. It's nothing but imperialism,
> with nothing to do with liberty. Nothing!!!
>
> As the U.S. state prepares to rule the world with war, it is conducting an
> evil war on its own 'citizens'. John Asscroft just invaded the fifty
> states. Yup, gotta conduct a war internally against those who sell pipes,
> and cigarette papers. Three small businesses were shut down in Pocatello,
> and it happened statewide, and nationwide, and hardly made the news.
>
> AND THIS IS IRAQ THINGO IS A WAR FOR LIBERTY?!!!!!!!
>
> GIMIE A BREAK. WHEN THE U.S. State's puppet state is in place in Iraq,
are
> folks there gonna have an unbrideled 2nd Ammendent right, and a right to
> somke dope, or have oral sex. FUCK NO!!! NOT TO MENTION THE REST OF
> LIBERTY. WHO THE HELL IS THE U.S. STATE TO IMPOSE LIBERTY ON THE WORLD,
> WHEN IT DOESN'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT SUCH AT HOME??!!
>
> The only damned thing Rand could think of to say bad about the sick horror
> of the Vietnam War was that she didn't like the draft. Well, I got gassed
> by the police protectors of U.S. foriegn policy. And I got excommunicated
> by Rand for being a 'commmie' anti-war protestor. I figured that was an
> honor.
>
> And, still, if the U.S. state does it, it's good, so says ARI, and Kelly.
>
> I swear, most Objectivists would have supported the Krups Munitions Works!
>
> So, Wes, very short history here. The sick, evil asshole, the Shah of
Iran,
> was installed into power, subverting a democratic election, by the CIA.
> ***THAT** generated the sickness in Iran, but it was not quite as sick as
> the Savak Secret Police had been. The Iraianians taking the u.s. embassy
> **was** a 'just and libertarian war"!! - given the Shaw and the Savak,
> supported by the CIA!!
>
> AND!! the CIA installed Saddam in power, and even armed him and financed
> him, so long as he was killing Irainians. And, when he'd nearly bankruted
> himself doing the U.S. bidding, Kuwait called on him to pay his loaned war
> debts. And what the the U.S. Say? Okay, Saddam, "we'll" look the other
> way, if you invade Iraq. But everybody is a pawn for the U.S. state,
> including its own 'citizens'. Giving Saddam the okay, the U.S. went to
war
> with him nearly the next damned day.
>
> And, then, there is the funding by the CIA of Ossama and the Taliban, so
> long as they were killing Russians!!
>
> And, then, there is Columbia, according to Amenisty Ineternationl, the
worst
> of the worst!!, comes to human rights. And the U.S. State has recently
> spent $2 billion buying 'em helicpoters and training their secret police.
> Why? To keep Americans from excersing their liberty.
>
> I figure Columbia is the U.S. state's next Vietnam. What the hell, it can
> fight a war on many fronts, so I've heard. And so Athens said. And so
Rome
> said.
>
> So, Wes, if you want to go save Iraq from rape by Saddam, do it. But
don't
> go writing about "we". Only I get to decided when I will risk my life, my
> very small fortune, and my sacred honor. I AIN'T INTERESTED IN SUBDUING
ONE
> RAPIST SO'S ANOTHER ONE CAN GO AT HER, IN MY NAME!!!!
>
> "A Just & Libertarian War"? ROTFLMAO!!!!
>
> As Greg Swann ended his love for war:
>
> >> This war is Cain versus Abel. If you're not on the side
> >> of civilization, you're on the side of savagery.
>
> Well, I figure you are right, Greg, given the bullshit either/or.
> The helluva it is, you can't tell the savages from the barbarians.
>
> Remember where that word savages came from, Greg? It was a word used to
> justify christian manifest destiney as it conducted genocide.
>
> But you don't give a "F" about genocide do you, so long as you are on the
> side of "liberty & reason", with niether being a justification for your
> "Just & Libertarian" mutiple wars.
>
> So, Wes. Told ya it would be stream-of-consciousness. I've run out of
> stream, with steam short.
>
> Empire has no damned thing to do with liberty. I don't give a "F" what
the
> ARI Jews say (and I have nothing against Jews, 'cept for those in ARI, and
> those who kicked Palestians out of their homes).
>
> LF
>
> >> And
> >> Libertarians don't get a pass just because they're
> >> politically irrelevant.
>
> Ain't it nice being on the winning side, Greg? Lets se how long that
lasts.
>
> If there is a hope of humans, it is liberty. But, you, Greg, have you
head
> up the stinky butt of Athens, Rome, and the current U.S. Fascist state.
>
> Get you head out of the stinky butt, Gregg.
>
>
> on 2/28/03 8:13 PM, Wes Bertrand at wes@logicallearning.net wrote:
>
> > something worth reading, in relation to Objectivism and current
political
> > events.
> >
> > wes
> >
> > p.s., the message is from the nathaniel branden yahoo group list.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Cain's World: A Just and Libertarian War
Date: 05 Mar 2003 11:59:38 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 09:51, Monica Pignotti wrote:
> To those of you Larry sent his latest communication to, given that most of
> you are probably not familiar with me and what I do, I need to point out
> that it contained a slanderous statement of me. I am not a "faith healer"
> in any way, shape or form and I have no interest in anything other than
> rational, scientific practices. Larry chooses to falsely label a new
> therapy I practice, Thought Field Therapy, endorsed by Nathaniel Branden
> (which also practices) as "faith healing" when my practice of this therapy
> has nothing at all to do with faith, but with the results I predictably
get
> and my work involves scientific validation for a new therapy. Apparently,
> Larry has a problem with pioneers trying to forge new territory. My
> convictions about TFT have nothing whatever to do with "faith" or
mysticism.
>
> Monica Pignotti

Thanks for the udpate. I pretty well have learned to ignore larry, as he
has a strong tendency to do just what you said. Still, it is good to
hear the reality, thank you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Cain's World: A Just and Libertarian War
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 22:09:26 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

So, Folks,

I sent this communication to the list twice last night. And with the
seeming confusion about messages it generated, with no direct response,
I figure it didn't even make it there.

So, I'll try for the third time.

LF

PS It warms my heart to read that Bill and Monica are fast friends, already.

Wanna borrow my hammer, Bill?

on 3/4/03 7:12 PM, larry fullmer at lfullmer1@cableone.net wrote:

> Wes, Others,
>
> I read "A Just & Libertarian War", as recommended by Monica, the faith
> healer. I'm gonna do a 'stream-of-consciousness' response.
>
> First, I would like to see Saddam dead. Yup, I'd shoot himself myself if
> could, and pay with my life. BUT THAT DOES *NOT* MEAN THAT I BELIEVE THIS
> IS A 'JUST & LIBERTARIAN WAR! Far, far, far from it!
>
> Second, I will agree, with Greg Swann, that there *will* be a war, real
> damned soon in fact. And I figure it will be an easy 'victory' in the
> short-run, with it costing the U.S. tax-slaves only $2-3 hundred billion
> (peanuts for a productive 'free-market' economy, eh? Cheap for a fascist
> state, even, I'd say, given the oil reserves of Iraq - 2nd largest on the
> Earth). BUT THIS WAR HAS NOTING TO DO WITH JUSTICE, LIBERTY, OR
> LIBERTARIANISM.
>
> Athens was once a 'democracy'. It got itself so filled with hubris it
> decided it could run the known Earth with its imperial edicts. After a
> roughly thirty-year war with Sparta, it fell to the barbarians, bankrupt
> financally and spritually. I just was reminded of Lisistrada last night.
> The play in which Athens women threatened no sex for their husbands unless
> they gave up trying to rule the world with war. Unfortunatley there
enough
> sluts that Athens fell, anyway.
>
> And then there was Rome, 'with all roads leading to it'. It is as nearly
a
> duplicate of the U.S. as I can think of - and it fell to the barbarians.
>
> And now the U.S. state claims to rule the Earth in the name of liberty,
when
> it has no more interest in liberty than Rome or Athens had.
>
> So, some random thoughts:
>
> According to Imprimis, a war-hawk, conservative publication, the U.S.
> military annual budget exceeds the **combined budgets** of it's
> **TWENTY!!!** nearest competitors. There are 70,000 U.S. troops in
> Germany!! Why???!!! Not to even mention the rest of the Earth, including
> 35,000 in S. Korea. Think about it, Wes. It's nothing but imperialism,
> with nothing to do with liberty. Nothing!!!
>
> As the U.S. state prepares to rule the world with war, it is conducting an
> evil war on its own 'citizens'. John Asscroft just invaded the fifty
> states. Yup, gotta conduct a war internally against those who sell pipes,
> and cigarette papers. Three small businesses were shut down in Pocatello,
> and it happened statewide, and nationwide, and hardly made the news.
>
> AND THIS IS IRAQ THINGO IS A WAR FOR LIBERTY?!!!!!!!
>
> GIMIE A BREAK. WHEN THE U.S. State's puppet state is in place in Iraq,
are
> folks there gonna have an unbrideled 2nd Ammendent right, and a right to
> somke dope, or have oral sex. FUCK NO!!! NOT TO MENTION THE REST OF
> LIBERTY. WHO THE HELL IS THE U.S. STATE TO IMPOSE LIBERTY ON THE WORLD,
> WHEN IT DOESN'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT SUCH AT HOME??!!
>
> The only damned thing Rand could think of to say bad about the sick horror
> of the Vietnam War was that she didn't like the draft. Well, I got gassed
> by the police protectors of U.S. foriegn policy. And I got excommunicated
> by Rand for being a 'commmie' anti-war protestor. I figured that was an
> honor.
>
> And, still, if the U.S. state does it, it's good, so says ARI, and Kelly.
>
> I swear, most Objectivists would have supported the Krups Munitions Works!
>
> So, Wes, very short history here. The sick, evil asshole, the Shah of
Iran,
> was installed into power, subverting a democratic election, by the CIA.
> ***THAT** generated the sickness in Iran, but it was not quite as sick as
> the Savak Secret Police had been. The Iraianians taking the u.s. embassy
> **was** a 'just and libertarian war"!! - given the Shaw and the Savak,
> supported by the CIA!!
>
> AND!! the CIA installed Saddam in power, and even armed him and financed
> him, so long as he was killing Irainians. And, when he'd nearly bankruted
> himself doing the U.S. bidding, Kuwait called on him to pay his loaned war
> debts. And what the the U.S. Say? Okay, Saddam, "we'll" look the other
> way, if you invade Iraq. But everybody is a pawn for the U.S. state,
> including its own 'citizens'. Giving Saddam the okay, the U.S. went to
war
> with him nearly the next damned day.
>
> And, then, there is the funding by the CIA of Ossama and the Taliban, so
> long as they were killing Russians!!
>
> And, then, there is Columbia, according to Amenisty Ineternationl, the
worst
> of the worst!!, comes to human rights. And the U.S. State has recently
> spent $2 billion buying 'em helicpoters and training their secret police.
> Why? To keep Americans from excersing their liberty.
>
> I figure Columbia is the U.S. state's next Vietnam. What the hell, it can
> fight a war on many fronts, so I've heard. And so Athens said. And so
Rome
> said.
>
> So, Wes, if you want to go save Iraq from rape by Saddam, do it. But
don't
> go writing about "we". Only I get to decided when I will risk my life, my
> very small fortune, and my sacred honor. I AIN'T INTERESTED IN SUBDUING
ONE
> RAPIST SO'S ANOTHER ONE CAN GO AT HER, IN MY NAME!!!!
>
> "A Just & Libertarian War"? ROTFLMAO!!!!
>
> As Greg Swann ended his love for war:
>
>>> This war is Cain versus Abel. If you're not on the side
>>> of civilization, you're on the side of savagery.
>
> Well, I figure you are right, Greg, given the bullshit either/or.
> The helluva it is, you can't tell the savages from the barbarians.
>
> Remember where that word savages came from, Greg? It was a word used to
> justify christian manifest destiney as it conducted genocide.
>
> But you don't give a "F" about genocide do you, so long as you are on the
> side of "liberty & reason", with niether being a justification for your
> "Just & Libertarian" mutiple wars.
>
> So, Wes. Told ya it would be stream-of-consciousness. I've run out of
> stream, with steam short.
>
> Empire has no damned thing to do with liberty. I don't give a "F" what
the
> ARI Jews say (and I have nothing against Jews, 'cept for those in ARI, and
> those who kicked Palestians out of their homes).
>
> LF
>
>>> And
>>> Libertarians don't get a pass just because they're
>>> politically irrelevant.
>
> Ain't it nice being on the winning side, Greg? Lets se how long that
lasts.
>
> If there is a hope of humans, it is liberty. But, you, Greg, have you
head
> up the stinky butt of Athens, Rome, and the current U.S. Fascist state.
>
> Get you head out of the stinky butt, Gregg.
>
>
> on 2/28/03 8:13 PM, Wes Bertrand at wes@logicallearning.net wrote:
>
>> something worth reading, in relation to Objectivism and current political
>> events.
>>
>> wes
>>
>> p.s., the message is from the nathaniel branden yahoo group list.
>>
>>
>>> Message: 25
>>> Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 01:57:33 -0000
>>> From: "mpignotti2001 <pignotti@worldnet.att.net>"
>>> <pignotti@worldnet.att.net>
>>> Subject: FWD: Cain's World: A Just and Libertarian War
>>>
>>> I just found this essay posted on the newsgroup
>>> humanities.philosophy.objectivism and since he gives permission to
>>> repost it anywhere, I am posting it here, as relevant to our recent
>>> discussions, since it brilliantly exemplifies the very values that
>>> Madden appears to be laughing at. It would be interesting to know if
>>> he has tried to submit this to any Libertarian publication and what
>>> the result has been. That link below doesn't work, but if you go to
>>> www.presenceofmind.net , the essay is there.
>>>
>>> Nota bene: There is a link-enriched version of this essay at:
>>> http://presenceofmind.net/Iraq3.html
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>
>>> Cain's world: A Just and Libertarian war...
>>>
>>>
>>> by Greg Swann
>>>
>>>
>>> I am amused but not angered by the 'anti-war' protests,
>>> clothed and otherwise, that have polluted the news of
>>> late. If ignorant people want to promote barbarism in
>>> blind ignorance, this is their perfect right as ignorant
>>> Americans. The amusing part is that the war on Islam
>>> will be fought anyway, and the protests are about as
>>> important as the yipping and scrapping of puppies trying
>>> to scale the walls of a cardboard box. Aren't they just
>>> so cute?!
>>>
>>> I _am_ annoyed, however, with the Libertarians who have
>>> arrayed themselves against this war. I think they have
>>> become so glued to their slogans that they've lost the
>>> ability to think in principles. Whatever one might say
>>> about President George W. Bush, about the Republicans,
>>> about the state of the American body politic, it remains
>>> that this war not only _will_ be fought, but that it
>>> _should_ be fought. It _must_ be fought, if the
>>> philosophical principles that undergird human liberty
>>> are to endure upon the Earth.
>>>
>>> I have written a lot about this war, and much of it is
>>> linked back from a weblog entry, itself summarized here:
>>>
>>> The objective the United States seeks in making
>>> war with Iraq is not any of those that have been
>>> imputed, whether by supporters or opponents of the
>>> war. The objective is to scare the hell out of the
>>> world, generally, and Islam in particular. By
>>> means of a minimal effort at wreaking maximum
>>> havoc upon Iraq in a very short span of time, the
>>> United States will demonstrate to her enemies and
>>> allies alike that she is not only the pre-eminent
>>> world power, she is in fact an inconquerable
>>> power. The anticipated benefits in the Islamic
>>> world will be either an immediate rounding-up of
>>> terrorists, or swift regime-changes followed by an
>>> immediate rounding-up of terrorists. In the Far
>>> East, the United States will disarm North Korea,
>>> with or without a regime-change, and neither North
>>> Korea nor--much more importantly--Red China will
>>> do anything to stop it. If all goes as planned--as
>>> I surmise it to be planned--Wahabi/Qutbist Islam
>>> will be discredited and Islam will return to a
>>> self-satisfied navel-contemplation. Red China will
>>> apprehend the lesson of the Soviet Union--that no
>>> Communist state can compete with the United States
>>> in the creation of capital-intensive weapons
>>> systems--and will devote its attentions to
>>> economic rather than military power.
>>>
>>> I call this strategy The Cain Doctrine, after the
>>> Biblical and Koranic story of Cain and Abel:
>>>
>>> Abel was a nomad, a shepherd following his
>>> flocks. Cain was a farmer, fixed to a plot of
>>> land. Abel was a traditionalist, doing what all
>>> his (ahem) predecessors had done before him.
>>> Cain was an innovator, doing things never done
>>> before. Abel roamed the deserts. Cain was bound
>>> to the markets of the city. Abel's wealth
>>> consisted of tangible chattels. Cain's wealth
>>> was speculative, a thing of hopes and promises.
>>> Abel was a warrior, defending his own moveable
>>> estate by combat and vengeance. Cain was a
>>> merchant, depending for his defense on
>>> specialists, with his defense often being
>>> effected by means of compensation and
>>> reconciliation.
>>>
>>> Abel made a sacrifice of a lamb, thus
>>> establishing to God that he was a true Semite.
>>> Cain made a sacrifice of grain, demonstrating to
>>> God that he had been Hellenized. Forget the
>>> murder. The 'bad guy,' from the storyteller's
>>> point of view, _always_ does bad things. The
>>> point of the story of Cain and Abel is this:
>>>
>>> Abel was from Jerusalem or Mecca. Cain was from
>>> Athens.
>>>
>>> Abel was the fixed, the unquestioning, the
>>> unchanging--and thus was favored by the fixed,
>>> unquestionable, unchangeable doctrine. Cain was
>>> the fluid, the inquisitive, the innovative--the
>>> horrifyingly _Greek_--and thus his offering of
>>> the fruits of agriculture, of urbanization, of
>>> task-specialization, of commerce, of
>>> speculation, of peaceful dispute resolution--his
>>> offering of all the fruits of _reason_--was
>>> spurned by God.
>>>
>>> Christians and Jews hate this argument because
>>> Christianity and Judaism are such ugly compromises:
>>> Brief genuflections at Abel by the otherwise very-busy
>>> children of Cain. The important thing to understand is
>>> that Abel is a Warrior. He resolves his disputes by
>>> violent conquest--or meek surrender. Cain is a Merchant.
>>> He resolves disputes by conciliation, especially in the
>>> form of compensation. From Cain's point of view, Abel's
>>> style of life is suicidally insane, but is ordinarily a
>>> matter of complete indifference. From Abel's point of
>>> view, Cain's way of living is insufferably corrupt. With
>>> emphasis: A corruption not to be suffered.
>>>
>>> The goal of Islam, established at its beginning,
>>> unchanged from that beginning, is to establish a
>>> Universal Caliphate. That is to say, every living human
>>> being, Muslim or not, is to be subject to Muslim rule
>>> under Sharia law. Muslims pursued this goal without
>>> abatement for most of a millennium, retrenching only
>>> when Europe--newly wakened from its own macrabe
>>> nightmare with Abel--pushed it back, starting in the
>>> Spains and culminating at the Siege of Vienna. Warrior
>>> cultures seek to conquer when they think they can win,
>>> but they fade from the battlefield when they become
>>> convinced they must lose.
>>>
>>> This is why, to understand this war, it is necessary to
>>> understand Islam. The display of force America will make
>>> in Iraq will cause Islam to turn its back on the West
>>> for the next 500 years. If you look beatable, Warrior
>>> cultures will fight savagely, insanely, suicidally. If
>>> you look invincible, Warriors fade. President Bush and
>>> his advisors are remarkably astute about the nature of
>>> our enemy.
>>>
>>> Please understand: I am normally opposed to the
>>> underlying philosophy of this war--'Teach 'em a
>>> lesson!'--even though virtually _all_ Libertarians are
>>> normally _for_ it. The reason I am for it _here_ is that
>>> Cain is correct: A demonstration of invincibility is the
>>> only strategy that will work against Abel--who is
>>> anti-rationality-by-choice. To forebear to convince the
>>> Muslims to fade is to invite them to persist in fighting
>>> savagely, insanely, suicidally against what they see as
>>> our insufferable corruption. In the long run, we must
>>> conquer Islam culturally. In the short run, we have to
>>> get Muslims to stop slaughtering innocents. This war
>>> will do this, and nothing else will. (And a very brief
>>> hot war will do for the Red Chinese what it took forty
>>> years of Cold War to do for the Soviets.)
>>>
>>> Cain can co-exist peacefully with Abel. Abel cannot live
>>> in peace with Cain. If we don't isolate the Muslims now,
>>> and assimilate them in due course, they will chew us up.
>>> It's what they do, and they're a _lot_ better at it than
>>> the Communists, the Nazis, Hillary Clinton or John
>>> Ashcroft. We may fight this war and come to have less
>>> liberty at the end of it. But if we fail to fight it, we
>>> will deliver perpetual tyranny and slaughter to our
>>> children--and to every lving mind on Earth.
>>>
>>> That is to say: This is a Just and Libertarian war. It
>>> will be led by people who are less than ideal, using
>>> means that are less than ideal, achieving ends that are
>>> less than ideal. But to oppose this war is to stand in
>>> opposition to all that is uniquely human in human life.
>>> To oppose this war is to make common cause with the
>>> brutal animality that, with but one shining exception in
>>> human history, has always usurped, enslaved and murdered
>>> the uniquely human life.
>>>
>>> This war is Cain versus Abel. If you're not on the side
>>> of civilization, you're on the side of savagery. And
>>> Libertarians don't get a pass just because they're
>>> politically irrelevant.
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>
>>> VIST MY WEBLOG: http://www.presenceofmind.net/
>>>
>>> gswann@presenceofmind.net
>>>
>>> Permission is explicitly granted to repost/reprint unmodified.
>>>
>>> We are what we do, not what we say we do.
>>> - Janio Valenta
>>
>> =====================================
>>
>> and this as well, by chris sciabarra,
>>
>> http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=P234_0_1_0
>>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> New Yahoo! Mail Plus. More flexibility. More control. More power.
> Get POP access, more storage, more filters, and more.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Hcb0iA/P.iFAA/46VHAA/XgSolB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> idaholibertarians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: paris.....
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 19:36:10 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>,
Wes Bertrand <wes@logicallearning.net>,
frank boring <fdboring@aol.com>,
steve platzer <platzer1@mindspring.com>,
rob aliangan <robnchar@earthlink.net>,
chuck sten <sten@san.rr.com>,
ken mckeown <km@faradaylabs.com>,
michael santoro <michael@kusuma.com>,
troy allison <allisont@charter.net>,
<azbengal@msn.com>,
<teddunlap@outdrs.net>,
<LHbeaty@prodigy.net>,
<libnw@immosys.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>,
<GWilmoth@itd.state.id.us>,
<realtor@idahojoe.com>,
<realtor@idahojoe.com>,
<robbi@velocitus.net>,
<melissa5152@yahoo.com>,
<quicksilver810@yahoo.com>,
<pignotti@worldnet.att.net>,
<gswann@presenceofmind.net>

Uhh, Folks,

Check out Paris.

That "nigger" will tell ya where I got my obscenity, vulgarity, and
profanity.

Click on "what would you do", and swoon, after it takes a bit to load.

LF

http://www.guerrillafunk.com/paris/sonic_jihad/


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: paris.....
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 19:59:18 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>,
Wes Bertrand <wes@logicallearning.net>,
frank boring <fdboring@aol.com>,
steve platzer <platzer1@mindspring.com>,
rob aliangan <robnchar@earthlink.net>,
chuck sten <sten@san.rr.com>,
ken mckeown <km@faradaylabs.com>,
michael santoro <michael@kusuma.com>,
troy allison <allisont@charter.net>,
<azbengal@msn.com>,
<teddunlap@outdrs.net>,
<LHbeaty@prodigy.net>,
<libnw@immosys.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>,
<GWilmoth@itd.state.id.us>,
<realtor@idahojoe.com>,
<realtor@idahojoe.com>,
<robbi@velocitus.net>,
<melissa5152@yahoo.com>,
<quicksilver810@yahoo.com>,
<pignotti@worldnet.att.net>,
<gswann@presenceofmind.net>

Uhh, Wes,

As I have chatted with Paris, he's gone a bit too far.

And yet, I had to agree Osamma was a creation of the U.S. State,
as was the Shaw, and Saddam.

I figure he was just using shorthand, and he has told me that.

I'm trying to get him to run for President, as a Libertarian next
election.

His response so far? "Don't give me that bullshit, nigger!!""

Ohh, well, I don't give up real easy.

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: paris.....
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:10:18 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>, "larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>,
"Wes Bertrand" <wes@logicallearning.net>,
"frank boring" <fdboring@aol.com>,
"steve platzer" <platzer1@mindspring.com>,
"rob aliangan" <robnchar@earthlink.net>,
"chuck sten" <sten@san.rr.com>, "ken mckeown" <km@faradaylabs.com>,
"michael santoro" <michael@kusuma.com>,
"troy allison" <allisont@charter.net>, <azbengal@msn.com>,
<teddunlap@outdrs.net>, <LHbeaty@prodigy.net>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>, <GWilmoth@itd.state.id.us>,
<realtor@idahojoe.com>, <robbi@velocitus.net>,
<melissa5152@yahoo.com>, <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>,
<pignotti@worldnet.att.net>, <gswann@presenceofmind.net>

Greetings again Larry!

Before getting into any of this, I want to apologize. I have had a huge
black hole on the Liberty Northwest list for the last 48 hours, until just a
few moments ago. Probably system related. So, I may have missed a good
segment of this conversation already. For those of you who may have also
noticed that Liberty Northwest traffic ceased during the segment of the last
48-hours or so, try and do the following:

1. Re-subscribe at: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

That should tell you whether or not the "system" recognizes that you are
already subscribed.

2. Go to: mailto:libnw-info@immosys.com

That "might" tell you what to do if you encounter some problems. I don't
know. It's a sordid mess, and I unfortunately have virtually no
configuration control over how the "system" works.

Larry Fullmer wrote...

> As I have chatted with Paris, he's gone a bit too far.
> And yet, I had to agree Osamma was a creation of the U.S. State,
> as was the Shaw, and Saddam.

Who's this Paris? I missed all of that, due to the 48 hour blackout outage.

But you are certainly right on the mark Larry. We have been creating all of
such problems, and enemies for around the last five decades or so. We
create dictatorships and despots, only to discover that eventually no one
likes them, and revolutions occur to depose them. Often, as in the case of
Osama bin Laden and Suddam Hussein, they even turn around and bite us in the
ass. And, we deserve to be bitten in the ass for such hostile, aggressive
and imperialistic foreign policy, backed up by an aggressive gunboat
diplomacy, such as we are using against Turkey, and a host of other nations
to allow US military forces to engage in aggression against nations in which
no clear threat exists against the United States.

> I figure he was just using shorthand, and he has told me that.
> I'm trying to get him to run for President, as a Libertarian next
> election.
> His response so far? "Don't give me that bullshit, nigger!!""
> Ohh, well, I don't give up real easy.

Again, I would like to see some of the conversations that led up to this.
I've been out in the dark for the last couple of days.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: paris.....
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 17:31:18 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>,
<libnw@immosys.com>

on 3/5/03 3:10 AM, Frank M. Reichert at frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com wrote:

> Who's this Paris? I missed all of that, due to the 48 hour blackout
outage.

I may have been intermittent, but it's been going on far longer than 48
hours.

Early last week there was a message from Michelle which I found out about
only 'cause someone else responded to her. I never did get the message, and
in the process, without the context of who had said what orginally, I got
confused about who had said what. I ended up profusely apologizing to Bill,
after reading what Michelle had written, not Bill!! And I didn't apologize
to Michelle, when she diserved it. I didn't need that confusion, given
where I was at the time!! And **that** Frank was last week.

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fw: PRESS RELEASE: Portland, Oregon Nude for Peace Demonstration
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:45:40 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Darklady" <darklady@darklady.com>
To: <"Undisclosed-Recipient:;"@bestweb.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 7:54 PM
Subject: PRESS RELEASE: Portland, Oregon Nude for Peace Demonstration

> PRESS RELEASE: PLEASE DISTRIBUTE
>
> Portland, Oregon Nude for Peace Demonstration
>
> Sunday, March 16, 2003
> 2:00 PM
> Portland, Oregon
>
> Join us to send a creative and cooperative message of peace and
> contemplation to our government during this time of global saber
rattling.
>
> We hope to gather 250 people onto private property and use our nude
bodies
> to form the Chinese symbol for "Peace" as created by Daniel Dancer
> (http://www.artforthesky.com).
>
> Register to join and learn more by visiting:
> http://www.explorers-club.com/peace.
>
> Location will be announced after registration and closer to event
date.
>
> Why Do We Protest - and Why Nude?
>
> · By using our nude bodies in peaceful protest we hope to remind
ourselves
> and the world that, once stripped of identifying garments and
insignia, we
> are all equal in our fragility, vulnerability, mortality, and
humanity.
>
> · We do not believe that US President George Bush has being honest
about his
> reasons for pushing for this war. We do not like being lied to and we
do not
> like having the world community told that its opinions are
unimportant.
>
> · Our demonstration is not a show of support or encouragement for the
Iraqi
> government, which is cruel and vicious to its own people. Nor is it a
> condemnation of the men and women who serve in the U.S. military.
>
> · We believe that the lives of all people, military and civilian, are
> precious and should not be squandered.
>
> · We believe that this war is a dangerous distraction from the war
against
> terrorism and will have a grave impact upon the international
community and
> its ability to combat and protect against terrorism.
>
>
> Press Contact:
> Theresa Reed/Darklady
> Darklady@darklady.com
> 503-975-3275
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: ALLAN - Re: Cain's World: A Just and Libertarian War
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 00:20:33 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>,
Wes Bertrand <wes@logicallearning.net>,
frank boring <fdboring@aol.com>,
steve platzer <platzer1@mindspring.com>,
rob aliangan <robnchar@earthlink.net>,
chuck sten <sten@san.rr.com>,
ken mckeown <km@faradaylabs.com>,
michael santoro <michael@kusuma.com>,
troy allison <allisont@charter.net>,
<azbengal@msn.com>,
<teddunlap@outdrs.net>,
<LHbeaty@prodigy.net>,
<libnw@immosys.com>,
<GWilmoth@itd.state.id.us>,
<realtor@idahojoe.com>,
<realtor@idahojoe.com>,
<robbi@velocitus.net>,
<melissa5152@yahoo.com>,
<quicksilver810@yahoo.com>,
<pignotti@worldnet.att.net>,
<gswann@presenceofmind.net>

Hi, Allan,

Sorry to hear about your father. Sorry to think you & I will be there
someday soon. Enjoy while we can, eh?

As I offered before, I could check on your Pop for you, on request or
routinely. Just gimmie the word.

One remark, interspersed below:

on 3/4/03 10:47 PM, alan zaccardi at azbengal@msn.com wrote:

> Hey Larry--Thanks for this. Very interesting, I enjoyed your remarks.
You
> don't sound much like a Libertarian...

I know you have little incentive to pay attention to the intercene battles
of libertarians/objectivists. The fact is, I was writing to an Objectivist,
defending the anti-war, anti-imperialist views of libertarians. So, Allan,
begging you pardon, what you read from me **is** libertarianism - the most
anti-war folks on the scene right now (want the sites?). It would have been
more accurate, in my world, to write that I don't sound much like an
Objectivist. I would take that as a compliment, even though for important
reasons, i still consider myself to be a small "o".

Love Ya,

L.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: ALLAN - Re: Cain's World: A Just and Libertarian War
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:14:48 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>, <idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>,
"Wes Bertrand" <wes@logicallearning.net>,
"frank boring" <fdboring@aol.com>,
"steve platzer" <platzer1@mindspring.com>,
"rob aliangan" <robnchar@earthlink.net>,
"chuck sten" <sten@san.rr.com>, "ken mckeown" <km@faradaylabs.com>,
"michael santoro" <michael@kusuma.com>,
"troy allison" <allisont@charter.net>, <azbengal@msn.com>,
<teddunlap@outdrs.net>, <LHbeaty@prodigy.net>,
<GWilmoth@itd.state.id.us>, <realtor@idahojoe.com>,
<robbi@velocitus.net>, <melissa5152@yahoo.com>,
<quicksilver810@yahoo.com>, <pignotti@worldnet.att.net>,
<gswann@presenceofmind.net>

Greetings again Larry!

Larry Fullmer wrote to Allan...

> Sorry to hear about your father. Sorry to think you & I will be there
> someday soon. Enjoy while we can, eh?

This is an entire conversation that I have NOT been privy to over the last
couple of days. I haven't seen anything that preceded it. Did this too
occur on Liberty Northwest. If so, then please remember I've been blacked
out over the last 48 hours or so from receiving any traffic as such. Wished
I knew where this was coming from.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: ALLAN - Re: Cain's World: A Just and Libertarian War
Date: 05 Mar 2003 05:33:45 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 04:14, Frank M. Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again Larry!
>
> Larry Fullmer wrote to Allan...
>
> > Sorry to hear about your father. Sorry to think you & I will be there
> > someday soon. Enjoy while we can, eh?
>
> This is an entire conversation that I have NOT been privy to over the last
> couple of days. I haven't seen anything that preceded it. Did this too
> occur on Liberty Northwest. If so, then please remember I've been blacked
> out over the last 48 hours or so from receiving any traffic as such.
Wished
> I knew where this was coming from.

I never saw anything from Allan whoever it is either.
Tami said she saw the same post elsewhere (larry's group I believe), and
asked me if I had any idea who Larry was talking about. Looking at the
bottom non-larry part, it looks like it came from somewhere else:

> p.s., the message is from the nathaniel branden yahoo group list.
> >
> >
> >> Message: 25
> >> Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 01:57:33 -0000
> >> From: "mpignotti2001 <pignotti@worldnet.att.net>"
> >> <pignotti@worldnet.att.net>
> >> Subject: FWD: Cain's World: A Just and Libertarian War

Which would be why we didn't see any of it here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: "A Just & Libertarian War"
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 00:30:10 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Folks,

This could prove to be a duplicate. Sorry, if so.

lf

Wes, Others,

I read "A Just & Libertarian War", as recommended by Monica, the faith
healer. I'm gonna do a 'stream-of-consciousness' response.

First, I would like to see Saddam dead. Yup, I'd shoot himself myself if
could, and pay with my life. BUT THAT DOES *NOT* MEAN THAT I BELIEVE THIS
IS A 'JUST & LIBERTARIAN WAR! Far, far, far from it!

Second, I will agree, with Greg Swann, that there *will* be a war, real
damned soon in fact. And I figure it will be an easy 'victory' in the
short-run, with it costing the U.S. tax-slaves only $2-3 hundred billion
(peanuts for a productive 'free-market' economy, eh? Cheap for a fascist
state, even, I'd say, given the oil reserves of Iraq - 2nd largest on the
Earth). BUT THIS WAR HAS NOTING TO DO WITH JUSTICE, LIBERTY, OR
LIBERTARIANISM.

Athens was once a 'democracy'. It got itself so filled with hubris it
decided it could run the known Earth with its imperial edicts. After a
roughly thirty-year war with Sparta, it fell to the barbarians, bankrupt
financally and spritually. I just was reminded of Lisistrada last night.
The play in which Athens women threatened no sex for their husbands unless
they gave up trying to rule the world with war. Unfortunatley there enough
sluts that Athens fell, anyway.

And then there was Rome, 'with all roads leading to it'. It is as nearly a
duplicate of the U.S. as I can think of - and it fell to the barbarians.

And now the U.S. state claims to rule the Earth in the name of liberty, when
it has no more interest in liberty than Rome or Athens had.

So, some random thoughts:

According to Imprimis, a war-hawk, conservative publication, the U.S.
military annual budget exceeds the **combined budgets** of it's
**TWENTY!!!** nearest competitors. There are 70,000 U.S. troops in
Germany!! Why???!!! Not to even mention the rest of the Earth, including
35,000 in S. Korea. Think about it, Wes. It's nothing but imperialism,
with nothing to do with liberty. Nothing!!!

As the U.S. state prepares to rule the world with war, it is conducting an
evil war on its own 'citizens'. John Asscroft just invaded the fifty
states. Yup, gotta conduct a war internally against those who sell pipes,
and cigarette papers. Three small businesses were shut down in Pocatello,
and it happened statewide, and nationwide, and hardly made the news.

AND THIS IS IRAQ THINGO IS A WAR FOR LIBERTY?!!!!!!!

GIMIE A BREAK. WHEN THE U.S. State's puppet state is in place in Iraq, are
folks there gonna have an unbrideled 2nd Ammendent right, and a right to
somke dope, or have oral sex. FUCK NO!!! NOT TO MENTION THE REST OF
LIBERTY. WHO THE HELL IS THE U.S. STATE TO IMPOSE LIBERTY ON THE WORLD,
WHEN IT DOESN'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT SUCH AT HOME??!!

The only damned thing Rand could think of to say bad about the sick horror
of the Vietnam War was that she didn't like the draft. Well, I got gassed
by the police protectors of U.S. foriegn policy. And I got excommunicated
by Rand for being a 'commmie' anti-war protestor. I figured that was an
honor.

And, still, if the U.S. state does it, it's good, so says ARI, and Kelly.

I swear, most Objectivists would have supported the Krups Munitions Works!

So, Wes, very short history here. The sick, evil asshole, the Shah of Iran,
was installed into power, subverting a democratic election, by the CIA.
***THAT** generated the sickness in Iran, but it was not quite as sick as
the Savak Secret Police had been. The Iraianians taking the u.s. embassy
**was** a 'just and libertarian war"!! - given the Shaw and the Savak,
supported by the CIA!!

AND!! the CIA installed Saddam in power, and even armed him and financed
him, so long as he was killing Irainians. And, when he'd nearly bankruted
himself doing the U.S. bidding, Kuwait called on him to pay his loaned war
debts. And what the the U.S. Say? Okay, Saddam, "we'll" look the other
way, if you invade Iraq. But everybody is a pawn for the U.S. state,
including its own 'citizens'. Giving Saddam the okay, the U.S. went to war
with him nearly the next damned day.

And, then, there is the funding by the CIA of Ossama and the Taliban, so
long as they were killing Russians!!

And, then, there is Columbia, according to Amenisty Ineternationl, the worst
of the worst!!, comes to human rights. And the U.S. State has recently
spent $2 billion buying 'em helicpoters and training their secret police.
Why? To keep Americans from excersing their liberty.

I figure Columbia is the U.S. state's next Vietnam. What the hell, it can
fight a war on many fronts, so I've heard. And so Athens said. And so Rome
said.

So, Wes, if you want to go save Iraq from rape by Saddam, do it. But don't
go writing about "we". Only I get to decided when I will risk my life, my
very small fortune, and my sacred honor. I AIN'T INTERESTED IN SUBDUING ONE
RAPIST SO'S ANOTHER ONE CAN GO AT HER, IN MY NAME!!!!

"A Just & Libertarian War"? ROTFLMAO!!!!

As Greg Swann ended his love for war:

>> This war is Cain versus Abel. If you're not on the side
>> of civilization, you're on the side of savagery.

Well, I figure you are right, Greg, given the bullshit either/or.
The helluva it is, you can't tell the savages from the barbarians.

Remember where that word savages came from, Greg? It was a word used to
justify christian manifest destiney as it conducted genocide.

But you don't give a "F" about genocide do you, so long as you are on the
side of "liberty & reason", with niether being a justification for your
"Just & Libertarian" mutiple wars.

So, Wes. Told ya it would be stream-of-consciousness. I've run out of
stream, with steam short.

Empire has no damned thing to do with liberty. I don't give a "F" what the
ARI Jews say (and I have nothing against Jews, 'cept for those in ARI, and
those who kicked Palestians out of their homes).

LF

>> And
>> Libertarians don't get a pass just because they're
>> politically irrelevant.

Ain't it nice being on the winning side, Greg? Lets se how long that lasts.

If there is a hope of humans, it is liberty. But, you, Greg, have you head
up the stinky butt of Athens, Rome, and the current U.S. Fascist state.

Get you head out of the stinky butt, Gregg.

on 2/28/03 8:13 PM, Wes Bertrand at wes@logicallearning.net wrote:

> something worth reading, in relation to Objectivism and current political
> events.
>
> wes
>
> p.s., the message is from the nathaniel branden yahoo group list.
>
>
>> Message: 25
>> Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 01:57:33 -0000
>> From: "mpignotti2001 <pignotti@worldnet.att.net>"
>> <pignotti@worldnet.att.net>
>> Subject: FWD: Cain's World: A Just and Libertarian War
>>
>> I just found this essay posted on the newsgroup
>> humanities.philosophy.objectivism and since he gives permission to
>> repost it anywhere, I am posting it here, as relevant to our recent
>> discussions, since it brilliantly exemplifies the very values that
>> Madden appears to be laughing at. It would be interesting to know if
>> he has tried to submit this to any Libertarian publication and what
>> the result has been. That link below doesn't work, but if you go to
>> www.presenceofmind.net , the essay is there.
>>
>> Nota bene: There is a link-enriched version of this essay at:
>> http://presenceofmind.net/Iraq3.html
>> ______________________________________________________________
>>
>> Cain's world: A Just and Libertarian war...
>>
>>
>> by Greg Swann
>>
>>
>> I am amused but not angered by the 'anti-war' protests,
>> clothed and otherwise, that have polluted the news of
>> late. If ignorant people want to promote barbarism in
>> blind ignorance, this is their perfect right as ignorant
>> Americans. The amusing part is that the war on Islam
>> will be fought anyway, and the protests are about as
>> important as the yipping and scrapping of puppies trying
>> to scale the walls of a cardboard box. Aren't they just
>> so cute?!
>>
>> I _am_ annoyed, however, with the Libertarians who have
>> arrayed themselves against this war. I think they have
>> become so glued to their slogans that they've lost the
>> ability to think in principles. Whatever one might say
>> about President George W. Bush, about the Republicans,
>> about the state of the American body politic, it remains
>> that this war not only _will_ be fought, but that it
>> _should_ be fought. It _must_ be fought, if the
>> philosophical principles that undergird human liberty
>> are to endure upon the Earth.
>>
>> I have written a lot about this war, and much of it is
>> linked back from a weblog entry, itself summarized here:
>>
>> The objective the United States seeks in making
>> war with Iraq is not any of those that have been
>> imputed, whether by supporters or opponents of the
>> war. The objective is to scare the hell out of the
>> world, generally, and Islam in particular. By
>> means of a minimal effort at wreaking maximum
>> havoc upon Iraq in a very short span of time, the
>> United States will demonstrate to her enemies and
>> allies alike that she is not only the pre-eminent
>> world power, she is in fact an inconquerable
>> power. The anticipated benefits in the Islamic
>> world will be either an immediate rounding-up of
>> terrorists, or swift regime-changes followed by an
>> immediate rounding-up of terrorists. In the Far
>> East, the United States will disarm North Korea,
>> with or without a regime-change, and neither North
>> Korea nor--much more importantly--Red China will
>> do anything to stop it. If all goes as planned--as
>> I surmise it to be planned--Wahabi/Qutbist Islam
>> will be discredited and Islam will return to a
>> self-satisfied navel-contemplation. Red China will
>> apprehend the lesson of the Soviet Union--that no
>> Communist state can compete with the United States
>> in the creation of capital-intensive weapons
>> systems--and will devote its attentions to
>> economic rather than military power.
>>
>> I call this strategy The Cain Doctrine, after the
>> Biblical and Koranic story of Cain and Abel:
>>
>> Abel was a nomad, a shepherd following his
>> flocks. Cain was a farmer, fixed to a plot of
>> land. Abel was a traditionalist, doing what all
>> his (ahem) predecessors had done before him.
>> Cain was an innovator, doing things never done
>> before. Abel roamed the deserts. Cain was bound
>> to the markets of the city. Abel's wealth
>> consisted of tangible chattels. Cain's wealth
>> was speculative, a thing of hopes and promises.
>> Abel was a warrior, defending his own moveable
>> estate by combat and vengeance. Cain was a
>> merchant, depending for his defense on
>> specialists, with his defense often being
>> effected by means of compensation and
>> reconciliation.
>>
>> Abel made a sacrifice of a lamb, thus
>> establishing to God that he was a true Semite.
>> Cain made a sacrifice of grain, demonstrating to
>> God that he had been Hellenized. Forget the
>> murder. The 'bad guy,' from the storyteller's
>> point of view, _always_ does bad things. The
>> point of the story of Cain and Abel is this:
>>
>> Abel was from Jerusalem or Mecca. Cain was from
>> Athens.
>>
>> Abel was the fixed, the unquestioning, the
>> unchanging--and thus was favored by the fixed,
>> unquestionable, unchangeable doctrine. Cain was
>> the fluid, the inquisitive, the innovative--the
>> horrifyingly _Greek_--and thus his offering of
>> the fruits of agriculture, of urbanization, of
>> task-specialization, of commerce, of
>> speculation, of peaceful dispute resolution--his
>> offering of all the fruits of _reason_--was
>> spurned by God.
>>
>> Christians and Jews hate this argument because
>> Christianity and Judaism are such ugly compromises:
>> Brief genuflections at Abel by the otherwise very-busy
>> children of Cain. The important thing to understand is
>> that Abel is a Warrior. He resolves his disputes by
>> violent conquest--or meek surrender. Cain is a Merchant.
>> He resolves disputes by conciliation, especially in the
>> form of compensation. From Cain's point of view, Abel's
>> style of life is suicidally insane, but is ordinarily a
>> matter of complete indifference. From Abel's point of
>> view, Cain's way of living is insufferably corrupt. With
>> emphasis: A corruption not to be suffered.
>>
>> The goal of Islam, established at its beginning,
>> unchanged from that beginning, is to establish a
>> Universal Caliphate. That is to say, every living human
>> being, Muslim or not, is to be subject to Muslim rule
>> under Sharia law. Muslims pursued this goal without
>> abatement for most of a millennium, retrenching only
>> when Europe--newly wakened from its own macrabe
>> nightmare with Abel--pushed it back, starting in the
>> Spains and culminating at the Siege of Vienna. Warrior
>> cultures seek to conquer when they think they can win,
>> but they fade from the battlefield when they become
>> convinced they must lose.
>>
>> This is why, to understand this war, it is necessary to
>> understand Islam. The display of force America will make
>> in Iraq will cause Islam to turn its back on the West
>> for the next 500 years. If you look beatable, Warrior
>> cultures will fight savagely, insanely, suicidally. If
>> you look invincible, Warriors fade. President Bush and
>> his advisors are remarkably astute about the nature of
>> our enemy.
>>
>> Please understand: I am normally opposed to the
>> underlying philosophy of this war--'Teach 'em a
>> lesson!'--even though virtually _all_ Libertarians are
>> normally _for_ it. The reason I am for it _here_ is that
>> Cain is correct: A demonstration of invincibility is the
>> only strategy that will work against Abel--who is
>> anti-rationality-by-choice. To forebear to convince the
>> Muslims to fade is to invite them to persist in fighting
>> savagely, insanely, suicidally against what they see as
>> our insufferable corruption. In the long run, we must
>> conquer Islam culturally. In the short run, we have to
>> get Muslims to stop slaughtering innocents. This war
>> will do this, and nothing else will. (And a very brief
>> hot war will do for the Red Chinese what it took forty
>> years of Cold War to do for the Soviets.)
>>
>> Cain can co-exist peacefully with Abel. Abel cannot live
>> in peace with Cain. If we don't isolate the Muslims now,
>> and assimilate them in due course, they will chew us up.
>> It's what they do, and they're a _lot_ better at it than
>> the Communists, the Nazis, Hillary Clinton or John
>> Ashcroft. We may fight this war and come to have less
>> liberty at the end of it. But if we fail to fight it, we
>> will deliver perpetual tyranny and slaughter to our
>> children--and to every lving mind on Earth.
>>
>> That is to say: This is a Just and Libertarian war. It
>> will be led by people who are less than ideal, using
>> means that are less than ideal, achieving ends that are
>> less than ideal. But to oppose this war is to stand in
>> opposition to all that is uniquely human in human life.
>> To oppose this war is to make common cause with the
>> brutal animality that, with but one shining exception in
>> human history, has always usurped, enslaved and murdered
>> the uniquely human life.
>>
>> This war is Cain versus Abel. If you're not on the side
>> of civilization, you're on the side of savagery. And
>> Libertarians don't get a pass just because they're
>> politically irrelevant.
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>>
>> VIST MY WEBLOG: http://www.presenceofmind.net/
>>
>> gswann@presenceofmind.net
>>
>> Permission is explicitly granted to repost/reprint unmodified.
>>
>> We are what we do, not what we say we do.
>> - Janio Valenta
>
> =====================================
>
> and this as well, by chris sciabarra,
>
> http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=P234_0_1_0
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: frank,
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 08:04:40 -0000
From: "larryfullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

i'm getting no messages, and i'll be damned if i can figure how
to access the archives.

this new immunosystem is **not** user friendly.

i figure once i get a walk through, there'll be no problem, but I
didn't need that with Yahoo.

But, then, maybe the problem is Bill has kicked me out, eh?

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: frank,
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:53:22 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Hello again Larry!

Larry Fullmer wrote to Frank Reichert...

> i'm getting no messages, and i'll be damned if i can figure how
> to access the archives.
> this new immunosystem is **not** user friendly.

This is NOT a user friendly system, agreed, and the archives are a bear to
deal with as configured. Problem is, I have NO control over the
configuration files, if any. My experience with this "system" is that is
sort of floats around on its own, and no one seems to be able to even block
spam traffic, for example. Even myself, I won't try and deal with the
cumbersome manner in researching archives, since subject lines change so
quickly and trying to remember all of the changes make looking for
continuous traffic absurd.

> i figure once i get a walk through, there'll be no problem, but I
> didn't need that with Yahoo.

Yea. Join the club. There is no simple "walk thru" here. The ONLY way, as
I found out, to get a workable archive, is create such a folder yourself on
your own hard drive, and archive it all there where you can control it. That
get's messy as well.

> But, then, maybe the problem is Bill has kicked me out, eh?

He didn't kick you out, obviously. But the system wasn't working either, at
least for a sizeable time during the last 48 hours. There was about a 48
hour glitch where NOTHING was coming in here, including 6 or 7 of my own
messages which I had to resend just a moment ago. I raised this with Bill in
private email yesterday, and received nothing as a reply. Still the
messages did not go through, and I had to resend them all a few moments ago.
Hopefully they will go through, and you can discover what I wrote two days
ago in reply to your, and others, messages.

Sorry. No need to become paranoid over any of this. It's just that I have no
way to really manage the "system" that Bill has in place. He's right. He
isn't the "moderator" as such, although in a sense he is. I tried previously
before we switched to "immosys" to suggest that "majordomo" would be a great
substitute over Yahoo. I suppose Bill doesn't support a platform that makes
that possible. I'm still waiting to hear from Bill on what there was a
two-day black out on incoming and outgoing traffic, and you just confirmed
that this was some aberation to my own email account here.

Thanks.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: frank,
Date: 05 Mar 2003 05:21:09 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 03:53, Frank M. Reichert wrote:
> Hello again Larry!
>
> Larry Fullmer wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> > i'm getting no messages, and i'll be damned if i can figure how
> > to access the archives.
> > this new immunosystem is **not** user friendly.
>
> This is NOT a user friendly system, agreed, and the archives are a bear to
> deal with as configured. Problem is, I have NO control over the
> configuration files, if any. My experience with this "system" is that is
> sort of floats around on its own, and no one seems to be able to even
block
> spam traffic, for example. Even myself, I won't try and deal with the

I've asked if you want to make the list user-only, but get no response
form you. I get "can I..." and then nothing. I will *not* take "can
non-subscribers be blocked?" as "please make it so". I don't need you
ranting about me making technical decisions on the policies of the list
again. I told you from the get-go that archives would not be like yahoo,
that they were email based.

> He didn't kick you out, obviously. But the system wasn't working either,
at
> least for a sizeable time during the last 48 hours. There was about a 48
> hour glitch where NOTHING was coming in here, including 6 or 7 of my own
> messages which I had to resend just a moment ago. I raised this with Bill
in
> private email yesterday, and received nothing as a reply. Still the

I replied. Server said it delivered it.

> messages did not go through, and I had to resend them all a few moments
ago.
> Hopefully they will go through, and you can discover what I wrote two days
> ago in reply to your, and others, messages.
>
> Sorry. No need to become paranoid over any of this. It's just that I have
no
> way to really manage the "system" that Bill has in place. He's right. He

You know, frank, nobody is forcing to to stay with this "system". you
jumped before it was ready, not coordinating it with me. You moved
before you were up to speed. I gave you plenty of time to play with the
system, and even told you we could reset it, etc. when ready. Instead,
you up and decided one weekend you'd move it. My first warning that you
would be doing it that weekend was the announcement everyone else got.
if you didn't like and were not ready you shouldn't have made the move.

Nobody forced you to use this "system" (it is one, your refusal to read
the directions and does not make it less of one .. it runs more lists
than majordomo and has more capabilities. Give me the money yahoo makes
and you can have a pretty web-based interface too.). I don't know how
many times I've told you there are no "config files" for the list. Yet
you refuse to accept that, instead relying on a bias/ego to say "there
MUST be!".

> isn't the "moderator" as such, although in a sense he is. I tried
previously
> before we switched to "immosys" to suggest that "majordomo" would be a
great
> substitute over Yahoo. I suppose Bill doesn't support a platform that
makes
> that possible. I'm still waiting to hear from Bill on what there was a

I *could* install majordomo, but I *choose* not to. Mojordomo is a PITA
for a system admin compared to ezmlm. Since I'm not getting any payment
out of the deal, I am not willing to install a bunch of software that
will *only* be used by you, and provide a system account (you'd have to
install an ssh client anyway) opening my system to external shell
access. Neat thing about getting something for free: no contracts saying
you need to stay. Don't like it? Take it somewhere else, no skin off my
nose, and less hassle to boot.

> two-day black out on incoming and outgoing traffic, and you just confirmed
> that this was some aberation to my own email account here.

Like I've said, everything has been fine on this end. If there is an
upstream provider issue somewhere, it'd be news to me. Looking at the
stats for the last 24 hours I see the server has processed over 10,000
messages w/o errors (other than people sending email to accounts that
don't exist)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: hey, frank....II
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 01:36:02 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

frank,

how come i can't post to the list, and how come i'm getting no
mail?

did you accomplish both of your objectives in one fell-swoop, or
am I just being paranoid?

LF

Wes, Others,

I read "A Just & Libertarian War", as recommended by Monica, the faith
healer. I'm gonna do a 'stream-of-consciousness' response.

First, I would like to see Saddam dead. Yup, I'd shoot himself myself if
could, and pay with my life. BUT THAT DOES *NOT* MEAN THAT I BELIEVE THIS
IS A 'JUST & LIBERTARIAN WAR! Far, far, far from it!

Second, I will agree, with Greg Swann, that there *will* be a war, real
damned soon in fact. And I figure it will be an easy 'victory' in the
short-run, with it costing the U.S. tax-slaves only $2-3 hundred billion
(peanuts for a productive 'free-market' economy, eh? Cheap for a fascist
state, even, I'd say, given the oil reserves of Iraq - 2nd largest on the
Earth). BUT THIS WAR HAS NOTING TO DO WITH JUSTICE, LIBERTY, OR
LIBERTARIANISM.

Athens was once a 'democracy'. It got itself so filled with hubris it
decided it could run the known Earth with its imperial edicts. After a
roughly thirty-year war with Sparta, it fell to the barbarians, bankrupt
financally and spritually. I just was reminded of Lisistrada last night.
The play in which Athens women threatened no sex for their husbands unless
they gave up trying to rule the world with war. Unfortunatley there enough
sluts that Athens fell, anyway.

And then there was Rome, 'with all roads leading to it'. It is as nearly a
duplicate of the U.S. as I can think of - and it fell to the barbarians.

And now the U.S. state claims to rule the Earth in the name of liberty, when
it has no more interest in liberty than Rome or Athens had.

So, some random thoughts:

According to Imprimis, a war-hawk, conservative publication, the U.S.
military annual budget exceeds the **combined budgets** of it's
**TWENTY!!!** nearest competitors. There are 70,000 U.S. troops in
Germany!! Why???!!! Not to even mention the rest of the Earth, including
35,000 in S. Korea. Think about it, Wes. It's nothing but imperialism,
with nothing to do with liberty. Nothing!!!

As the U.S. state prepares to rule the world with war, it is conducting an
evil war on its own 'citizens'. John Asscroft just invaded the fifty
states. Yup, gotta conduct a war internally against those who sell pipes,
and cigarette papers. Three small businesses were shut down in Pocatello,
and it happened statewide, and nationwide, and hardly made the news.

AND THIS IS IRAQ THINGO IS A WAR FOR LIBERTY?!!!!!!!

GIMIE A BREAK. WHEN THE U.S. State's puppet state is in place in Iraq, are
folks there gonna have an unbrideled 2nd Ammendent right, and a right to
somke dope, or have oral sex. FUCK NO!!! NOT TO MENTION THE REST OF
LIBERTY. WHO THE HELL IS THE U.S. STATE TO IMPOSE LIBERTY ON THE WORLD,
WHEN IT DOESN'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT SUCH AT HOME??!!

The only damned thing Rand could think of to say bad about the sick horror
of the Vietnam War was that she didn't like the draft. Well, I got gassed
by the police protectors of U.S. foriegn policy. And I got excommunicated
by Rand for being a 'commmie' anti-war protestor. I figured that was an
honor.

And, still, if the U.S. state does it, it's good, so says ARI, and Kelly.

I swear, most Objectivists would have supported the Krups Munitions Works!

So, Wes, very short history here. The sick, evil asshole, the Shah of Iran,
was installed into power, subverting a democratic election, by the CIA.
***THAT** generated the sickness in Iran, but it was not quite as sick as
the Savak Secret Police had been. The Iraianians taking the u.s. embassy
**was** a 'just and libertarian war"!! - given the Shaw and the Savak,
supported by the CIA!!

AND!! the CIA installed Saddam in power, and even armed him and financed
him, so long as he was killing Irainians. And, when he'd nearly bankruted
himself doing the U.S. bidding, Kuwait called on him to pay his loaned war
debts. And what the the U.S. Say? Okay, Saddam, "we'll" look the other
way, if you invade Iraq. But everybody is a pawn for the U.S. state,
including its own 'citizens'. Giving Saddam the okay, the U.S. went to war
with him nearly the next damned day.

And, then, there is the funding by the CIA of Ossama and the Taliban, so
long as they were killing Russians!!

And, then, there is Columbia, according to Amenisty Ineternationl, the worst
of the worst!!, comes to human rights. And the U.S. State has recently
spent $2 billion buying 'em helicpoters and training their secret police.
Why? To keep Americans from excersing their liberty.

I figure Columbia is the U.S. state's next Vietnam. What the hell, it can
fight a war on many fronts, so I've heard. And so Athens said. And so Rome
said.

So, Wes, if you want to go save Iraq from rape by Saddam, do it. But don't
go writing about "we". Only I get to decided when I will risk my life, my
very small fortune, and my sacred honor. I AIN'T INTERESTED IN SUBDUING ONE
RAPIST SO'S ANOTHER ONE CAN GO AT HER, IN MY NAME!!!!

"A Just & Libertarian War"? ROTFLMAO!!!!

As Greg Swann ended his love for war:

>> This war is Cain versus Abel. If you're not on the side
>> of civilization, you're on the side of savagery.

Well, I figure you are right, Greg, given the bullshit either/or.
The helluva it is, you can't tell the savages from the barbarians.

Remember where that word savages came from, Greg? It was a word used to
justify christian manifest destiney as it conducted genocide.

But you don't give a "F" about genocide do you, so long as you are on the
side of "liberty & reason", with niether being a justification for your
"Just & Libertarian" mutiple wars.

So, Wes. Told ya it would be stream-of-consciousness. I've run out of
stream, with steam short.

Empire has no damned thing to do with liberty. I don't give a "F" what the
ARI Jews say (and I have nothing against Jews, 'cept for those in ARI, and
those who kicked Palestians out of their homes).

LF

>> And
>> Libertarians don't get a pass just because they're
>> politically irrelevant.

Ain't it nice being on the winning side, Greg? Lets se how long that lasts.

If there is a hope of humans, it is liberty. But, you, Greg, have you head
up the stinky butt of Athens, Rome, and the current U.S. Fascist state.

Get you head out of the stinky butt, Gregg.

on 2/28/03 8:13 PM, Wes Bertrand at wes@logicallearning.net wrote:

> something worth reading, in relation to Objectivism and current political
> events.
>
> wes
>
> p.s., the message is from the nathaniel branden yahoo group list.
>
>
>> Message: 25
>> Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 01:57:33 -0000
>> From: "mpignotti2001 <pignotti@worldnet.att.net>"
>> <pignotti@worldnet.att.net>
>> Subject: FWD: Cain's World: A Just and Libertarian War
>>
>> I just found this essay posted on the newsgroup
>> humanities.philosophy.objectivism and since he gives permission to
>> repost it anywhere, I am posting it here, as relevant to our recent
>> discussions, since it brilliantly exemplifies the very values that
>> Madden appears to be laughing at. It would be interesting to know if
>> he has tried to submit this to any Libertarian publication and what
>> the result has been. That link below doesn't work, but if you go to
>> www.presenceofmind.net , the essay is there.
>>
>> Nota bene: There is a link-enriched version of this essay at:
>> http://presenceofmind.net/Iraq3.html
>> ______________________________________________________________
>>
>> Cain's world: A Just and Libertarian war...
>>
>>
>> by Greg Swann
>>
>>
>> I am amused but not angered by the 'anti-war' protests,
>> clothed and otherwise, that have polluted the news of
>> late. If ignorant people want to promote barbarism in
>> blind ignorance, this is their perfect right as ignorant
>> Americans. The amusing part is that the war on Islam
>> will be fought anyway, and the protests are about as
>> important as the yipping and scrapping of puppies trying
>> to scale the walls of a cardboard box. Aren't they just
>> so cute?!
>>
>> I _am_ annoyed, however, with the Libertarians who have
>> arrayed themselves against this war. I think they have
>> become so glued to their slogans that they've lost the
>> ability to think in principles. Whatever one might say
>> about President George W. Bush, about the Republicans,
>> about the state of the American body politic, it remains
>> that this war not only _will_ be fought, but that it
>> _should_ be fought. It _must_ be fought, if the
>> philosophical principles that undergird human liberty
>> are to endure upon the Earth.
>>
>> I have written a lot about this war, and much of it is
>> linked back from a weblog entry, itself summarized here:
>>
>> The objective the United States seeks in making
>> war with Iraq is not any of those that have been
>> imputed, whether by supporters or opponents of the
>> war. The objective is to scare the hell out of the
>> world, generally, and Islam in particular. By
>> means of a minimal effort at wreaking maximum
>> havoc upon Iraq in a very short span of time, the
>> United States will demonstrate to her enemies and
>> allies alike that she is not only the pre-eminent
>> world power, she is in fact an inconquerable
>> power. The anticipated benefits in the Islamic
>> world will be either an immediate rounding-up of
>> terrorists, or swift regime-changes followed by an
>> immediate rounding-up of terrorists. In the Far
>> East, the United States will disarm North Korea,
>> with or without a regime-change, and neither North
>> Korea nor--much more importantly--Red China will
>> do anything to stop it. If all goes as planned--as
>> I surmise it to be planned--Wahabi/Qutbist Islam
>> will be discredited and Islam will return to a
>> self-satisfied navel-contemplation. Red China will
>> apprehend the lesson of the Soviet Union--that no
>> Communist state can compete with the United States
>> in the creation of capital-intensive weapons
>> systems--and will devote its attentions to
>> economic rather than military power.
>>
>> I call this strategy The Cain Doctrine, after the
>> Biblical and Koranic story of Cain and Abel:
>>
>> Abel was a nomad, a shepherd following his
>> flocks. Cain was a farmer, fixed to a plot of
>> land. Abel was a traditionalist, doing what all
>> his (ahem) predecessors had done before him.
>> Cain was an innovator, doing things never done
>> before. Abel roamed the deserts. Cain was bound
>> to the markets of the city. Abel's wealth
>> consisted of tangible chattels. Cain's wealth
>> was speculative, a thing of hopes and promises.
>> Abel was a warrior, defending his own moveable
>> estate by combat and vengeance. Cain was a
>> merchant, depending for his defense on
>> specialists, with his defense often being
>> effected by means of compensation and
>> reconciliation.
>>
>> Abel made a sacrifice of a lamb, thus
>> establishing to God that he was a true Semite.
>> Cain made a sacrifice of grain, demonstrating to
>> God that he had been Hellenized. Forget the
>> murder. The 'bad guy,' from the storyteller's
>> point of view, _always_ does bad things. The
>> point of the story of Cain and Abel is this:
>>
>> Abel was from Jerusalem or Mecca. Cain was from
>> Athens.
>>
>> Abel was the fixed, the unquestioning, the
>> unchanging--and thus was favored by the fixed,
>> unquestionable, unchangeable doctrine. Cain was
>> the fluid, the inquisitive, the innovative--the
>> horrifyingly _Greek_--and thus his offering of
>> the fruits of agriculture, of urbanization, of
>> task-specialization, of commerce, of
>> speculation, of peaceful dispute resolution--his
>> offering of all the fruits of _reason_--was
>> spurned by God.
>>
>> Christians and Jews hate this argument because
>> Christianity and Judaism are such ugly compromises:
>> Brief genuflections at Abel by the otherwise very-busy
>> children of Cain. The important thing to understand is
>> that Abel is a Warrior. He resolves his disputes by
>> violent conquest--or meek surrender. Cain is a Merchant.
>> He resolves disputes by conciliation, especially in the
>> form of compensation. From Cain's point of view, Abel's
>> style of life is suicidally insane, but is ordinarily a
>> matter of complete indifference. From Abel's point of
>> view, Cain's way of living is insufferably corrupt. With
>> emphasis: A corruption not to be suffered.
>>
>> The goal of Islam, established at its beginning,
>> unchanged from that beginning, is to establish a
>> Universal Caliphate. That is to say, every living human
>> being, Muslim or not, is to be subject to Muslim rule
>> under Sharia law. Muslims pursued this goal without
>> abatement for most of a millennium, retrenching only
>> when Europe--newly wakened from its own macrabe
>> nightmare with Abel--pushed it back, starting in the
>> Spains and culminating at the Siege of Vienna. Warrior
>> cultures seek to conquer when they think they can win,
>> but they fade from the battlefield when they become
>> convinced they must lose.
>>
>> This is why, to understand this war, it is necessary to
>> understand Islam. The display of force America will make
>> in Iraq will cause Islam to turn its back on the West
>> for the next 500 years. If you look beatable, Warrior
>> cultures will fight savagely, insanely, suicidally. If
>> you look invincible, Warriors fade. President Bush and
>> his advisors are remarkably astute about the nature of
>> our enemy.
>>
>> Please understand: I am normally opposed to the
>> underlying philosophy of this war--'Teach 'em a
>> lesson!'--even though virtually _all_ Libertarians are
>> normally _for_ it. The reason I am for it _here_ is that
>> Cain is correct: A demonstration of invincibility is the
>> only strategy that will work against Abel--who is
>> anti-rationality-by-choice. To forebear to convince the
>> Muslims to fade is to invite them to persist in fighting
>> savagely, insanely, suicidally against what they see as
>> our insufferable corruption. In the long run, we must
>> conquer Islam culturally. In the short run, we have to
>> get Muslims to stop slaughtering innocents. This war
>> will do this, and nothing else will. (And a very brief
>> hot war will do for the Red Chinese what it took forty
>> years of Cold War to do for the Soviets.)
>>
>> Cain can co-exist peacefully with Abel. Abel cannot live
>> in peace with Cain. If we don't isolate the Muslims now,
>> and assimilate them in due course, they will chew us up.
>> It's what they do, and they're a _lot_ better at it than
>> the Communists, the Nazis, Hillary Clinton or John
>> Ashcroft. We may fight this war and come to have less
>> liberty at the end of it. But if we fail to fight it, we
>> will deliver perpetual tyranny and slaughter to our
>> children--and to every lving mind on Earth.
>>
>> That is to say: This is a Just and Libertarian war. It
>> will be led by people who are less than ideal, using
>> means that are less than ideal, achieving ends that are
>> less than ideal. But to oppose this war is to stand in
>> opposition to all that is uniquely human in human life.
>> To oppose this war is to make common cause with the
>> brutal animality that, with but one shining exception in
>> human history, has always usurped, enslaved and murdered
>> the uniquely human life.
>>
>> This war is Cain versus Abel. If you're not on the side
>> of civilization, you're on the side of savagery. And
>> Libertarians don't get a pass just because they're
>> politically irrelevant.
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>>
>> VIST MY WEBLOG: http://www.presenceofmind.net/
>>
>> gswann@presenceofmind.net
>>
>> Permission is explicitly granted to repost/reprint unmodified.
>>
>> We are what we do, not what we say we do.
>> - Janio Valenta
>
> =====================================
>
> and this as well, by chris sciabarra,
>
> http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=P234_0_1_0
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: hey, frank....II
Date: 05 Mar 2003 01:42:18 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 02:36, larry fullmer wrote:
> frank,
>
> how come i can't post to the list, and how come i'm getting no
> mail?
>
> did you accomplish both of your objectives in one fell-swoop, or
> am I just being paranoid?

Probably the latter.
I've seen many messages from you in the last 24 hours.

Oh, and I don't run this list, so any assertions or assumptions I kicked
you out are baseless. It is my server, but *not* my list.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: hey, frank....II
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:39:50 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Hello Bill!

Bill Anderson, writing to Larry Fullmer, wrote....

Larry Fullmer wrote:
> > how come i can't post to the list, and how come i'm getting no
> > mail?
> > did you accomplish both of your objectives in one fell-swoop, or
> > am I just being paranoid?

You replied:
> Probably the latter.
> I've seen many messages from you in the last 24 hours.

Well, as of just today, March 5th, I have seen my messages resume. But there
has been a blackout for the last two days in receiving traffic on this list.
I asked YOU about that in private email, and got no response. I asked you
if your system was down, or some other intrusion was resulting in the
strange gap of messages, including 6 or 7 of my own that never bounced back,
I still have to say that until I reposted all of them a moment ago, they did
NOT show up at this address.

> Oh, and I don't run this list, so any assertions or assumptions I kicked
> you out are baseless. It is my server, but *not* my list.

Well, I'm not assuming that you kicked anyone out, nor as you claim, you
don't run the list. But you DO run the system upon which this list resides.
If the system is down, then even the moderator has no control over that,
right? Was the system down for a considerable time of the last 48 hours?

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: hey, frank....II
Date: 05 Mar 2003 05:27:04 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 03:39, Frank M. Reichert wrote:
> Hello Bill!
>
> Bill Anderson, writing to Larry Fullmer, wrote....
>
> Larry Fullmer wrote:
> > > how come i can't post to the list, and how come i'm getting no
> > > mail?
> > > did you accomplish both of your objectives in one fell-swoop, or
> > > am I just being paranoid?
>
> You replied:
> > Probably the latter.
> > I've seen many messages from you in the last 24 hours.
>
> Well, as of just today, March 5th, I have seen my messages resume. But
there
> has been a blackout for the last two days in receiving traffic on this
list.
> I asked YOU about that in private email, and got no response. I asked you
> if your system was down, or some other intrusion was resulting in the
> strange gap of messages, including 6 or 7 of my own that never bounced
back,
> I still have to say that until I reposted all of them a moment ago, they
did
> NOT show up at this address.

Want to put money on it? ;)
The archives show them, and my inbox shows them too.
Want me to forward the reply I sent to you to the list?

>
> > Oh, and I don't run this list, so any assertions or assumptions I kicked
> > you out are baseless. It is my server, but *not* my list.
>
> Well, I'm not assuming that you kicked anyone out, nor as you claim, you
> don't run the list. But you DO run the system upon which this list
resides.
> If the system is down, then even the moderator has no control over that,
> right? Was the system down for a considerable time of the last 48 hours?

No, as the archives show, it was up and running. Not to mention the 10K+
messages the system processed in the last 23.5 hours.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Bill, well, I ain't getting no damned mail - Re: hey, frank....II
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 02:23:57 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Bill,

I ain't getting now damned mail from immuno. Not even that I send to
myself. No problem with anything else.

What's up?!

And when are you gonna walk me, hand in hand, to the archives. Every damned
link you pointed to, when I click on it, generates an e-mail. I figure
something is not "user friendly". I figure an e-mail ain't gonna get me to
the archives.

And, Bill, when the hell are you gonna walk me, hand-in-hand, to your amoral
derivation of rights and liberty??!!

LF

on 3/5/03 12:42 AM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:

> On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 02:36, larry fullmer wrote:
>> frank,
>>
>> how come i can't post to the list, and how come i'm getting no
>> mail?
>>
>> did you accomplish both of your objectives in one fell-swoop, or
>> am I just being paranoid?
>
> Probably the latter.
> I've seen many messages from you in the last 24 hours.
>
> Oh, and I don't run this list, so any assertions or assumptions I kicked
> you out are baseless. It is my server, but *not* my list.
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Bill, well, I ain't getting no damned mail - Re: hey,
frank....II
Date: 05 Mar 2003 04:34:08 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 03:23, larry fullmer wrote:
> Bill,
>
> I ain't getting now damned mail from immuno. Not even that I send to
> myself. No problem with anything else.
>
> What's up?!

Dunno, working fine here, and you apparently got the one you responded
to.

>
> And when are you gonna walk me, hand in hand, to the archives. Every
damned
> link you pointed to, when I click on it, generates an e-mail. I figure
> something is not "user friendly". I figure an e-mail ain't gonna get me
to
> the archives.

You figure incorrectly. The archives come via email.

>
> And, Bill, when the hell are you gonna walk me, hand-in-hand, to your
amoral
> derivation of rights and liberty??!!

When I'm done taking care of some stuff here. Food on table first.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: wear an anti-war t-shirt, go to jail for liberty....
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 03:08:32 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

and dummies claim this imperialist war is about liberty. ROTFLMAO!!!

LF

http://www.msnbc.com/local/wnyt/m276307.asp?0ct=-302&cp1=1

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: gawd, satan, bush and war.....
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 03:20:05 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Folks,

You gotta sign up with the N.Y. Times to read what gawd and satan have to
do with the upcoming war.

It's easy. Even commies oughta read the NYTs, eh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/04/opinion/04KRIS.html

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: the instruments of faith......
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 03:23:40 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

So, Frank, Others,

I ain't real anxious to get into a discussion of religion.

But I thought you might all want to see the history of such, with no comment
from me.

http://www.museumofman.org/html/exhibitions_inquisition.html

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Sorry folks!
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:19:11 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings everyone!

A couple of days ago I sent out about 6 or 7 replies to individuals on this
list. None of them made it through unfortunately, or at least didn't come
back to me. I tried to ask Bill if his system might be down, and to no
avail -- so, trying to resurrect them all now, and repost them again to the
list tonight.

Hope these all make it through okay.

Kindest regards,
Frank
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Sorry folks!
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 17:13:17 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank,

This has been going on for some time, frank. They only way I know about
many messages (not having received them) is when i read others responding
to them.

Frustrating, eh. Just last night I was totally out of the loop for at least
eight hours. I got paranoid. I figured you'd axed me.

LF

PS it would help, or would it?, if I knew how to read in the archives.
Would anyone take me hand-in-hand and show me. Bill's instructions
failed me.

on 3/5/03 2:19 AM, Frank M. Reichert at frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com wrote:

> Greetings everyone!
>
> A couple of days ago I sent out about 6 or 7 replies to individuals on
this
> list. None of them made it through unfortunately, or at least didn't come
> back to me. I tried to ask Bill if his system might be down, and to no
> avail -- so, trying to resurrect them all now, and repost them again to
the
> list tonight.
>
> Hope these all make it through okay.
>
> Kindest regards,
> Frank
> _____________________________________________________________________
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
> "The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
> the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
> To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>
> Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org
>
> ...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: SO, BITCH, I WANT MY BRACELET BACK
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:16:32 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Re SO, BITCH, I
WANT MY BRACELET
BACK.....eml
Re SO, BITCH, I WANT MY BRACELET BACK.....eml Type: Microsoft MHTML
Document 5.0
(message/rfc822)
Encoding: 7bit

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: sick fucks.....frank!!! eml
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:17:02 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Re sick
fucks......frank!!!!.eml
Re sick fucks......frank!!!!.eml Type: Microsoft MHTML Document 5.0
(message/rfc822)
Encoding: 7bit

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: bill, robert - neeked ladies, eh??? Re: PRESS RELEASE: Portland,
Oregon Nude for Peace Demonstration
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 02:51:07 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Uhh, Robert, Bill, Others,

Robert, with no comment from you, posting the press-release, with you
claiming a woman defending herself from rape violates the liberty of a
rapist (want the quotes), maybe you were just pointing out where neeked
ladies would be gathered, eh?

If you and Bill claim to be rational, and libertarians, I *demand* to see
your amoral derivation of the claim to 'rights' and 'liberty'.

Notice the "if" there. You can be a self-contrdictory dummies, and not
respond to my "demands". But you cannot claim to be rational, nor a
libertarian, without supplying the argument/evidence that you, and Bill, as
dilettentes, have claimed, without supplying evidence/argument for your
claims.

So, Robert, Bill, put up or shut-up!!!

Give us evidence/argument, or quit it with attacking those who make
moral/ethicl claims in relation to rights & liberty.

UHH, let me be clear *****PUT UP OR SHUT-UP!!!!!!!******, Robert, Bill.

And don't go writing about masochist cats, Robert. You've all ready created
more pain for me than I ever wanted to encounter, ever!!!, with that
bullshit diversion.

Put up or shut-up!!!!!!! Bill, Robert!!!!!!!!

LF

3/4/03 8:45 PM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Darklady" <darklady@darklady.com>
> To: <"Undisclosed-Recipient:;"@bestweb.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 7:54 PM
> Subject: PRESS RELEASE: Portland, Oregon Nude for Peace Demonstration
>
>
>> PRESS RELEASE: PLEASE DISTRIBUTE
>>
>> Portland, Oregon Nude for Peace Demonstration
>>
>> Sunday, March 16, 2003
>> 2:00 PM
>> Portland, Oregon
>>
>> Join us to send a creative and cooperative message of peace and
>> contemplation to our government during this time of global saber
> rattling.
>>
>> We hope to gather 250 people onto private property and use our nude
> bodies
>> to form the Chinese symbol for "Peace" as created by Daniel Dancer
>> (http://www.artforthesky.com).
>>
>> Register to join and learn more by visiting:
>> http://www.explorers-club.com/peace.
>>
>> Location will be announced after registration and closer to event
> date.
>>
>> Why Do We Protest - and Why Nude?
>>
>> · By using our nude bodies in peaceful protest we hope to remind
> ourselves
>> and the world that, once stripped of identifying garments and
> insignia, we
>> are all equal in our fragility, vulnerability, mortality, and
> humanity.
>>
>> · We do not believe that US President George Bush has being honest
> about his
>> reasons for pushing for this war. We do not like being lied to and we
> do not
>> like having the world community told that its opinions are
> unimportant.
>>
>> · Our demonstration is not a show of support or encouragement for the
> Iraqi
>> government, which is cruel and vicious to its own people. Nor is it a
>> condemnation of the men and women who serve in the U.S. military.
>>
>> · We believe that the lives of all people, military and civilian, are
>> precious and should not be squandered.
>>
>> · We believe that this war is a dangerous distraction from the war
> against
>> terrorism and will have a grave impact upon the international
> community and
>> its ability to combat and protect against terrorism.
>>
>>
>> Press Contact:
>> Theresa Reed/Darklady
>> Darklady@darklady.com
>> 503-975-3275
>>
>>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: bill, robert - neeked ladies, eh??? Re: PRESS RELEASE:
Portland, Oregon Nude for Peace Demonstration
Date: 05 Mar 2003 05:25:12 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 03:51, larry fullmer wrote:
> Uhh, Robert, Bill, Others,

> If you and Bill claim to be rational, and libertarians, I *demand* to see
> your amoral derivation of the claim to 'rights' and 'liberty'.

Piss off, I don't give in to your demands -- you should know that by
now. My family's needs come before your selfish demands for me to
explain things to you again. Work comes before you. If you were not so
wrapped up in yourself and how everybody either does what you want tor
their fascist pigs, then you would stop and realize our worlds don;t
revolve around you and maybe you'd have some patience.

Note the "if".

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: [Fwd: Re: Is immosys still up?]
Date: 05 Mar 2003 05:35:49 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

-----Forwarded Message-----

> From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
> To: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
> Subject: Re: Is immosys still up?
> Date: 04 Mar 2003 08:06:23 -0700
>
> On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 04:27, Frank Reichert wrote:
> > Hello Bill,
> >
> > The last msgs I recv'd on Liberty Northwest were all dated Sunday.
> > Nothing at all as of Monday or Tuesday of this week. I know for a
> > fact I sent out 6 - 7 msgs myself last night, none of which has
> > appeared today.
> >
> > What's going on?
>
> Everything is fine here. I've been seeing the traffic, Michelle and
> Larry's messages have all been getting through at least. I see yours
> from yesterday, Robert's from yesterday, etc..
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: [Fwd: ezmlm response]
Date: 05 Mar 2003 06:04:37 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Here you go, Frank and Larry.

This is the very same message you got when you subscribed, btw, and is
in the original trailer settings (IOW, the email address to get this
info was there until you changed the trailer, Frank).

-----Forwarded Message-----

> From: libnw-help@immosys.com
> To: bill@noreboots.com
> Subject: ezmlm response
> Date: 05 Mar 2003 12:45:52 +0000
>
> Greetings again!
>
> This concerns your subscription with the libnw@immosys.com mailing
> list.
>
> No information has been provided for this list.
>
> --- Administrative commands for the libnw list ---
>
> I can handle administrative requests automatically. Please
> do not send them to the list address! Instead, send
> your message to the correct command address:
>
> To subscribe to the list, send a message to:
> <libnw-subscribe@immosys.com>

I'd assume that's pretty self-explanatory

>
> To remove your address from the list, send a message to:
> <libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com>

I'd assume that's pretty self-explanatory

>
> Send mail to the following for info and FAQ for this list:
> <libnw-info@immosys.com>
> <libnw-faq@immosys.com>

I'd assume that's pretty self-explanatory

> To get messages 123 through 145 (a maximum of 100 per request), mail:
> <libnw-get.123_145@immosys.com>

Use this to get messages from the archives

> To get an index with subject and author for messages 123-456 , mail:
> <libnw-index.123_456@immosys.com>
>

... to get an index w/subject and author for a range of messages. Go ahead,
try it out.

> They are always returned as sets of 100, max 2000 per request,
> so you'll actually get 100-499.

... showing that you could request a big nasty file w/2000 messages in it,
but in groups of 100>

> To receive all messages with the same subject as message 12345,
> send an empty message to:
> <libnw-thread.12345@immosys.com>

Want all messages with the same subject as given message? There you go.
here is what one would look like (for message 1640):
===============================
libnw Digest of: thread.1640

a free country, as commonly understood
1523 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
1526 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
1530 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1531 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1534 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
1536 by: Ken <happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com>
1538 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
1539 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
1541 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
1544 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
1552 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
1556 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
1557 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
1560 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
1592 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
1606 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
1608 by: Ken <happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com>
1640 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
1671 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>

...
================================
...then the messages themselves

In fact, there is a short cut:
libnw-get@immosys.com will get you the last 30 messages in index and digest
format.

>
> The messages do not really need to be empty, but I will ignore
> their content. Only the ADDRESS you send to is important.
>
> You can start a subscription for an alternate address,
> for example "john@host.domain", just add a hyphen and your
> address (with '=' instead of '@') after the command word:
> <libnw-subscribe-john=host.domain@immosys.com>

> To stop subscription for this address, mail:
> <libnw-unsubscribe-john=host.domain@immosys.com>
>
> In both cases, I'll send a confirmation message to that address. When
> you receive it, simply reply to it to complete your subscription.

... for adding "aliased" accounts.

To figure out what message number a post is, view the headers and look
at the "return path". It will tell you the message number of that post.
Something majordomo and yahoo don't do.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Cain's world
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:19:15 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Isn't Greg Swann the author of those Ramblin' Gamblin' Willie stories?
I loved those.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: I've been assigned to your account
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:17:14 -0500
From: Jean <455rich@hotmail.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi, Do you want me to show you how you can earn
$1,000 to $5,000 a month
working from home Part Time?


NEXT

This e-mail is sent in compliance with our strict anti-abuse regulations.
You have received this e-mail because you or someone using your computer has
used an FFA List, Safe List or requested other information. If you do not
wish to receive any mail from our servers you may permanently block your
e-mail address by clicking on the following link. (Please be advised by
blocking your e-mail you will not have access to over 900 domains and the
thousands of users and services they represent)

.Thank you,
The Postmaster

Unsubscribe

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: I've been assigned to your account
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:29:41 -0500
From: Oscar <jackie34@ffa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi, Do you want me to show you how you can earn
$1,000 to $5,000 a month
working from home Part Time?


NEXT

I

This e-mail is sent in compliance with our strict anti-abuse regulations.
You have received this e-mail because you or someone using your computer has
used an FFA List, Safe List or requested other information. If you do not
wish to receive any mail from our servers you may permanently block your
e-mail address by clicking on the following link. (Please be advised by
blocking your e-mail you will not have access to over 900 domains and the
thousands of users and services they represent)

.Thank you,
The Postmaster

Unsubscribe

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Lucrative Home Based Business
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:18:08 -0500
From: Mike <robin@aol.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi, Do you want me to show you how you can earn
$1,000 to $5,000 a month
working from home Part Time?


NEXT

This e-mail is sent in compliance with our strict anti-abuse regulations.
You have received this e-mail because you or someone using your computer has
used an FFA List, Safe List or requested other information. If you do not
wish to receive any mail from our servers you may permanently block your
e-mail address by clicking on the following link. (Please be advised by
blocking your e-mail you will not have access to over 900 domains and the
thousands of users and services they represent)

.Thank you,
The Postmaster

Unsubscribe

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Make money from home
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:55:46 -0500
From: Joan <jackie34@ffa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi, Do you want me to show you how you can earn
$1,000 to $5,000 a month
working from home Part Time?


NEXT

I

This e-mail is sent in compliance with our strict anti-abuse regulations.
You have received this e-mail because you or someone using your computer has
used an FFA List, Safe List or requested other information. If you do not
wish to receive any mail from our servers you may permanently block your
e-mail address by clicking on the following link. (Please be advised by
blocking your e-mail you will not have access to over 900 domains and the
thousands of users and services they represent)

.Thank you,
The Postmaster

Unsubscribe

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Thought Field Therapy
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:14:19 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

So WTF IS "Thought Field Therapy"?
Sure does sound a lot like New Age huey.

Tell me, I really am interested, having created a meditational technique of
my own that on first blush would also appear to be New Agey or the
expressions of a schizophrenic ;-)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Monica Pignotti" <pignotti@worldnet.att.net>
To: "larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>; "Wes Bertrand"
<wes@logicallearning.net>; "frank boring" <fdboring@aol.com>; "steve
platzer" <platzer1@mindspring.com>; "rob aliangan" <robnchar@earthlink.net>;
"chuck sten" <sten@san.rr.com>; "ken mckeown" <km@faradaylabs.com>; "michael
santoro" <michael@kusuma.com>; "troy allison" <allisont@charter.net>;
<azbengal@msn.com>; <teddunlap@outdrs.net>; <LHbeaty@prodigy.net>;
<libnw@immosys.com>; <idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>;
<GWilmoth@itd.state.id.us>; <realtor@idahojoe.com>; <robbi@velocitus.net>;
<melissa5152@yahoo.com>; <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>;
<gswann@presenceofmind.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: Cain's World: A Just and Libertarian War

> To those of you Larry sent his latest communication to, given that most of
> you are probably not familiar with me and what I do, I need to point out
> that it contained a slanderous statement of me. I am not a "faith healer"
> in any way, shape or form and I have no interest in anything other than
> rational, scientific practices. Larry chooses to falsely label a new
> therapy I practice, Thought Field Therapy, endorsed by Nathaniel Branden
> (which also practices) as "faith healing" when my practice of this therapy
> has nothing at all to do with faith, but with the results I predictably
get
> and my work involves scientific validation for a new therapy. Apparently,
> Larry has a problem with pioneers trying to forge new territory. My
> convictions about TFT have nothing whatever to do with "faith" or
mysticism.
>
> Monica Pignotti
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
> To: "Wes Bertrand" <wes@logicallearning.net>; "frank boring"
> <fdboring@aol.com>; "steve platzer" <platzer1@mindspring.com>; "rob
> aliangan" <robnchar@earthlink.net>; "chuck sten" <sten@san.rr.com>; "ken
> mckeown" <km@faradaylabs.com>; "michael santoro" <michael@kusuma.com>;
"troy
> allison" <allisont@charter.net>; <azbengal@msn.com>;
<teddunlap@outdrs.net>;
> <LHbeaty@prodigy.net>; <libnw@immosys.com>;
> <idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>; <GWilmoth@itd.state.id.us>;
> <realtor@idahojoe.com>; <realtor@idahojoe.com>; <robbi@velocitus.net>;
> <melissa5152@yahoo.com>; <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>;
> <pignotti@worldnet.att.net>; <gswann@presenceofmind.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 7:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Cain's World: A Just and Libertarian War
>
>
> > Wes, Others,
> >
> > I read "A Just & Libertarian War", as recommended by Monica, the faith
> > healer. I'm gonna do a 'stream-of-consciousness' response.
> >
> > First, I would like to see Saddam dead. Yup, I'd shoot himself myself
if
> > could, and pay with my life. BUT THAT DOES *NOT* MEAN THAT I BELIEVE
THIS
> > IS A 'JUST & LIBERTARIAN WAR! Far, far, far from it!
> >
> > Second, I will agree, with Greg Swann, that there *will* be a war, real
> > damned soon in fact. And I figure it will be an easy 'victory' in the
> > short-run, with it costing the U.S. tax-slaves only $2-3 hundred billion
> > (peanuts for a productive 'free-market' economy, eh? Cheap for a
fascist
> > state, even, I'd say, given the oil reserves of Iraq - 2nd largest on
the
> > Earth). BUT THIS WAR HAS NOTING TO DO WITH JUSTICE, LIBERTY, OR
> > LIBERTARIANISM.
> >
> > Athens was once a 'democracy'. It got itself so filled with hubris it
> > decided it could run the known Earth with its imperial edicts. After a
> > roughly thirty-year war with Sparta, it fell to the barbarians, bankrupt
> > financally and spritually. I just was reminded of Lisistrada last
night.
> > The play in which Athens women threatened no sex for their husbands
unless
> > they gave up trying to rule the world with war. Unfortunatley there
> enough
> > sluts that Athens fell, anyway.
> >
> > And then there was Rome, 'with all roads leading to it'. It is as
nearly
> a
> > duplicate of the U.S. as I can think of - and it fell to the barbarians.
> >
> > And now the U.S. state claims to rule the Earth in the name of liberty,
> when
> > it has no more interest in liberty than Rome or Athens had.
> >
> > So, some random thoughts:
> >
> > According to Imprimis, a war-hawk, conservative publication, the U.S.
> > military annual budget exceeds the **combined budgets** of it's
> > **TWENTY!!!** nearest competitors. There are 70,000 U.S. troops in
> > Germany!! Why???!!! Not to even mention the rest of the Earth,
including
> > 35,000 in S. Korea. Think about it, Wes. It's nothing but imperialism,
> > with nothing to do with liberty. Nothing!!!
> >
> > As the U.S. state prepares to rule the world with war, it is conducting
an
> > evil war on its own 'citizens'. John Asscroft just invaded the fifty
> > states. Yup, gotta conduct a war internally against those who sell
pipes,
> > and cigarette papers. Three small businesses were shut down in
Pocatello,
> > and it happened statewide, and nationwide, and hardly made the news.
> >
> > AND THIS IS IRAQ THINGO IS A WAR FOR LIBERTY?!!!!!!!
> >
> > GIMIE A BREAK. WHEN THE U.S. State's puppet state is in place in Iraq,
> are
> > folks there gonna have an unbrideled 2nd Ammendent right, and a right to
> > somke dope, or have oral sex. FUCK NO!!! NOT TO MENTION THE REST OF
> > LIBERTY. WHO THE HELL IS THE U.S. STATE TO IMPOSE LIBERTY ON THE WORLD,
> > WHEN IT DOESN'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT SUCH AT HOME??!!
> >
> > The only damned thing Rand could think of to say bad about the sick
horror
> > of the Vietnam War was that she didn't like the draft. Well, I got
gassed
> > by the police protectors of U.S. foriegn policy. And I got
excommunicated
> > by Rand for being a 'commmie' anti-war protestor. I figured that was an
> > honor.
> >
> > And, still, if the U.S. state does it, it's good, so says ARI, and
Kelly.
> >
> > I swear, most Objectivists would have supported the Krups Munitions
Works!
> >
> > So, Wes, very short history here. The sick, evil asshole, the Shah of
> Iran,
> > was installed into power, subverting a democratic election, by the CIA.
> > ***THAT** generated the sickness in Iran, but it was not quite as sick
as
> > the Savak Secret Police had been. The Iraianians taking the u.s.
embassy
> > **was** a 'just and libertarian war"!! - given the Shaw and the Savak,
> > supported by the CIA!!
> >
> > AND!! the CIA installed Saddam in power, and even armed him and
financed
> > him, so long as he was killing Irainians. And, when he'd nearly
bankruted
> > himself doing the U.S. bidding, Kuwait called on him to pay his loaned
war
> > debts. And what the the U.S. Say? Okay, Saddam, "we'll" look the other
> > way, if you invade Iraq. But everybody is a pawn for the U.S. state,
> > including its own 'citizens'. Giving Saddam the okay, the U.S. went to
> war
> > with him nearly the next damned day.
> >
> > And, then, there is the funding by the CIA of Ossama and the Taliban, so
> > long as they were killing Russians!!
> >
> > And, then, there is Columbia, according to Amenisty Ineternationl, the
> worst
> > of the worst!!, comes to human rights. And the U.S. State has recently
> > spent $2 billion buying 'em helicpoters and training their secret
police.
> > Why? To keep Americans from excersing their liberty.
> >
> > I figure Columbia is the U.S. state's next Vietnam. What the hell, it
can
> > fight a war on many fronts, so I've heard. And so Athens said. And so
> Rome
> > said.
> >
> > So, Wes, if you want to go save Iraq from rape by Saddam, do it. But
> don't
> > go writing about "we". Only I get to decided when I will risk my life,
my
> > very small fortune, and my sacred honor. I AIN'T INTERESTED IN SUBDUING
> ONE
> > RAPIST SO'S ANOTHER ONE CAN GO AT HER, IN MY NAME!!!!
> >
> > "A Just & Libertarian War"? ROTFLMAO!!!!
> >
> > As Greg Swann ended his love for war:
> >
> > >> This war is Cain versus Abel. If you're not on the side
> > >> of civilization, you're on the side of savagery.
> >
> > Well, I figure you are right, Greg, given the bullshit either/or.
> > The helluva it is, you can't tell the savages from the barbarians.
> >
> > Remember where that word savages came from, Greg? It was a word used to
> > justify christian manifest destiney as it conducted genocide.
> >
> > But you don't give a "F" about genocide do you, so long as you are on
the
> > side of "liberty & reason", with niether being a justification for your
> > "Just & Libertarian" mutiple wars.
> >
> > So, Wes. Told ya it would be stream-of-consciousness. I've run out of
> > stream, with steam short.
> >
> > Empire has no damned thing to do with liberty. I don't give a "F" what
> the
> > ARI Jews say (and I have nothing against Jews, 'cept for those in ARI,
and
> > those who kicked Palestians out of their homes).
> >
> > LF
> >
> > >> And
> > >> Libertarians don't get a pass just because they're
> > >> politically irrelevant.
> >
> > Ain't it nice being on the winning side, Greg? Lets se how long that
> lasts.
> >
> > If there is a hope of humans, it is liberty. But, you, Greg, have you
> head
> > up the stinky butt of Athens, Rome, and the current U.S. Fascist state.
> >
> > Get you head out of the stinky butt, Gregg.
> >
> >
> > on 2/28/03 8:13 PM, Wes Bertrand at wes@logicallearning.net wrote:
> >
> > > something worth reading, in relation to Objectivism and current
> political
> > > events.
> > >
> > > wes
> > >
> > > p.s., the message is from the nathaniel branden yahoo group list.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Thought Field Therapy
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 16:47:52 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Hi, Gary,

In response to you query about 'though field therapy:

on 3/5/03 11:14 AM, G Triest at garyonthenet@yahoo.com wrote:
> So WTF IS "Thought Field Therapy"?
> Sure does sound a lot like New Age huey.

Well, its much worse than most New Age huey, for one reason, because the
guru, Roger Callahan, and his followers such as Monica claim it is pruely
objective, rational science. While offering *no* science, and nothing but
anecdotes. Monica has paid Callahan $100,000 to be trained by him to be a
"voice technologist" in 'thought field therapy'. That means, so she says,
that if you call her up on the phone she can diagnose any damn psychological
problem there is, and many physical one, and can tell if you have been
subject to toxics in the environmnent. After the diagnosis, she can remove
*all* negative psychological conditions, experiences, and emotion simply by
instructing you, over the phone, to tap on your body in various places, in
a squence which has been determined by her diagnosis, with the sequence
varying, depending the condition. Now, should she fail the first few times,
it is soley because you are experiencing reactions to toxics in the
environment, which requires a longer tapping treatment, and you agreement
not to eat, for example, wheat, or radishes, or what the hell she
determines. And, in the end, if she can't cure you, and that "rarely"
happens, she will refer you to Roger Callahan, "who *never* fails".

If you do a google search on TFT you can turn up lots of stuff real easy.
If you would like more information on how to "tap you way to health" please
let me know. Not too long ago I considered myself a near expert on one of
the biggest peices of huey I've ever ran across. For historical reasons TFT
has been particularily appealing to a small sect of Objectivists, since
Callahan once called himself one, and Monica still does. As a small "o"
objectivist, that sect makes me puke every time I run across it. I've had
many wars with Monica, and in the end they just made me real damned tired.
She's a full-blown nuttso.
>
> Tell me, I really am interested, having created a meditational technique
of
> my own that on first blush would also appear to be New Agey or the
> expressions of a schizophrenic ;-)

Meditation is *good* I figure. But if you start tapping on yourself to cure
yourself from anxiety, ect, ect, ect, not to mention cancer, write me up and
I'll lend you a hammer.

Sincerely,

Larry

>> To those of you Larry sent his latest communication to, given that most
of
>> you are probably not familiar with me and what I do, I need to point out
>> that it contained a slanderous statement of me. I am not a "faith
healer"
>> in any way, shape or form and I have no interest in anything other than
>> rational, scientific practices. Larry chooses to falsely label a new
>> therapy I practice, Thought Field Therapy, endorsed by Nathaniel Branden
>> (which also practices) as "faith healing" when my practice of this
therapy
>> has nothing at all to do with faith, but with the results I predictably
>> get
>> and my work involves scientific validation for a new therapy.
Apparently,
>> Larry has a problem with pioneers trying to forge new territory. My
>> convictions about TFT have nothing whatever to do with "faith" or
>> mysticism.
>>
>> Monica Pignotti
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
>> To: "Wes Bertrand" <wes@logicallearning.net>; "frank boring"
>> <fdboring@aol.com>; "steve platzer" <platzer1@mindspring.com>; "rob
>> aliangan" <robnchar@earthlink.net>; "chuck sten" <sten@san.rr.com>; "ken
>> mckeown" <km@faradaylabs.com>; "michael santoro" <michael@kusuma.com>;
> "troy
>> allison" <allisont@charter.net>; <azbengal@msn.com>;
> <teddunlap@outdrs.net>;
>> <LHbeaty@prodigy.net>; <libnw@immosys.com>;
>> <idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>; <GWilmoth@itd.state.id.us>;
>> <realtor@idahojoe.com>; <realtor@idahojoe.com>; <robbi@velocitus.net>;
>> <melissa5152@yahoo.com>; <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>;
>> <pignotti@worldnet.att.net>; <gswann@presenceofmind.net>
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 7:12 PM
>> Subject: Re: Cain's World: A Just and Libertarian War
>>
>>
>>> Wes, Others,
>>>
>>> I read "A Just & Libertarian War", as recommended by Monica, the faith
>>> healer. I'm gonna do a 'stream-of-consciousness' response.
>>>
>>> First, I would like to see Saddam dead. Yup, I'd shoot himself myself
> if
>>> could, and pay with my life. BUT THAT DOES *NOT* MEAN THAT I BELIEVE
> THIS
>>> IS A 'JUST & LIBERTARIAN WAR! Far, far, far from it!
>>>
>>> Second, I will agree, with Greg Swann, that there *will* be a war, real
>>> damned soon in fact. And I figure it will be an easy 'victory' in the
>>> short-run, with it costing the U.S. tax-slaves only $2-3 hundred billion
>>> (peanuts for a productive 'free-market' economy, eh? Cheap for a
> fascist
>>> state, even, I'd say, given the oil reserves of Iraq - 2nd largest on
> the
>>> Earth). BUT THIS WAR HAS NOTING TO DO WITH JUSTICE, LIBERTY, OR
>>> LIBERTARIANISM.
>>>
>>> Athens was once a 'democracy'. It got itself so filled with hubris it
>>> decided it could run the known Earth with its imperial edicts. After a
>>> roughly thirty-year war with Sparta, it fell to the barbarians, bankrupt
>>> financally and spritually. I just was reminded of Lisistrada last
> night.
>>> The play in which Athens women threatened no sex for their husbands
> unless
>>> they gave up trying to rule the world with war. Unfortunatley there
>> enough
>>> sluts that Athens fell, anyway.
>>>
>>> And then there was Rome, 'with all roads leading to it'. It is as
> nearly
>> a
>>> duplicate of the U.S. as I can think of - and it fell to the barbarians.
>>>
>>> And now the U.S. state claims to rule the Earth in the name of liberty,
>> when
>>> it has no more interest in liberty than Rome or Athens had.
>>>
>>> So, some random thoughts:
>>>
>>> According to Imprimis, a war-hawk, conservative publication, the U.S.
>>> military annual budget exceeds the **combined budgets** of it's
>>> **TWENTY!!!** nearest competitors. There are 70,000 U.S. troops in
>>> Germany!! Why???!!! Not to even mention the rest of the Earth,
> including
>>> 35,000 in S. Korea. Think about it, Wes. It's nothing but imperialism,
>>> with nothing to do with liberty. Nothing!!!
>>>
>>> As the U.S. state prepares to rule the world with war, it is conducting
> an
>>> evil war on its own 'citizens'. John Asscroft just invaded the fifty
>>> states. Yup, gotta conduct a war internally against those who sell
> pipes,
>>> and cigarette papers. Three small businesses were shut down in
> Pocatello,
>>> and it happened statewide, and nationwide, and hardly made the news.
>>>
>>> AND THIS IS IRAQ THINGO IS A WAR FOR LIBERTY?!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> GIMIE A BREAK. WHEN THE U.S. State's puppet state is in place in Iraq,
>> are
>>> folks there gonna have an unbrideled 2nd Ammendent right, and a right to
>>> somke dope, or have oral sex. FUCK NO!!! NOT TO MENTION THE REST OF
>>> LIBERTY. WHO THE HELL IS THE U.S. STATE TO IMPOSE LIBERTY ON THE WORLD,
>>> WHEN IT DOESN'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT SUCH AT HOME??!!
>>>
>>> The only damned thing Rand could think of to say bad about the sick
> horror
>>> of the Vietnam War was that she didn't like the draft. Well, I got
> gassed
>>> by the police protectors of U.S. foriegn policy. And I got
> excommunicated
>>> by Rand for being a 'commmie' anti-war protestor. I figured that was an
>>> honor.
>>>
>>> And, still, if the U.S. state does it, it's good, so says ARI, and
> Kelly.
>>>
>>> I swear, most Objectivists would have supported the Krups Munitions
> Works!
>>>
>>> So, Wes, very short history here. The sick, evil asshole, the Shah of
>> Iran,
>>> was installed into power, subverting a democratic election, by the CIA.
>>> ***THAT** generated the sickness in Iran, but it was not quite as sick
> as
>>> the Savak Secret Police had been. The Iraianians taking the u.s.
> embassy
>>> **was** a 'just and libertarian war"!! - given the Shaw and the Savak,
>>> supported by the CIA!!
>>>
>>> AND!! the CIA installed Saddam in power, and even armed him and
> financed
>>> him, so long as he was killing Irainians. And, when he'd nearly
> bankruted
>>> himself doing the U.S. bidding, Kuwait called on him to pay his loaned
> war
>>> debts. And what the the U.S. Say? Okay, Saddam, "we'll" look the other
>>> way, if you invade Iraq. But everybody is a pawn for the U.S. state,
>>> including its own 'citizens'. Giving Saddam the okay, the U.S. went to
>> war
>>> with him nearly the next damned day.
>>>
>>> And, then, there is the funding by the CIA of Ossama and the Taliban, so
>>> long as they were killing Russians!!
>>>
>>> And, then, there is Columbia, according to Amenisty Ineternationl, the
>> worst
>>> of the worst!!, comes to human rights. And the U.S. State has recently
>>> spent $2 billion buying 'em helicpoters and training their secret
> police.
>>> Why? To keep Americans from excersing their liberty.
>>>
>>> I figure Columbia is the U.S. state's next Vietnam. What the hell, it
> can
>>> fight a war on many fronts, so I've heard. And so Athens said. And so
>> Rome
>>> said.
>>>
>>> So, Wes, if you want to go save Iraq from rape by Saddam, do it. But
>> don't
>>> go writing about "we". Only I get to decided when I will risk my life,
> my
>>> very small fortune, and my sacred honor. I AIN'T INTERESTED IN SUBDUING
>> ONE
>>> RAPIST SO'S ANOTHER ONE CAN GO AT HER, IN MY NAME!!!!
>>>
>>> "A Just & Libertarian War"? ROTFLMAO!!!!
>>>
>>> As Greg Swann ended his love for war:
>>>
>>>>> This war is Cain versus Abel. If you're not on the side
>>>>> of civilization, you're on the side of savagery.
>>>
>>> Well, I figure you are right, Greg, given the bullshit either/or.
>>> The helluva it is, you can't tell the savages from the barbarians.
>>>
>>> Remember where that word savages came from, Greg? It was a word used to
>>> justify christian manifest destiney as it conducted genocide.
>>>
>>> But you don't give a "F" about genocide do you, so long as you are on
> the
>>> side of "liberty & reason", with niether being a justification for your
>>> "Just & Libertarian" mutiple wars.
>>>
>>> So, Wes. Told ya it would be stream-of-consciousness. I've run out of
>>> stream, with steam short.
>>>
>>> Empire has no damned thing to do with liberty. I don't give a "F" what
>> the
>>> ARI Jews say (and I have nothing against Jews, 'cept for those in ARI,
> and
>>> those who kicked Palestians out of their homes).
>>>
>>> LF
>>>
>>>>> And
>>>>> Libertarians don't get a pass just because they're
>>>>> politically irrelevant.
>>>
>>> Ain't it nice being on the winning side, Greg? Lets se how long that
>> lasts.
>>>
>>> If there is a hope of humans, it is liberty. But, you, Greg, have you
>> head
>>> up the stinky butt of Athens, Rome, and the current U.S. Fascist state.
>>>
>>> Get you head out of the stinky butt, Gregg.
>>>
>>>
>>> on 2/28/03 8:13 PM, Wes Bertrand at wes@logicallearning.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> something worth reading, in relation to Objectivism and current
>> political
>>>> events.
>>>>
>>>> wes
>>>>
>>>> p.s., the message is from the nathaniel branden yahoo group list.
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>>
>> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>>
>> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Thought Field Therapy
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:23:32 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Larry:

Jeesh. That does sound way over the top, even for New Age treatments. This
is more on the order of Cleo the Jamaican Psychic. A notch worse than
chromotherapy.
And yet, there are $100K's moving around because of it? Hmmm. If only I
could get in on some of that action ;-)

No, my meditational technique doesn't involve tapping oneself to cure
anything. Rather it is a spatio-visual method for reifying one's own
thought/feelings/motional actions into something more tangible and
manipulable. Basically anything that your brain does becomes viewable and
manipulable, on the order of when during brain surgery the surgeon plays
around with the patient's universe by directly stimulating spot on the
brain. The main differences is that it is the meditating person who is in
control of what is being stimulated/manipulated, the spot is not just a
random guess but rather something of inquiry in context, and there is a lot
more feedback as to what it means, and what is therapeutic.
Eventually, it does not require meditation to do these things, and it
becomes second nature. I haven't strongly prosyletized it yet, because
although I got all the viewing/reifying down pat, I haven't been able to
capture full control and make therapeutic level changes.
There is a whole backdrop and perspective that underlies the whole
technique, as well as a number of precepts/observations.
The one nice thing about it all, is that is totally devoid of mysticism
(although I must say it might lend itself to mysticism in trying to
extrapolate the extent of the experience, particularly to non-scientific
types or less rigorous thinkers, but that is just reaching my opinion).
I have called it Autology. Feh. Has all the trappings of another New Age
fad. When I get it working then I will feel more enthusiastic about it.

----- Original Message -----
From: "larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: Thought Field Therapy

> Hi, Gary,
>
> In response to you query about 'though field therapy:
>
> on 3/5/03 11:14 AM, G Triest at garyonthenet@yahoo.com wrote:
> > So WTF IS "Thought Field Therapy"?
> > Sure does sound a lot like New Age huey.
>
> Well, its much worse than most New Age huey, for one reason, because the
> guru, Roger Callahan, and his followers such as Monica claim it is pruely
> objective, rational science. While offering *no* science, and nothing but
> anecdotes. Monica has paid Callahan $100,000 to be trained by him to be a
> "voice technologist" in 'thought field therapy'. That means, so she says,
> that if you call her up on the phone she can diagnose any damn
psychological
> problem there is, and many physical one, and can tell if you have been
> subject to toxics in the environmnent. After the diagnosis, she can
remove
> *all* negative psychological conditions, experiences, and emotion simply
by
> instructing you, over the phone, to tap on your body in various places, in
> a squence which has been determined by her diagnosis, with the sequence
> varying, depending the condition. Now, should she fail the first few
times,
> it is soley because you are experiencing reactions to toxics in the
> environment, which requires a longer tapping treatment, and you agreement
> not to eat, for example, wheat, or radishes, or what the hell she
> determines. And, in the end, if she can't cure you, and that "rarely"
> happens, she will refer you to Roger Callahan, "who *never* fails".
>
> If you do a google search on TFT you can turn up lots of stuff real easy.
> If you would like more information on how to "tap you way to health"
please
> let me know. Not too long ago I considered myself a near expert on one of
> the biggest peices of huey I've ever ran across. For historical reasons
TFT
> has been particularily appealing to a small sect of Objectivists, since
> Callahan once called himself one, and Monica still does. As a small "o"
> objectivist, that sect makes me puke every time I run across it. I've had
> many wars with Monica, and in the end they just made me real damned tired.
> She's a full-blown nuttso.
> >
> > Tell me, I really am interested, having created a meditational technique
of
> > my own that on first blush would also appear to be New Agey or the
> > expressions of a schizophrenic ;-)
>
> Meditation is *good* I figure. But if you start tapping on yourself to
cure
> yourself from anxiety, ect, ect, ect, not to mention cancer, write me up
and
> I'll lend you a hammer.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Larry
>
>
> >> To those of you Larry sent his latest communication to, given that most
of
> >> you are probably not familiar with me and what I do, I need to point
out
> >> that it contained a slanderous statement of me. I am not a "faith
healer"
> >> in any way, shape or form and I have no interest in anything other than
> >> rational, scientific practices. Larry chooses to falsely label a new
> >> therapy I practice, Thought Field Therapy, endorsed by Nathaniel
Branden
> >> (which also practices) as "faith healing" when my practice of this
therapy
> >> has nothing at all to do with faith, but with the results I predictably
> >> get
> >> and my work involves scientific validation for a new therapy.
Apparently,
> >> Larry has a problem with pioneers trying to forge new territory. My
> >> convictions about TFT have nothing whatever to do with "faith" or
> >> mysticism.
> >>
> >> Monica Pignotti
> >>
> >>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: beating a dead horse....
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 18:16:46 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank,

Of the five messages from you, which you reconstructed, I'd read none of
them.

Worse than that, I'd recieved *none* of the messages to which you were
responding, and reading them, it was apparent that some communications I
have sent to the list have not been posted.

Hummmmm, why was it you left Yahoo? I've never noticed a problem there.

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: spatio-visual thought/feeling/emotional manipulation...
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 20:25:36 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Hi, Gary,

interspersed below:

on 3/5/03 6:23 PM, G Triest at garyonthenet@yahoo.com wrote:
> Larry:
>
> Jeesh. That does sound way over the top, even for New Age treatments. This
> is more on the order of Cleo the Jamaican Psychic. A notch worse than
> chromotherapy.
> And yet, there are $100K's moving around because of it? Hmmm. If only I
> could get in on some of that action ;-)

Well, first ya gotta come up with a catchy name. Callahan didn't start
making big bucks 'till he changed his "one-minute phobia cure" to "thought
field therapy", and started claiming he could cure heart problems and cancer
and nearly everything else.

I've read enough of the tftrs that I figure I can write in "callahaneze".
Want to go into business? I've been called cranky. Maybe that means I'd
make a good crank? And Bill routinely claims I'm a charlatan. I've got
credentials already, eh? Now, Callahan sells baldness cures and vitamins
to those who he can't cure by tapping, though he's never admitted to a
non-cure, except for those 'patients' who fail to follow his instructions -
so the 'non-cure' is their own damned fault. Wanna sell baldness cures,
too, on the side?

Now, don't go worrying about fraud, as a libertarian. The way Robert and
Bill define liberty and rights, we'd be doing nothing but exerciseing our
liberty in a context where rights, if there are any are, defined soley by
the state (and it hasn't arrested Callahan).

In fact, maybe we could get Robert and Bill to join the corporation. The
longer the line of BS we have, the more money we'll make. Wanna be rich?

Anyway, I truly did find your 'meditation' technique intriguging, as a
tool. I'm torn between asking you to prosyletize me before you get all
the bugs worked out, or waiting 'till you've smoothed all of the wrinkles
and want to charge me $100K (grin). Could I maybe get some kind of cheap
'grandfather rights'?

Uhh, if you want to write me about it privately, I'd be a test 'prosylite'
for free - meaning I won't charge you, if you won't charge me (grin).

larry
>
> No, my meditational technique doesn't involve tapping oneself to cure
> anything. Rather it is a spatio-visual method for reifying one's own
> thought/feelings/motional actions into something more tangible and
> manipulable. Basically anything that your brain does becomes viewable and
> manipulable, on the order of when during brain surgery the surgeon plays
> around with the patient's universe by directly stimulating spot on the
> brain. The main differences is that it is the meditating person who is in
> control of what is being stimulated/manipulated, the spot is not just a
> random guess but rather something of inquiry in context, and there is a
lot
> more feedback as to what it means, and what is therapeutic.
> Eventually, it does not require meditation to do these things, and it
> becomes second nature. I haven't strongly prosyletized it yet, because
> although I got all the viewing/reifying down pat, I haven't been able to
> capture full control and make therapeutic level changes.
> There is a whole backdrop and perspective that underlies the whole
> technique, as well as a number of precepts/observations.
> The one nice thing about it all, is that is totally devoid of mysticism
> (although I must say it might lend itself to mysticism in trying to
> extrapolate the extent of the experience, particularly to non-scientific
> types or less rigorous thinkers, but that is just reaching my opinion).
> I have called it Autology. Feh. Has all the trappings of another New Age
> fad. When I get it working then I will feel more enthusiastic about it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Problem must have been resolved...
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:47:05 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings everyone!

Don't know what the problem was with immosys.com, but I just received a
bundle of 45 messages, many dated ones including my repeats, into Liberty
Northwest a moment ago. Whatever the problem was, must now have been
resolved.

Kindest regards,
Frank

_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Frank/Robert - Re: bill - Re: LIBERTY!!! - Re: your turn
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 21:56:57 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank, Robert, Others,

First, Frank, you have interpereted Robert the same way I have.

He writes about liberty, and defines it as the freedom of someone
who is not in jail (want the quotes, Robert?). He wrote a few days
ago "what's so hard to understand about someone going to jail loosing
their liberty?". Well, Robert, when Ted Bundy killed the first woman,
he lost all ****moral**** claim to liberty. Just because someone
finally caught up with him, and prevented him from running around
loose murdering others does not mean the folks who did that deprived
him of liberty. He did that himself, with his own actions, by abridging
the principle of liberty. But I know, you claim there are no moral
principles by which to define the perp and the victim. Nor any moral
principles by which to define liberty, except for running around looose.
For you, liberty just means do what the "f" you want, to whoever you want -
just don't get caught. And for you, Hitler had a **right** to burn 6-million
Jews. But you did admit that you don't like **all** rights granted by the
state. You pick and choose. But like Bill, how you pick and choose has not
been explicated, in the context you argue for.

"Hitler had a state granted "right" ", you wrote,"but that doen't mean I
like **that** right".

WELL, ROBERT, HOW THE 'F' DO YOU DISTINGUISH WHAT YOU LIKE FROM WHAT YOU
DON'T LIKE??!!

HUH, ROBERT, HUH, HUH, HUH, HOW THE HELL DO YOU DO THAT??!!

Anyway, I'm leaving Franks comments in place, 'cause they are so
right-on. I got more to say to Robert, interspersed below.

on 3/5/03 8:00 AM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

> "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com> wrote in part:
>
>> If libertarians have no moral base for human liberty,
>> then we have no basis at all for such liberty accept as applied by
>> brute
>> force. According to YOU, you base all such rights, as they are, only
>> on the
>> basis of government force. If some government code grants such
>> rights, then
>> well and good. There is no basis therefore in saying that these
>> rights are
>> right versus wrong. A government code says they are right. If any
>> government
>> does not support such rights, then you still have no rational basis
>> for
>> claiming at all that such rights exist for all humanity, including
>> yourself,
>> except if you are strong and powerful enough to use brute force to
>> give you the liberty that you want for yourself.
>
> I don't claim that rights exist in some super-governmental sense, no.

Criminee, Robert, we all know that. Write with something new, eh?!

Given you BS, it is more than obvious that you have a bigtime problem with
"government rests on the consent of the governed"! How the hell can those
humans who have no claim to liberty or rights, if not implemented by
government, consent to any damned thing??!!! THEY HAVE NO 'RIGHT' TO, EH,
SO YOU WRITE, SINCE RIGHTS ARE DETERMINED BY GOVERNMENT, EVEN THOUGH YOU
'DON'T LIKE' SOME GOVERNMENT'S DEFINITION OF "RIGHTS". WONDER WHY????

You've written that a woman defending herself from rape is violating the
"liberty" of the rapist, and forcing her will on him. How the "F" sick
is that, Robert, given your bullshit definitions??!! She has a "right"
to do that, only because that state has sanctioned it??!! Well, lots of
state's have sanctioned rape of females by males, even today. Is that one
of those "rights" you don't like??!! - with no ***reason*** presented for
"not liking".

> What I do is state what I WANT there to be in terms of rights, and use
> the same methods of persuasion that I would in any other interaction
> with human beings.

Who gives a "F" what *****"you want"***** in terms of rights, when you have
written there is **no** such thing as rights, except as defined by the
state??!!
>
> You don't get anywhere in terms of persuasion by stating to other
> people, "I'm right (i.e. THIS is "right" in some sense that transcends
> either of our thinking), and you're wrong, now do as I say!"

Well, siccko, MURDER IS WRONG, i don't give a "F" what the state says about
that, or you. It's a "F" moral fact!! Now, it's true, it took humans a
long time to get to that conclusion, but it is now supported by vast under-
pinnings of evidence/argument.

But you don't give a "f" about argument/evidence/morality.

You're real peed, wetting you pants, that some folks say murder and rape is
*wrong*.

Well, dummie, i never though i'd have to argue the case in a libs group,
that murder & rape is *****wrong******. Sorry you need so damned much
evidence for the claim!!

> Rather,
> you present to other people, "Consider the advantages..." of hiring you,
> buying your goods, loving you, or adopting a certain set of rights.

Ohh, really, Robert. And **why** do you argue for "the advantages"?
Because they're a ***good****!! - especially in terms of "adopting a
certain set of rights". Why that set, Robert?! Why?!. Do you have any
damned thing to say, to support your "good" advantages, given that you have
argued humans have no damned role, only government does. Why the hell do
you argue for a "certain set of rights", while you deny the concept has any
meaning, outside of government??!!

You, dummie, dilettante, argue for the "good" of advantages, while truly
denying that "good" or "advantages" have any meaning, cannot be proven, and
are totally disconnected from evidence/proof/natural law/ and reality.

You don't get to argue against all moral terms, and then "f" sneak 'em in
the backdoor when it suits you. That just makes you a hypocrite, and worse.
>
> If you can show that societies which adopted certain rules (rights) have
> been more pleasant ones to live in than those that adopted others (r
> none at all), then those are the terms you should state it in.

Ohh, you mean the evidence presented by those who argued that "all humans
have an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness",
with the evidence in.

And, Robert, why should that be true, with the evidence, except for humans,
some of them, recognizing, among other things, that murder and rape are
**wrong**? But you claim that word "wrong" has no value, and begs the
question. You prefer the word "advantages" when your sick argument that
there is no **good** gets to hot for you.

> I guess
> you could say history was an experiment by which "rights" (defined as
> the best set of legal-rights) have been "discovered", but it's far
> clearer to say history shows certain legal-rights to give more pleasant
> results than other legal-rights.

Ohh, and here he is using pleasant, instead of "good"!!

Is "pleasant" a "good", Robert?? And **pleasant** to who??!!. You "F'ing"
beg that question, too!!. Is "pleasant" to be defined by government, as
rights are, so you argue. Or do we humans have a moral **right** to define
"pleasant" for ourselves??!!

> In Your Sly Tribe,

you ain't in my tribe!!!!!!!!!, you "sly" slippery, win at any cost, a.
hole, with very little reason to speak,

> Robert

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: not for me - Re: Problem must have been resolved...
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 22:00:16 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

WEll, frank,

Glad your problem is resolved. Mine ain't. I ain't got the "bundle".

Maybe you'd send it to me??!!

LF

on 3/5/03 6:47 PM, Frank M. Reichert at frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com wrote:

> Greetings everyone!
>
> Don't know what the problem was with immosys.com, but I just received a
> bundle of 45 messages, many dated ones including my repeats, into Liberty
> Northwest a moment ago. Whatever the problem was, must now have been
> resolved.
>
> Kindest regards,
> Frank
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
> "The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
> the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
> To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>
> Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org
>
> ...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Paris, Frank.......
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 22:17:52 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Sorry, Frank,

That you were so mistified by a post or two which made it through from me.

I dunno whose 'fault' it was, but I know it wasn't mine.

*********************

Uhh, Folks,

Check out Paris.

That "nigger" will tell ya where I got my obscenity, vulgarity, and
profanity.

Click on "what would you do", and swoon, after it takes a bit to load.

LF

http://www.guerrillafunk.com/paris/sonic_jihad/

PLEASE, FRANK, IF YOU GIT THIS, CLICK ON THE ABOVE. I WILL TAKE SOME TIME
TO LOAD. I GURANTEE THE VALUE. LOOK FOR "WHAT WOULD YOU DO??".

LARRY


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Paris, Frank.......
Date: 05 Mar 2003 11:44:41 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 23:17, larry fullmer wrote:
> Sorry, Frank,
>
> That you were so mistified by a post or two which made it through from me.
>
> I dunno whose 'fault' it was, but I know it wasn't mine.

You forwarded (it appears) a message from somewhere else (it did say so
in the message)and you "replied" to it here. Yeah some people would get
confused, and think you were replying to something that was sent here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Bill makes friends withMonica - puke!!!
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 00:29:16 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

The Message is in the subjectline, what with the tapper, Monica, accepted by
Bill.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, eh, Bill?

And with very little info. you've signed on with Monica, the "tap your way
to psychological health" person. Wanna borrow my hamnmer, Billy??

lf

on 3/5/03 10:59 AM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:

> On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 09:51, Monica Pignotti wrote:
>> To those of you Larry sent his latest communication to, given that most
of
>> you are probably not familiar with me and what I do, I need to point out
>> that it contained a slanderous statement of me. I am not a "faith
healer"
>> in any way, shape or form and I have no interest in anything other than
>> rational, scientific practices. Larry chooses to falsely label a new
>> therapy I practice, Thought Field Therapy, endorsed by Nathaniel Branden
>> (which also practices) as "faith healing" when my practice of this
therapy
>> has nothing at all to do with faith, but with the results I predictably
get
>> and my work involves scientific validation for a new therapy.
Apparently,
>> Larry has a problem with pioneers trying to forge new territory. My
>> convictions about TFT have nothing whatever to do with "faith" or
mysticism.
>>
>> Monica Pignotti
>
> Thanks for the udpate. I pretty well have learned to ignore larry, as he
> has a strong tendency to do just what you said. Still, it is good to
> hear the reality, thank you.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Bill makes friends withMonica - puke!!!
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 00:30:40 PST
From: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
To: larry fullmer <libnw@immosys.com>

On 06-Mar-03, larry fullmer wrote:

lf> The Message is in the subjectline, what with the tapper, Monica,
lf> accepted by Bill.

lf> The enemy of my enemy is my friend, eh, Bill?

lf> And with very little info. you've signed on with Monica, the "tap your
lf> way to psychological health" person. Wanna borrow my hamnmer, Billy??

How is this on-topic in LibNW?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Mystery solved, Bill _ Re: ALLAN - Re: Cain's World: A Just and
Libertarian War
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 00:52:02 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Bill,

I ain't claiming it's your "fault", but I only got through with a very few
messages last night.

If the context wasn't there, IT WAS NOT MY 'FAULT'.

I SENT EARLIER MESSAGES, AND TRIED AGAIN TONIGHT, WITH THE CONTEXT.

You worte:

> I never saw anything from Allan whoever it is either.
> Tami said she saw the same post elsewhere (larry's group I believe), and
> asked me if I had any idea who Larry was talking about. Looking at the
> bottom non-larry part, it looks like it came from somewhere else:

BS, Bill, it was a communication I posted to this very group, twice, last
night!! And I've tried again, tonight.

> I never saw anything from Allan whoever it is either.
> Tami said she saw the same post elsewhere (larry's group I believe), and
> asked me if I had any idea who Larry was talking about. Looking at the
> bottom non-larry part, it looks like it came from somewhere else:

Hey, Ya, Bill, most of the words were my own, but for some damned reason the
immune system identified me as the enemy.

>

on 3/5/03 4:33 AM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:

> On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 04:14, Frank M. Reichert wrote:
>> Greetings again Larry!
>>
>> Larry Fullmer wrote to Allan...
>>
>>> Sorry to hear about your father. Sorry to think you & I will be there
>>> someday soon. Enjoy while we can, eh?
>>
>> This is an entire conversation that I have NOT been privy to over the
last
>> couple of days. I haven't seen anything that preceded it. Did this too
>> occur on Liberty Northwest. If so, then please remember I've been
blacked
>> out over the last 48 hours or so from receiving any traffic as such.
Wished
>> I knew where this was coming from.
>
> I never saw anything from Allan whoever it is either.
> Tami said she saw the same post elsewhere (larry's group I believe), and
> asked me if I had any idea who Larry was talking about. Looking at the
> bottom non-larry part, it looks like it came from somewhere else:

uhh, yeah Bill, it was a forward, with mostly my words!!! Is that against
the rules, or was it just the position of the stars, what with no one
wanting to take responsibility for the crash of libsnw.

Bill wrote:

> p.s., the message is from the nathaniel branden yahoo group list.

> Which would be why we didn't see any of it here.

Bullshit, Bill, that doesn't explain any damned thing!!!!!!

I've posted the "forward" containing mostly my original words, three damned
times now, and so far, there's been no damned evidence I've made it through
once.

> Which would be why we didn't see any of it here.

Uhh, Bill, i dunno who's a 'fault' here, and I don't even care. But if your
above expalantion is what you hold to, you are full-of-shit!!!!!!!!

I posted it three gawd times, and your ***explanation***:

> Which would be why we didn't see any of it here.

Is pure "f'ing", BS!!!

What the hey, I'll risk boring the group with a forth post. Ain't my
responsibilty.

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Mystery solved, Bill _ Re: ALLAN - Re: Cain's World: A Just
and Libertarian War
Date: 05 Mar 2003 11:48:50 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 01:52, larry fullmer wrote:
> Bill,
>
> I ain't claiming it's your "fault", but I only got through with a very few
> messages last night.
>
> If the context wasn't there, IT WAS NOT MY 'FAULT'.

No, but the misunderstanding was your *doing*.

>
> I SENT EARLIER MESSAGES, AND TRIED AGAIN TONIGHT, WITH THE CONTEXT.
>
> You worte:
>
> > I never saw anything from Allan whoever it is either.
> > Tami said she saw the same post elsewhere (larry's group I believe), and
> > asked me if I had any idea who Larry was talking about. Looking at the
> > bottom non-larry part, it looks like it came from somewhere else:
>
> BS, Bill, it was a communication I posted to this very group, twice, last
> night!! And I've tried again, tonight.
>
> > I never saw anything from Allan whoever it is either.
> > Tami said she saw the same post elsewhere (larry's group I believe), and
> > asked me if I had any idea who Larry was talking about. Looking at the
> > bottom non-larry part, it looks like it came from somewhere else:
>
> Hey, Ya, Bill, most of the words were my own, but for some damned reason
the
> immune system identified me as the enemy.
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> on 3/5/03 4:33 AM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 04:14, Frank M. Reichert wrote:
> >> Greetings again Larry!
> >>
> >> Larry Fullmer wrote to Allan...
> >>
> >>> Sorry to hear about your father. Sorry to think you & I will be there
> >>> someday soon. Enjoy while we can, eh?
> >>
> >> This is an entire conversation that I have NOT been privy to over the
last
> >> couple of days. I haven't seen anything that preceded it. Did this
too
> >> occur on Liberty Northwest. If so, then please remember I've been
blacked
> >> out over the last 48 hours or so from receiving any traffic as such.
Wished
> >> I knew where this was coming from.
> >
> > I never saw anything from Allan whoever it is either.
> > Tami said she saw the same post elsewhere (larry's group I believe), and
> > asked me if I had any idea who Larry was talking about. Looking at the
> > bottom non-larry part, it looks like it came from somewhere else:
>
> uhh, yeah Bill, it was a forward, with mostly my words!!! Is that against
> the rules, or was it just the position of the stars, what with no one
> wanting to take responsibility for the crash of libsnw.

1) there was no crash.
2) you forwarded something from somewhere else, not a problem except
that you failed to identify it as such, and Frank thought it was a reply
to something that originated here.

>
> Bill wrote:
>
> > p.s., the message is from the nathaniel branden yahoo group list.
>
> > Which would be why we didn't see any of it here.
>
> Bullshit, Bill, that doesn't explain any damned thing!!!!!!
>
> I've posted the "forward" containing mostly my original words, three
damned
> times now, and so far, there's been no damned evidence I've made it
through
> once.

I've seen it every time, and it' sin the archives. it *does* explain why
we didn't see what you FORWARDED in it's original form, however.

>
> > Which would be why we didn't see any of it here.
>
> Uhh, Bill, i dunno who's a 'fault' here, and I don't even care. But if
your
> above expalantion is what you hold to, you are full-of-shit!!!!!!!!
>
> I posted it three gawd times, and your ***explanation***:
>
> > Which would be why we didn't see any of it here.
>
> Is pure "f'ing", BS!!!
>
> What the hey, I'll risk boring the group with a forth post. Ain't my
> responsibilty.

If you don;t take responsibility for your own actions, how can you
expect people to accept you as a libertarian.

Obviously it went through since Frank replied to it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: 4th damned time!!! - Re: Cain's World: A Just and Libertarian
War
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 00:56:51 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

So, Folks,

For the 4th gawd-damned time!!, with Bill claiming to be mystified:
>
> on 3/4/03 7:12 PM, larry fullmer at lfullmer1@cableone.net wrote:
>
>> Wes, Others,
>>
>> I read "A Just & Libertarian War", as recommended by Monica, the faith
>> healer. I'm gonna do a 'stream-of-consciousness' response.
>>
>> First, I would like to see Saddam dead. Yup, I'd shoot himself myself if
>> could, and pay with my life. BUT THAT DOES *NOT* MEAN THAT I BELIEVE
THIS
>> IS A 'JUST & LIBERTARIAN WAR! Far, far, far from it!
>>
>> Second, I will agree, with Greg Swann, that there *will* be a war, real
>> damned soon in fact. And I figure it will be an easy 'victory' in the
>> short-run, with it costing the U.S. tax-slaves only $2-3 hundred billion
>> (peanuts for a productive 'free-market' economy, eh? Cheap for a fascist
>> state, even, I'd say, given the oil reserves of Iraq - 2nd largest on the
>> Earth). BUT THIS WAR HAS NOTING TO DO WITH JUSTICE, LIBERTY, OR
>> LIBERTARIANISM.
>>
>> Athens was once a 'democracy'. It got itself so filled with hubris it
>> decided it could run the known Earth with its imperial edicts. After a
>> roughly thirty-year war with Sparta, it fell to the barbarians, bankrupt
>> financally and spritually. I just was reminded of Lisistrada last night.
>> The play in which Athens women threatened no sex for their husbands
unless
>> they gave up trying to rule the world with war. Unfortunatley there
enough
>> sluts that Athens fell, anyway.
>>
>> And then there was Rome, 'with all roads leading to it'. It is as nearly
a
>> duplicate of the U.S. as I can think of - and it fell to the barbarians.
>>
>> And now the U.S. state claims to rule the Earth in the name of liberty,
when
>> it has no more interest in liberty than Rome or Athens had.
>>
>> So, some random thoughts:
>>
>> According to Imprimis, a war-hawk, conservative publication, the U.S.
>> military annual budget exceeds the **combined budgets** of it's
>> **TWENTY!!!** nearest competitors. There are 70,000 U.S. troops in
>> Germany!! Why???!!! Not to even mention the rest of the Earth,
including
>> 35,000 in S. Korea. Think about it, Wes. It's nothing but imperialism,
>> with nothing to do with liberty. Nothing!!!
>>
>> As the U.S. state prepares to rule the world with war, it is conducting
an
>> evil war on its own 'citizens'. John Asscroft just invaded the fifty
>> states. Yup, gotta conduct a war internally against those who sell
pipes,
>> and cigarette papers. Three small businesses were shut down in
Pocatello,
>> and it happened statewide, and nationwide, and hardly made the news.
>>
>> AND THIS IS IRAQ THINGO IS A WAR FOR LIBERTY?!!!!!!!
>>
>> GIMIE A BREAK. WHEN THE U.S. State's puppet state is in place in Iraq,
are
>> folks there gonna have an unbrideled 2nd Ammendent right, and a right to
>> somke dope, or have oral sex. FUCK NO!!! NOT TO MENTION THE REST OF
>> LIBERTY. WHO THE HELL IS THE U.S. STATE TO IMPOSE LIBERTY ON THE WORLD,
>> WHEN IT DOESN'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT SUCH AT HOME??!!
>>
>> The only damned thing Rand could think of to say bad about the sick
horror
>> of the Vietnam War was that she didn't like the draft. Well, I got
gassed
>> by the police protectors of U.S. foriegn policy. And I got
excommunicated
>> by Rand for being a 'commmie' anti-war protestor. I figured that was an
>> honor.
>>
>> And, still, if the U.S. state does it, it's good, so says ARI, and Kelly.
>>
>> I swear, most Objectivists would have supported the Krups Munitions
Works!
>>
>> So, Wes, very short history here. The sick, evil asshole, the Shah of
Iran,
>> was installed into power, subverting a democratic election, by the CIA.
>> ***THAT** generated the sickness in Iran, but it was not quite as sick as
>> the Savak Secret Police had been. The Iraianians taking the u.s. embassy
>> **was** a 'just and libertarian war"!! - given the Shaw and the Savak,
>> supported by the CIA!!
>>
>> AND!! the CIA installed Saddam in power, and even armed him and financed
>> him, so long as he was killing Irainians. And, when he'd nearly
bankruted
>> himself doing the U.S. bidding, Kuwait called on him to pay his loaned
war
>> debts. And what the the U.S. Say? Okay, Saddam, "we'll" look the other
>> way, if you invade Iraq. But everybody is a pawn for the U.S. state,
>> including its own 'citizens'. Giving Saddam the okay, the U.S. went to
war
>> with him nearly the next damned day.
>>
>> And, then, there is the funding by the CIA of Ossama and the Taliban, so
>> long as they were killing Russians!!
>>
>> And, then, there is Columbia, according to Amenisty Ineternationl, the
worst
>> of the worst!!, comes to human rights. And the U.S. State has recently
>> spent $2 billion buying 'em helicpoters and training their secret police.
>> Why? To keep Americans from excersing their liberty.
>>
>> I figure Columbia is the U.S. state's next Vietnam. What the hell, it
can
>> fight a war on many fronts, so I've heard. And so Athens said. And so
Rome
>> said.
>>
>> So, Wes, if you want to go save Iraq from rape by Saddam, do it. But
don't
>> go writing about "we". Only I get to decided when I will risk my life,
my
>> very small fortune, and my sacred honor. I AIN'T INTERESTED IN SUBDUING
ONE
>> RAPIST SO'S ANOTHER ONE CAN GO AT HER, IN MY NAME!!!!
>>
>> "A Just & Libertarian War"? ROTFLMAO!!!!
>>
>> As Greg Swann ended his love for war:
>>
>>>> This war is Cain versus Abel. If you're not on the side
>>>> of civilization, you're on the side of savagery.
>>
>> Well, I figure you are right, Greg, given the bullshit either/or.
>> The helluva it is, you can't tell the savages from the barbarians.
>>
>> Remember where that word savages came from, Greg? It was a word used to
>> justify christian manifest destiney as it conducted genocide.
>>
>> But you don't give a "F" about genocide do you, so long as you are on the
>> side of "liberty & reason", with niether being a justification for your
>> "Just & Libertarian" mutiple wars.
>>
>> So, Wes. Told ya it would be stream-of-consciousness. I've run out of
>> stream, with steam short.
>>
>> Empire has no damned thing to do with liberty. I don't give a "F" what
the
>> ARI Jews say (and I have nothing against Jews, 'cept for those in ARI,
and
>> those who kicked Palestians out of their homes).
>>
>> LF
>>
>>>> And
>>>> Libertarians don't get a pass just because they're
>>>> politically irrelevant.
>>
>> Ain't it nice being on the winning side, Greg? Lets se how long that
lasts.
>>
>> If there is a hope of humans, it is liberty. But, you, Greg, have you
head
>> up the stinky butt of Athens, Rome, and the current U.S. Fascist state.
>>
>> Get you head out of the stinky butt, Gregg.
>>
>>
>> on 2/28/03 8:13 PM, Wes Bertrand at wes@logicallearning.net wrote:
>>
>>> something worth reading, in relation to Objectivism and current
political
>>> events.
>>>
>>> wes
>>>
>>> p.s., the message is from the nathaniel branden yahoo group list.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Message: 25
>>>> Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 01:57:33 -0000
>>>> From: "mpignotti2001 <pignotti@worldnet.att.net>"
>>>> <pignotti@worldnet.att.net>
>>>> Subject: FWD: Cain's World: A Just and Libertarian War
>>>>
>>>> I just found this essay posted on the newsgroup
>>>> humanities.philosophy.objectivism and since he gives permission to
>>>> repost it anywhere, I am posting it here, as relevant to our recent
>>>> discussions, since it brilliantly exemplifies the very values that
>>>> Madden appears to be laughing at. It would be interesting to know if
>>>> he has tried to submit this to any Libertarian publication and what
>>>> the result has been. That link below doesn't work, but if you go to
>>>> www.presenceofmind.net , the essay is there.
>>>>
>>>> Nota bene: There is a link-enriched version of this essay at:
>>>> http://presenceofmind.net/Iraq3.html
>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> Cain's world: A Just and Libertarian war...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> by Greg Swann
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am amused but not angered by the 'anti-war' protests,
>>>> clothed and otherwise, that have polluted the news of
>>>> late. If ignorant people want to promote barbarism in
>>>> blind ignorance, this is their perfect right as ignorant
>>>> Americans. The amusing part is that the war on Islam
>>>> will be fought anyway, and the protests are about as
>>>> important as the yipping and scrapping of puppies trying
>>>> to scale the walls of a cardboard box. Aren't they just
>>>> so cute?!
>>>>
>>>> I _am_ annoyed, however, with the Libertarians who have
>>>> arrayed themselves against this war. I think they have
>>>> become so glued to their slogans that they've lost the
>>>> ability to think in principles. Whatever one might say
>>>> about President George W. Bush, about the Republicans,
>>>> about the state of the American body politic, it remains
>>>> that this war not only _will_ be fought, but that it
>>>> _should_ be fought. It _must_ be fought, if the
>>>> philosophical principles that undergird human liberty
>>>> are to endure upon the Earth.
>>>>
>>>> I have written a lot about this war, and much of it is
>>>> linked back from a weblog entry, itself summarized here:
>>>>
>>>> The objective the United States seeks in making
>>>> war with Iraq is not any of those that have been
>>>> imputed, whether by supporters or opponents of the
>>>> war. The objective is to scare the hell out of the
>>>> world, generally, and Islam in particular. By
>>>> means of a minimal effort at wreaking maximum
>>>> havoc upon Iraq in a very short span of time, the
>>>> United States will demonstrate to her enemies and
>>>> allies alike that she is not only the pre-eminent
>>>> world power, she is in fact an inconquerable
>>>> power. The anticipated benefits in the Islamic
>>>> world will be either an immediate rounding-up of
>>>> terrorists, or swift regime-changes followed by an
>>>> immediate rounding-up of terrorists. In the Far
>>>> East, the United States will disarm North Korea,
>>>> with or without a regime-change, and neither North
>>>> Korea nor--much more importantly--Red China will
>>>> do anything to stop it. If all goes as planned--as
>>>> I surmise it to be planned--Wahabi/Qutbist Islam
>>>> will be discredited and Islam will return to a
>>>> self-satisfied navel-contemplation. Red China will
>>>> apprehend the lesson of the Soviet Union--that no
>>>> Communist state can compete with the United States
>>>> in the creation of capital-intensive weapons
>>>> systems--and will devote its attentions to
>>>> economic rather than military power.
>>>>
>>>> I call this strategy The Cain Doctrine, after the
>>>> Biblical and Koranic story of Cain and Abel:
>>>>
>>>> Abel was a nomad, a shepherd following his
>>>> flocks. Cain was a farmer, fixed to a plot of
>>>> land. Abel was a traditionalist, doing what all
>>>> his (ahem) predecessors had done before him.
>>>> Cain was an innovator, doing things never done
>>>> before. Abel roamed the deserts. Cain was bound
>>>> to the markets of the city. Abel's wealth
>>>> consisted of tangible chattels. Cain's wealth
>>>> was speculative, a thing of hopes and promises.
>>>> Abel was a warrior, defending his own moveable
>>>> estate by combat and vengeance. Cain was a
>>>> merchant, depending for his defense on
>>>> specialists, with his defense often being
>>>> effected by means of compensation and
>>>> reconciliation.
>>>>
>>>> Abel made a sacrifice of a lamb, thus
>>>> establishing to God that he was a true Semite.
>>>> Cain made a sacrifice of grain, demonstrating to
>>>> God that he had been Hellenized. Forget the
>>>> murder. The 'bad guy,' from the storyteller's
>>>> point of view, _always_ does bad things. The
>>>> point of the story of Cain and Abel is this:
>>>>
>>>> Abel was from Jerusalem or Mecca. Cain was from
>>>> Athens.
>>>>
>>>> Abel was the fixed, the unquestioning, the
>>>> unchanging--and thus was favored by the fixed,
>>>> unquestionable, unchangeable doctrine. Cain was
>>>> the fluid, the inquisitive, the innovative--the
>>>> horrifyingly _Greek_--and thus his offering of
>>>> the fruits of agriculture, of urbanization, of
>>>> task-specialization, of commerce, of
>>>> speculation, of peaceful dispute resolution--his
>>>> offering of all the fruits of _reason_--was
>>>> spurned by God.
>>>>
>>>> Christians and Jews hate this argument because
>>>> Christianity and Judaism are such ugly compromises:
>>>> Brief genuflections at Abel by the otherwise very-busy
>>>> children of Cain. The important thing to understand is
>>>> that Abel is a Warrior. He resolves his disputes by
>>>> violent conquest--or meek surrender. Cain is a Merchant.
>>>> He resolves disputes by conciliation, especially in the
>>>> form of compensation. From Cain's point of view, Abel's
>>>> style of life is suicidally insane, but is ordinarily a
>>>> matter of complete indifference. From Abel's point of
>>>> view, Cain's way of living is insufferably corrupt. With
>>>> emphasis: A corruption not to be suffered.
>>>>
>>>> The goal of Islam, established at its beginning,
>>>> unchanged from that beginning, is to establish a
>>>> Universal Caliphate. That is to say, every living human
>>>> being, Muslim or not, is to be subject to Muslim rule
>>>> under Sharia law. Muslims pursued this goal without
>>>> abatement for most of a millennium, retrenching only
>>>> when Europe--newly wakened from its own macrabe
>>>> nightmare with Abel--pushed it back, starting in the
>>>> Spains and culminating at the Siege of Vienna. Warrior
>>>> cultures seek to conquer when they think they can win,
>>>> but they fade from the battlefield when they become
>>>> convinced they must lose.
>>>>
>>>> This is why, to understand this war, it is necessary to
>>>> understand Islam. The display of force America will make
>>>> in Iraq will cause Islam to turn its back on the West
>>>> for the next 500 years. If you look beatable, Warrior
>>>> cultures will fight savagely, insanely, suicidally. If
>>>> you look invincible, Warriors fade. President Bush and
>>>> his advisors are remarkably astute about the nature of
>>>> our enemy.
>>>>
>>>> Please understand: I am normally opposed to the
>>>> underlying philosophy of this war--'Teach 'em a
>>>> lesson!'--even though virtually _all_ Libertarians are
>>>> normally _for_ it. The reason I am for it _here_ is that
>>>> Cain is correct: A demonstration of invincibility is the
>>>> only strategy that will work against Abel--who is
>>>> anti-rationality-by-choice. To forebear to convince the
>>>> Muslims to fade is to invite them to persist in fighting
>>>> savagely, insanely, suicidally against what they see as
>>>> our insufferable corruption. In the long run, we must
>>>> conquer Islam culturally. In the short run, we have to
>>>> get Muslims to stop slaughtering innocents. This war
>>>> will do this, and nothing else will. (And a very brief
>>>> hot war will do for the Red Chinese what it took forty
>>>> years of Cold War to do for the Soviets.)
>>>>
>>>> Cain can co-exist peacefully with Abel. Abel cannot live
>>>> in peace with Cain. If we don't isolate the Muslims now,
>>>> and assimilate them in due course, they will chew us up.
>>>> It's what they do, and they're a _lot_ better at it than
>>>> the Communists, the Nazis, Hillary Clinton or John
>>>> Ashcroft. We may fight this war and come to have less
>>>> liberty at the end of it. But if we fail to fight it, we
>>>> will deliver perpetual tyranny and slaughter to our
>>>> children--and to every lving mind on Earth.
>>>>
>>>> That is to say: This is a Just and Libertarian war. It
>>>> will be led by people who are less than ideal, using
>>>> means that are less than ideal, achieving ends that are
>>>> less than ideal. But to oppose this war is to stand in
>>>> opposition to all that is uniquely human in human life.
>>>> To oppose this war is to make common cause with the
>>>> brutal animality that, with but one shining exception in
>>>> human history, has always usurped, enslaved and murdered
>>>> the uniquely human life.
>>>>
>>>> This war is Cain versus Abel. If you're not on the side
>>>> of civilization, you're on the side of savagery. And
>>>> Libertarians don't get a pass just because they're
>>>> politically irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> VIST MY WEBLOG: http://www.presenceofmind.net/
>>>>
>>>> gswann@presenceofmind.net
>>>>
>>>> Permission is explicitly granted to repost/reprint unmodified.
>>>>
>>>> We are what we do, not what we say we do.
>>>> - Janio Valenta
>>>
>>> =====================================
>>>
>>> and this as well, by chris sciabarra,
>>>
>>> http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=P234_0_1_0
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
>> New Yahoo! Mail Plus. More flexibility. More control. More power.
>> Get POP access, more storage, more filters, and more.
>> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Hcb0iA/P.iFAA/46VHAA/XgSolB/TM
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>> idaholibertarians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: 4th damned time!!! - Re: Cain's World: A Just and Libertarian
War
Date: 05 Mar 2003 11:55:23 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 01:56, larry fullmer wrote:
> So, Folks,
>
> For the 4th gawd-damned time!!, with Bill claiming to be mystified:

More mumbo jumbo from lf

Its going through I've seen it every stinking time now, but apparently
nobody cares to respond to it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Piss off!!!, Bill writes......
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 01:28:16 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank, "Bedding", Others,

How the hell long are you gonna let such immoral language git by??!!

The fact is, I'm gonna quote Billy Andersen from six-months ago right up
to date, with his own damned words.

Ain't got the time tonight. Like Billy, I gotta feed and walk my dog.

You're sooo full of crap, Bill!!!!

LF

on 3/5/03 4:25 AM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:

> On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 03:51, larry fullmer wrote:
>> Uhh, Robert, Bill, Others,
>
>
>> If you and Bill claim to be rational, and libertarians, I *demand* to see
>> your amoral derivation of the claim to 'rights' and 'liberty'.
>
> Piss off, I don't give in to your demands -- you should know that by
> now. My family's needs come before your selfish demands for me to
> explain things to you again. Work comes before you. If you were not so
> wrapped up in yourself and how everybody either does what you want tor
> their fascist pigs, then you would stop and realize our worlds don;t
> revolve around you and maybe you'd have some patience.
>
> Note the "if".
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Piss off!!!, Bill writes......
Date: 05 Mar 2003 11:50:01 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 02:28, larry fullmer wrote:
> Frank, "Bedding", Others,
>
> How the hell long are you gonna let such immoral language git by??!!
>
> The fact is, I'm gonna quote Billy Andersen from six-months ago right up
> to date, with his own damned words.
>
> Ain't got the time tonight. Like Billy, I gotta feed and walk my dog.
>
> You're sooo full of crap, Bill!!!!

Well, I guess you';d know what it's like to be full of it. And if you
actually go through with your cockamamie scheme, you'll prove it. What
almost amazes me is that you think you rate higher than my family.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Mystery solved, Bill ...
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 00:28:25 PST
From: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
To: larry fullmer <libnw@immosys.com>

On 06-Mar-03, larry fullmer wrote:

lf> Bill,

lf> I ain't claiming it's your "fault", but I only got through with a very
few
lf> messages last night....

Ask your ISP if they've had trouble accessing the DNS servers lately.

Maybe setting your computer's clock to the correct time would help.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: government defined!!!!
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 01:48:17 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>,
<wes@logicallearning.net>,
<azbengal@msn.com>,
<teddunlap@outdrs.net>,
<quicksilver810@yahoo.com>

Folks, Especially Bill and Robert,

"To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed,
legislated, regimented, closed in, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled,
assessed, evaluated, censored, commanded; all by creatures that have neither
the right, nor wisdom, nor virtue....To be governed means that at every
move, operation, or transaction one is noted, registered, entered in a
census, taxed, stamped, priced, assessed, patented, licensed, authorized,
recommended, admonished, prevented, reformed, set right, corrected.
Government means to be subjected to tribute, trained, ransomed, exploited,
monopolized, extorted, pressured, mystified, robbed; all in the name of
public utility and the general good. Then, at the first sign of resistance
or word of complaint, one is repressed, fined, despised, vexed, pursued,
hustled, beaten up, garroted, imprisoned, shot, machine-gunned, judged,
sentenced, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed, and to cap all, ridiculed,
mocked, outraged and dishonored. That is government, that is its justice and
its morality!" ~ Pierre J. Proudhon

MORALITY?!! GOOD GAWD, WHAT A SICK WORD, EH??!!, ROBERT & BILL??!!

LF


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: THE STATUE WEEPS!
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 01:54:57 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

DAMN, FOLKS,

I FORGOT WHETHER IS WAS CHRIST OR A VIRGIN WEEPING.

CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELVES, EH?

LF

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_756475.html?menu=news.quirkies

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: ED, YOU'RE NO DAMNED HELP!!!
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 02:03:01 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

ED,

SO MY CLOCK IS WRONG, EH? ROTFLMAOF!!!!!!

WHY THE "F" IS IT FRANK AND I ARE HAVING THE SAMED DAMNED PROBLEMS, HALF-A
WORLD AWAY?

BTW, I CHECKED MY GAWD-DAMNED CLOCK. RIGHT-ON, IT IS!!

IF YOU AIN'T NOTICED THE PROBLEMS FOR YOURSELF, I FIGURE YOU JUST CHECK IN
EVERY ONCE IN AWHILE FOR THE HULLUVA IT!!

IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING, AND THE EVIDENCE IS THAT IS *EXACTLY* WHAT YOU
ARE DOING, YOU HAVE NO ACVICE TO OFFER.

GAWD KNOWS, WITH YOUR MORE OR LESS RANDOM POST, HOW YOU GOT THROUGH.

DUNNO. MAYBE YOU'VE NOT BEEN DEFINED AS A VIRUS BY THE "IMMUNE" SYSTEM.

LF

on 3/6/03 12:28 AM, Ed Fischang at efischan@crcwnet.com wrote:

> On 06-Mar-03, larry fullmer wrote:
>
> lf> Bill,
>
> lf> I ain't claiming it's your "fault", but I only got through with a very
few
> lf> messages last night....
>
> Ask your ISP if they've had trouble accessing the DNS servers lately.
>
> Maybe setting your computer's clock to the correct time would help.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: ED, YOU'RE NO DAMNED HELP!!!
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 01:09:02 PST
From: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
To: larry fullmer <libnw@immosys.com>

On 06-Mar-03, larry fullmer wrote:

lf> ED,

lf> SO MY CLOCK IS WRONG, EH? ROTFLMAOF!!!!!!

lf> WHY THE "F" IS IT FRANK AND I ARE HAVING THE SAMED DAMNED PROBLEMS,
HALF-A
lf> WORLD AWAY?

lf> BTW, I CHECKED MY GAWD-DAMNED CLOCK. RIGHT-ON, IT IS!!

The timestamp on your message (received here at 01:00 PST) is

Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 02:03:01 -0800

... so either you're posting from the future, your clock is wrong, or you're
not
in the Pacific Time Zone.

lf> IF YOU AIN'T NOTICED THE PROBLEMS FOR YOURSELF, I FIGURE YOU JUST CHECK
IN
lf> EVERY ONCE IN AWHILE FOR THE HULLUVA IT!!

No, I just read *your* posts once in a while, for the hulluva it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: ED, YOU'RE NO DAMNED HELP!!!
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:42:24 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Ed!

Ed Fischang wrote to Larry Fullmer...

... so either you're posting from the future, your clock is wrong, or you're
not
in the Pacific Time Zone.

Maybe he is posting in "your" future. He is not in the Pacific time zone.
He is in Mountain Time. He's posting from Pocatello, Idaho.

I don't know how this addresses the problem anyway, since in real terms,
messages simply didn't come through regardless of the real time in which
they were posted.

As Larry pointed out, he and I are a half-world away insofar as time zones
are concerned. Nevertheless, USUALLY, my posts appear almost
instantaneously from here to the list. Sometimes, using Outlook Express, I
get a message just sent in the immediate download that follows immediately,
so the time difference likely has nothing to do with it.

Kindest regards,
Frank

-------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER

To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org

URLs for Liberty Northwest:
Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Cain's World: A Just and Libertarian War
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 00:45:51 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Well, Greg Swann could have dropped the "Cain and Abel" bit and made his
point (and made it better) with about 1/3rd the words. While the Cain/Abel
story begins as a story of disobedience (which is where Greg takes off with
it), there is no reason to infer all the other stuff that he puts into the
story (whether you look at the story as simply an old story or myth or as a
revelation from a higher being.). Once you get past that "Cain/Abel"
stuff, he's right on the money. Radical Islam (and to a certain extent,
Islam in general) is a warrior culture. It has to be defeated (or at least
shown that a continuation of war will lead to defeat.)

Larry, on the other hand, seems to have totally missed the point of Greg's
piece. (Actually, I'd have been shocked if he had displayed any
understanding of what Greg had written, beyond realizing that Greg was in
favor of war in this case.) In fact, Larry is one of those people that
Greg talked about "...so glued to their slogans..." that he doesn't realize
what he's saying. Yes Larry, Athens and Rome went down because they tried
to run the world (or their part of it) as imperialists. Is the US in any
danger of doing a similar thing? Not likely. If the US were going to "run
the world" as Larry seems to think Bush intends, why would he bother with
Iraq? Why not start with Mexico or even Canada? They're closer and
cheaper. Or, why not just take over the places where our troops already
are, like Germany, and Kuwait and Bahrain and Qatar? Heck, we could
probably have all of Europe (with the possible exception of Switzerland)
under our thumb in about 6 weeks. But instead, he's going after a single
country in the middle of a problem area.

Or maybe Larry thinks that Canada and Mexico and Europe actually *are* part
of the current US "Empire"? If so, perhaps he can explain why it is that
Germany and France aren't afraid to buck the US. After all, how many
troops do we have in Germany? That's hardly the Athenian or Roman model of
imperialism.

Not only is the US going after a particular, far-off country, but the
administration plans to get a constitution and a civilian government put
into place so that the people can vote for who is going to run the place
and so that the troops can be removed ASAP--just as is happening in
Afghanistan. There's some talk of possible "next steps" in the Middle
East, but most likely is that reforms will take place without the US doing
anything--as it appears the Saudis are planning right now.

The US is no more "seeking an empire" than Larry is running for President
of the US. Sure, we'll run Iraq for a few months and maybe even several
years, but nearly every day of Iraq "occupation" will see another step
taken toward true self-determination by the Iraqi people. The US may keep
some bases there for a while, but then, absent a threat to either Iraq or
to the US from that area, the troops will come home.

And in the meantime, Greg Swann is correct: this is a war that will be
fought, whether we get into the fight now or simply wait for more of the
fight to come to us. If we attack and: (1) show overwhelming military
superiority and (2) show some concern for civilians and (3) leave behind a
reasonably democratized country, then it's quite likely that this war will
be relatively short and have relatively few casualties. On the other hand,
if we back off and show what the Radical Islamists will perceive as
weakness, then we face the possibility of something akin to another world
war.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
At 00:56 03/06/03 -0800, you wrote:
>So, Folks,
>
>For the 4th gawd-damned time!!, with Bill claiming to be mystified:
> >
> > on 3/4/03 7:12 PM, larry fullmer at lfullmer1@cableone.net wrote:
> >
> >> Wes, Others,
> >>
> >> I read "A Just & Libertarian War", as recommended by Monica, the faith
> >> healer. I'm gonna do a 'stream-of-consciousness' response.
> >>
> >> First, I would like to see Saddam dead. Yup, I'd shoot himself myself
if
> >> could, and pay with my life. BUT THAT DOES *NOT* MEAN THAT I BELIEVE
THIS
> >> IS A 'JUST & LIBERTARIAN WAR! Far, far, far from it!
> >>
> >> Second, I will agree, with Greg Swann, that there *will* be a war, real
> >> damned soon in fact. And I figure it will be an easy 'victory' in the
> >> short-run, with it costing the U.S. tax-slaves only $2-3 hundred
billion
> >> (peanuts for a productive 'free-market' economy, eh? Cheap for a
fascist
> >> state, even, I'd say, given the oil reserves of Iraq - 2nd largest on
the
> >> Earth). BUT THIS WAR HAS NOTING TO DO WITH JUSTICE, LIBERTY, OR
> >> LIBERTARIANISM.
> >>
> >> Athens was once a 'democracy'. It got itself so filled with hubris it
> >> decided it could run the known Earth with its imperial edicts. After a
> >> roughly thirty-year war with Sparta, it fell to the barbarians,
bankrupt
> >> financally and spritually. I just was reminded of Lisistrada last
night.
> >> The play in which Athens women threatened no sex for their husbands
unless
> >> they gave up trying to rule the world with war. Unfortunatley there
> enough
> >> sluts that Athens fell, anyway.
> >>
> >> And then there was Rome, 'with all roads leading to it'. It is as
> nearly a
> >> duplicate of the U.S. as I can think of - and it fell to the
barbarians.
> >>
> >> And now the U.S. state claims to rule the Earth in the name of
> liberty, when
> >> it has no more interest in liberty than Rome or Athens had.
> >>
> >> So, some random thoughts:
> >>
> >> According to Imprimis, a war-hawk, conservative publication, the U.S.
> >> military annual budget exceeds the **combined budgets** of it's
> >> **TWENTY!!!** nearest competitors. There are 70,000 U.S. troops in
> >> Germany!! Why???!!! Not to even mention the rest of the Earth,
including
> >> 35,000 in S. Korea. Think about it, Wes. It's nothing but
imperialism,
> >> with nothing to do with liberty. Nothing!!!
> >>
> >> As the U.S. state prepares to rule the world with war, it is conducting
an
> >> evil war on its own 'citizens'. John Asscroft just invaded the fifty
> >> states. Yup, gotta conduct a war internally against those who sell
pipes,
> >> and cigarette papers. Three small businesses were shut down in
Pocatello,
> >> and it happened statewide, and nationwide, and hardly made the news.
> >>
> >> AND THIS IS IRAQ THINGO IS A WAR FOR LIBERTY?!!!!!!!
> >>
> >> GIMIE A BREAK. WHEN THE U.S. State's puppet state is in place in
> Iraq, are
> >> folks there gonna have an unbrideled 2nd Ammendent right, and a right
to
> >> somke dope, or have oral sex. FUCK NO!!! NOT TO MENTION THE REST OF
> >> LIBERTY. WHO THE HELL IS THE U.S. STATE TO IMPOSE LIBERTY ON THE
WORLD,
> >> WHEN IT DOESN'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT SUCH AT HOME??!!
> >>
> >> The only damned thing Rand could think of to say bad about the sick
horror
> >> of the Vietnam War was that she didn't like the draft. Well, I got
gassed
> >> by the police protectors of U.S. foriegn policy. And I got
excommunicated
> >> by Rand for being a 'commmie' anti-war protestor. I figured that was
an
> >> honor.
> >>
> >> And, still, if the U.S. state does it, it's good, so says ARI, and
Kelly.
> >>
> >> I swear, most Objectivists would have supported the Krups Munitions
Works!
> >>
> >> So, Wes, very short history here. The sick, evil asshole, the Shah of
> Iran,
> >> was installed into power, subverting a democratic election, by the CIA.
> >> ***THAT** generated the sickness in Iran, but it was not quite as sick
as
> >> the Savak Secret Police had been. The Iraianians taking the u.s.
embassy
> >> **was** a 'just and libertarian war"!! - given the Shaw and the Savak,
> >> supported by the CIA!!
> >>
> >> AND!! the CIA installed Saddam in power, and even armed him and
financed
> >> him, so long as he was killing Irainians. And, when he'd nearly
bankruted
> >> himself doing the U.S. bidding, Kuwait called on him to pay his loaned
war
> >> debts. And what the the U.S. Say? Okay, Saddam, "we'll" look the
other
> >> way, if you invade Iraq. But everybody is a pawn for the U.S. state,
> >> including its own 'citizens'. Giving Saddam the okay, the U.S. went
> to war
> >> with him nearly the next damned day.
> >>
> >> And, then, there is the funding by the CIA of Ossama and the Taliban,
so
> >> long as they were killing Russians!!
> >>
> >> And, then, there is Columbia, according to Amenisty Ineternationl, the
> worst
> >> of the worst!!, comes to human rights. And the U.S. State has recently
> >> spent $2 billion buying 'em helicpoters and training their secret
police.
> >> Why? To keep Americans from excersing their liberty.
> >>
> >> I figure Columbia is the U.S. state's next Vietnam. What the hell, it
can
> >> fight a war on many fronts, so I've heard. And so Athens said. And
> so Rome
> >> said.
> >>
> >> So, Wes, if you want to go save Iraq from rape by Saddam, do it. But
> don't
> >> go writing about "we". Only I get to decided when I will risk my life,
my
> >> very small fortune, and my sacred honor. I AIN'T INTERESTED IN
> SUBDUING ONE
> >> RAPIST SO'S ANOTHER ONE CAN GO AT HER, IN MY NAME!!!!
> >>
> >> "A Just & Libertarian War"? ROTFLMAO!!!!
> >>
> >> As Greg Swann ended his love for war:
> >>
> >>>> This war is Cain versus Abel. If you're not on the side
> >>>> of civilization, you're on the side of savagery.
> >>
> >> Well, I figure you are right, Greg, given the bullshit either/or.
> >> The helluva it is, you can't tell the savages from the barbarians.
> >>
> >> Remember where that word savages came from, Greg? It was a word used
to
> >> justify christian manifest destiney as it conducted genocide.
> >>
> >> But you don't give a "F" about genocide do you, so long as you are on
the
> >> side of "liberty & reason", with niether being a justification for your
> >> "Just & Libertarian" mutiple wars.
> >>
> >> So, Wes. Told ya it would be stream-of-consciousness. I've run out of
> >> stream, with steam short.
> >>
> >> Empire has no damned thing to do with liberty. I don't give a "F"
> what the
> >> ARI Jews say (and I have nothing against Jews, 'cept for those in ARI,
and
> >> those who kicked Palestians out of their homes).
> >>
> >> LF
> >>
> >>>> And
> >>>> Libertarians don't get a pass just because they're
> >>>> politically irrelevant.
> >>
> >> Ain't it nice being on the winning side, Greg? Lets se how long that
> lasts.
> >>
> >> If there is a hope of humans, it is liberty. But, you, Greg, have you
> head
> >> up the stinky butt of Athens, Rome, and the current U.S. Fascist state.
> >>
> >> Get you head out of the stinky butt, Gregg.
> >>
> >>
> >> on 2/28/03 8:13 PM, Wes Bertrand at wes@logicallearning.net wrote:
> >>
> >>> something worth reading, in relation to Objectivism and current
political
> >>> events.
> >>>
> >>> wes
> >>>
> >>> p.s., the message is from the nathaniel branden yahoo group list.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Message: 25
> >>>> Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 01:57:33 -0000
> >>>> From: "mpignotti2001 <pignotti@worldnet.att.net>"
> >>>> <pignotti@worldnet.att.net>
> >>>> Subject: FWD: Cain's World: A Just and Libertarian War
> >>>>
> >>>> I just found this essay posted on the newsgroup
> >>>> humanities.philosophy.objectivism and since he gives permission to
> >>>> repost it anywhere, I am posting it here, as relevant to our recent
> >>>> discussions, since it brilliantly exemplifies the very values that
> >>>> Madden appears to be laughing at. It would be interesting to know if
> >>>> he has tried to submit this to any Libertarian publication and what
> >>>> the result has been. That link below doesn't work, but if you go to
> >>>> www.presenceofmind.net , the essay is there.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nota bene: There is a link-enriched version of this essay at:
> >>>> http://presenceofmind.net/Iraq3.html
> >>>> ______________________________________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>> Cain's world: A Just and Libertarian war...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> by Greg Swann
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I am amused but not angered by the 'anti-war' protests,
> >>>> clothed and otherwise, that have polluted the news of
> >>>> late. If ignorant people want to promote barbarism in
> >>>> blind ignorance, this is their perfect right as ignorant
> >>>> Americans. The amusing part is that the war on Islam
> >>>> will be fought anyway, and the protests are about as
> >>>> important as the yipping and scrapping of puppies trying
> >>>> to scale the walls of a cardboard box. Aren't they just
> >>>> so cute?!
> >>>>
> >>>> I _am_ annoyed, however, with the Libertarians who have
> >>>> arrayed themselves against this war. I think they have
> >>>> become so glued to their slogans that they've lost the
> >>>> ability to think in principles. Whatever one might say
> >>>> about President George W. Bush, about the Republicans,
> >>>> about the state of the American body politic, it remains
> >>>> that this war not only _will_ be fought, but that it
> >>>> _should_ be fought. It _must_ be fought, if the
> >>>> philosophical principles that undergird human liberty
> >>>> are to endure upon the Earth.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have written a lot about this war, and much of it is
> >>>> linked back from a weblog entry, itself summarized here:
> >>>>
> >>>> The objective the United States seeks in making
> >>>> war with Iraq is not any of those that have been
> >>>> imputed, whether by supporters or opponents of the
> >>>> war. The objective is to scare the hell out of the
> >>>> world, generally, and Islam in particular. By
> >>>> means of a minimal effort at wreaking maximum
> >>>> havoc upon Iraq in a very short span of time, the
> >>>> United States will demonstrate to her enemies and
> >>>> allies alike that she is not only the pre-eminent
> >>>> world power, she is in fact an inconquerable
> >>>> power. The anticipated benefits in the Islamic
> >>>> world will be either an immediate rounding-up of
> >>>> terrorists, or swift regime-changes followed by an
> >>>> immediate rounding-up of terrorists. In the Far
> >>>> East, the United States will disarm North Korea,
> >>>> with or without a regime-change, and neither North
> >>>> Korea nor--much more importantly--Red China will
> >>>> do anything to stop it. If all goes as planned--as
> >>>> I surmise it to be planned--Wahabi/Qutbist Islam
> >>>> will be discredited and Islam will return to a
> >>>> self-satisfied navel-contemplation. Red China will
> >>>> apprehend the lesson of the Soviet Union--that no
> >>>> Communist state can compete with the United States
> >>>> in the creation of capital-intensive weapons
> >>>> systems--and will devote its attentions to
> >>>> economic rather than military power.
> >>>>
> >>>> I call this strategy The Cain Doctrine, after the
> >>>> Biblical and Koranic story of Cain and Abel:
> >>>>
> >>>> Abel was a nomad, a shepherd following his
> >>>> flocks. Cain was a farmer, fixed to a plot of
> >>>> land. Abel was a traditionalist, doing what all
> >>>> his (ahem) predecessors had done before him.
> >>>> Cain was an innovator, doing things never done
> >>>> before. Abel roamed the deserts. Cain was bound
> >>>> to the markets of the city. Abel's wealth
> >>>> consisted of tangible chattels. Cain's wealth
> >>>> was speculative, a thing of hopes and promises.
> >>>> Abel was a warrior, defending his own moveable
> >>>> estate by combat and vengeance. Cain was a
> >>>> merchant, depending for his defense on
> >>>> specialists, with his defense often being
> >>>> effected by means of compensation and
> >>>> reconciliation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Abel made a sacrifice of a lamb, thus
> >>>> establishing to God that he was a true Semite.
> >>>> Cain made a sacrifice of grain, demonstrating to
> >>>> God that he had been Hellenized. Forget the
> >>>> murder. The 'bad guy,' from the storyteller's
> >>>> point of view, _always_ does bad things. The
> >>>> point of the story of Cain and Abel is this:
> >>>>
> >>>> Abel was from Jerusalem or Mecca. Cain was from
> >>>> Athens.
> >>>>
> >>>> Abel was the fixed, the unquestioning, the
> >>>> unchanging--and thus was favored by the fixed,
> >>>> unquestionable, unchangeable doctrine. Cain was
> >>>> the fluid, the inquisitive, the innovative--the
> >>>> horrifyingly _Greek_--and thus his offering of
> >>>> the fruits of agriculture, of urbanization, of
> >>>> task-specialization, of commerce, of
> >>>> speculation, of peaceful dispute resolution--his
> >>>> offering of all the fruits of _reason_--was
> >>>> spurned by God.
> >>>>
> >>>> Christians and Jews hate this argument because
> >>>> Christianity and Judaism are such ugly compromises:
> >>>> Brief genuflections at Abel by the otherwise very-busy
> >>>> children of Cain. The important thing to understand is
> >>>> that Abel is a Warrior. He resolves his disputes by
> >>>> violent conquest--or meek surrender. Cain is a Merchant.
> >>>> He resolves disputes by conciliation, especially in the
> >>>> form of compensation. From Cain's point of view, Abel's
> >>>> style of life is suicidally insane, but is ordinarily a
> >>>> matter of complete indifference. From Abel's point of
> >>>> view, Cain's way of living is insufferably corrupt. With
> >>>> emphasis: A corruption not to be suffered.
> >>>>
> >>>> The goal of Islam, established at its beginning,
> >>>> unchanged from that beginning, is to establish a
> >>>> Universal Caliphate. That is to say, every living human
> >>>> being, Muslim or not, is to be subject to Muslim rule
> >>>> under Sharia law. Muslims pursued this goal without
> >>>> abatement for most of a millennium, retrenching only
> >>>> when Europe--newly wakened from its own macrabe
> >>>> nightmare with Abel--pushed it back, starting in the
> >>>> Spains and culminating at the Siege of Vienna. Warrior
> >>>> cultures seek to conquer when they think they can win,
> >>>> but they fade from the battlefield when they become
> >>>> convinced they must lose.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is why, to understand this war, it is necessary to
> >>>> understand Islam. The display of force America will make
> >>>> in Iraq will cause Islam to turn its back on the West
> >>>> for the next 500 years. If you look beatable, Warrior
> >>>> cultures will fight savagely, insanely, suicidally. If
> >>>> you look invincible, Warriors fade. President Bush and
> >>>> his advisors are remarkably astute about the nature of
> >>>> our enemy.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please understand: I am normally opposed to the
> >>>> underlying philosophy of this war--'Teach 'em a
> >>>> lesson!'--even though virtually _all_ Libertarians are
> >>>> normally _for_ it. The reason I am for it _here_ is that
> >>>> Cain is correct: A demonstration of invincibility is the
> >>>> only strategy that will work against Abel--who is
> >>>> anti-rationality-by-choice. To forebear to convince the
> >>>> Muslims to fade is to invite them to persist in fighting
> >>>> savagely, insanely, suicidally against what they see as
> >>>> our insufferable corruption. In the long run, we must
> >>>> conquer Islam culturally. In the short run, we have to
> >>>> get Muslims to stop slaughtering innocents. This war
> >>>> will do this, and nothing else will. (And a very brief
> >>>> hot war will do for the Red Chinese what it took forty
> >>>> years of Cold War to do for the Soviets.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Cain can co-exist peacefully with Abel. Abel cannot live
> >>>> in peace with Cain. If we don't isolate the Muslims now,
> >>>> and assimilate them in due course, they will chew us up.
> >>>> It's what they do, and they're a _lot_ better at it than
> >>>> the Communists, the Nazis, Hillary Clinton or John
> >>>> Ashcroft. We may fight this war and come to have less
> >>>> liberty at the end of it. But if we fail to fight it, we
> >>>> will deliver perpetual tyranny and slaughter to our
> >>>> children--and to every lving mind on Earth.
> >>>>
> >>>> That is to say: This is a Just and Libertarian war. It
> >>>> will be led by people who are less than ideal, using
> >>>> means that are less than ideal, achieving ends that are
> >>>> less than ideal. But to oppose this war is to stand in
> >>>> opposition to all that is uniquely human in human life.
> >>>> To oppose this war is to make common cause with the
> >>>> brutal animality that, with but one shining exception in
> >>>> human history, has always usurped, enslaved and murdered
> >>>> the uniquely human life.
> >>>>
> >>>> This war is Cain versus Abel. If you're not on the side
> >>>> of civilization, you're on the side of savagery. And
> >>>> Libertarians don't get a pass just because they're
> >>>> politically irrelevant.
> >>>>
> >>>> ______________________________________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>> VIST MY WEBLOG: http://www.presenceofmind.net/
> >>>>
> >>>> gswann@presenceofmind.net
> >>>>
> >>>> Permission is explicitly granted to repost/reprint unmodified.
> >>>>
> >>>> We are what we do, not what we say we do.
> >>>> - Janio Valenta
> >>>
> >>> =====================================
> >>>
> >>> and this as well, by chris sciabarra,
> >>>
> >>> http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=P234_0_1_0
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
---------------------~-->
> >> New Yahoo! Mail Plus. More flexibility. More control. More power.
> >> Get POP access, more storage, more filters, and more.
> >> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Hcb0iA/P.iFAA/46VHAA/XgSolB/TM
> >>
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >> idaholibertarians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
> >
> > To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> > To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> > Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> > Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
> >
> > URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> > Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> > Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
>To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
>URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: ED COMPLAINS ABOUT OFF-TOPIC, AS A 'WANNA BE' MODERATOR.....
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 02:21:00 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

UHH, ED,

I FIGURE YOU WOULD KNOW, BUT MANY POSTS OF MINE NEVER MADE IT THERE (AND IT
WAS NOT MY GAWD-DAMNED CLOCK!!).

> How is this on-topic in LibNW?

OH, GAWD, THERE ARE SO MANY MODERATERS ON THIS LIST!!

I FIGURE YOU'D KNOW ABOUT THE ON/OFF TOPIC THINGO, IF MY COMMUNICATIONS HAD
NOT BEEN ATTACKED AS A VIRUS BY IMMUNE SYSTEMS.

THEN AGAIN, MAYBE BILL HAS DEFINED ME AS A VIRUS, TO BE QUASHED BY HIS
IMMUNE SYSTEM.

WHO THE HELL KNOWS?!. ALL I DAMNED KNOW IS THINGS AIN'T BEEN WORKING HERE.

LF

HOW IS THIS "ON-TOPIC" FOR LIBSNW, YOU ASK? WELL, BUDDY, FRANK ASK THAT OF
MICHELLE, IN RELATION TO CATS AND PAIN, EVEN THOUGH SHE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE,
AND EVEN THOUGH HE TRULY DID NOT WANT TO MODERATE.

IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH "OFF-TOPIC" WRITE FRANK PRIVATELY!! I FIGURE HE
WILL PUT YOU IN YOUR PLACE!!

QUIT IT WITH BEING A PRETEND MODERATER. PRETENSE IS SICK SHIT, AS I SEE
IT!!, EDDY FISHBANGER!!!!!!

LF
M on 3/6/03 12:30 AM, Ed Fischang at efischan@crcwnet.com wrote:

> On 06-Mar-03, larry fullmer wrote:
>
> lf> The Message is in the subjectline, what with the tapper, Monica,
> lf> accepted by Bill.
>
> lf> The enemy of my enemy is my friend, eh, Bill?
>
> lf> And with very little info. you've signed on with Monica, the "tap your
> lf> way to psychological health" person. Wanna borrow my hamnmer, Billy??
>
>
> How is this on-topic in LibNW?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: JUST FOR THE HELLUVA IT!!, ED WRITES....
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 02:39:18 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

ED, OTHERS,

<SNIP>>
> lf> IF YOU AIN'T NOTICED THE PROBLEMS FOR YOURSELF, I FIGURE YOU JUST
CHECK IN
> lf> EVERY ONCE IN AWHILE FOR THE HULLUVA IT!!

ED FISHBANGER REPLIED:
> No, I just read *your* posts once in a while, for the hulluva it.

WELL, A.HOLE, 'TILL THIS RESPONSE, YOU ACTUALLY CAUSED ME TO CHECK MY
COMPUTER CLOCK!!

I WILL NEVER GIVE YOU SUCH RESPECT, AGAIN.

DAMNED GLAD I ENTERTAINED YOU, ON YOUR OCCASIONAL CHECK-IN.

I'm done with that, though. I love idaho's salmon, and, given what you
have written, I have no use for "fishbangers"!!

Like Robert and Bill, you're one of those folk with the head up the "stinky
butt" of amorality!!

I'd take the bunch of you on, with one hand tied behind my back, but robert
has gone back to one-liners, and Bill claims he has kids to feed. What the
"F" is your excuse??!!

lf

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: JUST FOR THE HELLUVA IT!!, ED WRITES....
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 20:15:42 PST
From: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
To: larry fullmer <libnw@immosys.com>

On 06-Mar-03, larry fullmer wrote:

[rant snipped]

lf> I'd take the bunch of you on, with one hand tied behind my back, but
lf> robert has gone back to one-liners, and Bill claims he has kids to
feed.
lf> What the "F" is your excuse??!!

None needed. I avoid pissing contests with juvenile belligerent drunks high
on adrenaline and testosterone. Should you care to engage in rational
discourse and forsake the ad hominem-laden rants, I'd be happy to join.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: lowell asskes - Re: Cain's World: A Just and Libertarian War
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 03:07:25 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

on 3/6/03 12:45 AM, Lowell C. Savage at savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> After all, how many
> troops do we have in Germany?

WEll, Lowell, the exact numbers is 70, "f'ing" 000!!, if you're a "we".

I ain't got the time to respond to the rest of you right-wing, conservative
bullshit, but if you don't know how many troops the U.S. State has in
Germany, with no excuse but Empire, I ain't gonna rush.

Did you miss it, Lowell: 70,000 troops in Germany. Why??!!

While I sleep, could you give me one gawd-damned rational reason for 70,000
U.S. troops in Germany??!!!

Uhh, Lowell, just in case you missed it!! "we" have 70,000 troops in
Germany. Why is that, Lowell??!!!

lf

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: lowell asskes - Re: Cain's World: A Just and Libertarian
War
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 21:27:06 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Let me guess, Larry. We have 70,000 troops in Germany so that we can order
their Chancellor to run on an anti-American platform, and then do and say
everything he can to prevent us from going after Iraq. Yeah, we're real
imperialists. Sure, just the way that Larry Fulmer is a polite,
thoughtful, respectful debater who prefers facts over emotion and avoids
calling his opponents names.

And yes, Larry, it is "we". Like it or lump it.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

At 03:07 03/06/03 -0800, you wrote:
>on 3/6/03 12:45 AM, Lowell C. Savage at savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > After all, how many
> > troops do we have in Germany?
>
>WEll, Lowell, the exact numbers is 70, "f'ing" 000!!, if you're a "we".
>
>I ain't got the time to respond to the rest of you right-wing, conservative
>bullshit, but if you don't know how many troops the U.S. State has in
>Germany, with no excuse but Empire, I ain't gonna rush.
>
>Did you miss it, Lowell: 70,000 troops in Germany. Why??!!
>
>While I sleep, could you give me one gawd-damned rational reason for 70,000
>U.S. troops in Germany??!!!
>
>Uhh, Lowell, just in case you missed it!! "we" have 70,000 troops in
>Germany. Why is that, Lowell??!!!
>
>lf

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Robert - Re: bill - Re: LIBERTY!!! - Re: your turn
Date: 06 Mar 2003 03:30:28 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 08:34, Robert Goodman wrote:
> "Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org> wrote in part:
>
> > Nolan, as founder of the LP and author of the oath (at the same time),
> > holds ultimate authority as to what it was intended to be.
>
> At this point I'd like to inject:
>
> (1) David Nolan was not "founder of the LP", but an important
> co-founder.

He's the only one I see listed as being there in the archives so, that's
what I go with.

>
> (2) Some who were there or heard about it soon afterward dispute that he
> was the author (it was a committee product, though he did present that
> wording to the committee).

But then some do not.

> (3) They also dispute that that's what they understood it to mean at the
> time.
>

Who is this they?

> I first heard David Nolan give this explanation of the non-aggression
> certification on a bus at the 1991 LP national convention. However, its
> wording is almost exactly that of John Galt's in "Atlas Shrugged".
>
> My guess is that it had dual purposes, being both the disclaimer David
> Nolan now says it has and a hook for Objectivists.

I've not seen anywhere he's said this, links?

>
> > It is my understanding that Nolan has said as well that Rand had no
> > influence on his wording of the oath/pledge. Indeed, as I understand
> it
> > Rand was a vehement opponent of the LP.
>
> Yes, but it was not certain at LP's founding that her followers would
> continue to oppose it. BTW, you're getting this from someone who has
> recently concluded it'd be better if LP had never been founded, and that
> the sooner it disbands the better -- so libertarians in the USA can get
> down to more serious politics, and also more effective education &
> protest.

What, you mean yelling at anyone who *might* disagree with you, calling
the assholes and short-dicks, and insisting on putting words in your
mouth, etc., etc., etc. doesn't work?

I'm getting there (the point of the LP being a setback)myself. With
people like Larry around ... hell he whines about how there's "no women"
in the LP, then drives out the ones that he finds out about. My wife has
lost nearly all hope for the LP due in a large part to the Larry. I've
just lost hope for Larry himself. That's why he just went back into the
killfile. I don't need his mindless and slobbering rantings Maybe his
frothing at the mouth in an effort to ensure he alienates himself has
caused a short in his keyboard, or may soon. When he settles down, my
killfile watch script will let me know. Maybe, just maybe, I'll care
enough to read his sewage. But Larry, if you're reading, don't hold your
breath. No, wait, please do hold your breath. Do it every time you sit
down to the keyboard. ;)

hopefully, late next week things will settle down around here again and
I can post the links to my amoral derivation of rights here. As it is,
I'm authoring the courseware for ~12 Linux classes, and looking into the
creation of a NW Linux training center.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Robert - Re: bill - Re: LIBERTY!!! - Re: your turn
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:06:44 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org> wrote in part:

> > > Nolan, as founder of the LP and author of the oath (at the same
time),
> > > holds ultimate authority as to what it was intended to be.

> > (3) They also dispute that that's what they understood it to mean at
the
> > time.

> Who is this they?

One is Fred Cookinham, another I forgot.

> > I first heard David Nolan give this explanation of the
non-aggression
> > certification on a bus at the 1991 LP national convention. However,
its
> > wording is almost exactly that of John Galt's in "Atlas Shrugged".

> > My guess is that it had dual purposes, being both the disclaimer
David
> > Nolan now says it has and a hook for Objectivists.

> I've not seen anywhere he's said this, links?

Read again. "This" is the purpose as "the disclaimer David Nolan now",
i.e. at least since 1991, "says it has" -- i.e. what you wrote. The
"hook for Objectivists" is the purpose he DISclaims.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Robert - Re: bill - Re: LIBERTY!!! - Re: your turn
Date: 06 Mar 2003 14:08:10 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 08:06, Robert Goodman wrote:
> "Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org> wrote in part:
>
> > > > Nolan, as founder of the LP and author of the oath (at the same
> time),
> > > > holds ultimate authority as to what it was intended to be.
>
> > > (3) They also dispute that that's what they understood it to mean at
> the
> > > time.
>
> > Who is this they?
>
> One is Fred Cookinham, another I forgot.
>
> > > I first heard David Nolan give this explanation of the
> non-aggression
> > > certification on a bus at the 1991 LP national convention. However,
> its
> > > wording is almost exactly that of John Galt's in "Atlas Shrugged".
>
> > > My guess is that it had dual purposes, being both the disclaimer
> David
> > > Nolan now says it has and a hook for Objectivists.
>
> > I've not seen anywhere he's said this, links?
>
> Read again. "This" is the purpose as "the disclaimer David Nolan now",
> i.e. at least since 1991, "says it has" -- i.e. what you wrote. The
> "hook for Objectivists" is the purpose he DISclaims.
>

Huh? I *think* you just said that Nolan said what I said. Is that
correct?
(Sorry the sentence got a bit twisted in my mind).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Robert - Re: bill - Re: LIBERTY!!! - Re: your turn
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:04:07 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

> Huh? I *think* you just said that Nolan said what I said. Is that
correct?

Yes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Problem must have been resolved...
Date: 06 Mar 2003 03:33:19 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 19:47, Frank M. Reichert wrote:
> Greetings everyone!
>
> Don't know what the problem was with immosys.com, but I just received a
> bundle of 45 messages, many dated ones including my repeats, into Liberty
> Northwest a moment ago. Whatever the problem was, must now have been
> resolved.

As Ed (I think it was) noted, they may have been a DNS name lookup
failure between here and there that could have caused the problem. it
would not be something I'd be privy too, since I don;t run every DNS
server in the world (if I did, things would dramatically improve, all
this .com/.net/.org squatting would go bye-bye, and the need for complex
porn-filtering would essentially go bye-bye too.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Problem must have been resolved...
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:30:06 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert....

> As Ed (I think it was) noted, they may have been a DNS name lookup
> failure between here and there that could have caused the problem.

I might agree with that. Funny thing though, Larry independently reported
that he experienced similar blackouts and isn't on my DNS.

> it
> would not be something I'd be privy too, since I don;t run every DNS
> server in the world (if I did, things would dramatically improve, all
> this .com/.net/.org squatting would go bye-bye, and the need for complex
> porn-filtering would essentially go bye-bye too.)

I'm not a techie. Which is why I deferred the matter to you in the first
place.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Problem must have been resolved...
Date: 07 Mar 2003 13:08:26 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 04:30, Frank M. Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again Bill!
>
> Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert....
>
> > As Ed (I think it was) noted, they may have been a DNS name lookup
> > failure between here and there that could have caused the problem.
>
> I might agree with that. Funny thing though, Larry independently reported
> that he experienced similar blackouts and isn't on my DNS.

Doesn't matter. As Lowell correctly noted, physical geography is
irrelevant on the network. In fact, the entire Internet is served by a
core set of "root" nameservers. Indeed, most people fail to realize that
their ISp does not have their own connection to the Internet, rather
they go through someone who goes through another, etc.. Further, if one
DNS server tries to contact another, but can not reach it due to network
issues, and another is experiencing the same network issues, the fact
that they are different DNS servers, or run by other people is
irrelevant.

> > it
> > would not be something I'd be privy too, since I don;t run every DNS
> > server in the world (if I did, things would dramatically improve, all
> > this .com/.net/.org squatting would go bye-bye, and the need for complex
> > porn-filtering would essentially go bye-bye too.)
>
> I'm not a techie. Which is why I deferred the matter to you in the first
> place.

If you';ll defer the "problem to me, then do me the same courtesy of
deferring the answer to me to. It does no good to say "it's your
problem" because you are not a techie, and then tell the techie he is
wrong.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Work part time from home
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:34:08 -0500
From: Jill <easter23@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi, Do you want me to show you how you can earn
$1,000 to $5,000 a month
working from home Part Time?


NEXT

I

This e-mail is sent in compliance with our strict anti-abuse regulations.
You have received this e-mail because you or someone using your computer has
used an FFA List, Safe List or requested other information. If you do not
wish to receive any mail from our servers you may permanently block your
e-mail address by clicking on the following link. (Please be advised by
blocking your e-mail you will not have access to over 900 domains and the
thousands of users and services they represent)

.Thank you,
The Postmaster

Unsubscribe

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Part time imcome
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:18:07 -0500
From: Sam <kitchner@kiss.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi, Do you want me to show you how you can earn
$1,000 to $5,000 a month
working from home Part Time?


NEXT

This e-mail is sent in compliance with our strict anti-abuse regulations.
You have received this e-mail because you or someone using your computer has
used an FFA List, Safe List or requested other information. If you do not
wish to receive any mail from our servers you may permanently block your
e-mail address by clicking on the following link. (Please be advised by
blocking your e-mail you will not have access to over 900 domains and the
thousands of users and services they represent)

.Thank you,
The Postmaster

Unsubscribe

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Work from home
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:18:21 -0500
From: Richard <jackie34@ffa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi, Do you want me to show you how you can earn
$1,000 to $5,000 a month
working from home Part Time?


NEXT

This e-mail is sent in compliance with our strict anti-abuse regulations.
You have received this e-mail because you or someone using your computer has
used an FFA List, Safe List or requested other information. If you do not
wish to receive any mail from our servers you may permanently block your
e-mail address by clicking on the following link. (Please be advised by
blocking your e-mail you will not have access to over 900 domains and the
thousands of users and services they represent)

.Thank you,
The Postmaster

Unsubscribe

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fw: Greg Stillson is President
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:03:34 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: "Libertarian Newsgroups Northwest" <libnw@immosys.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: G Triest
To: lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:57 AM
Subject: Greg Stillson is President

Anyone ever hear of Greg Stillson?
The similarities are uncanny . . . .
__________________________________________

All of us know that Osama bin Laden is a Muslim religious fanatic
hell-bent on implementing his demented version of Armageddon in the
Middle East. What we're not sure about, however, is whether or not
George Bush is a Christian religious fanatic hell-bent on his demented
version of Armageddon in the Middle East. It's this scary thought
planted in the air of public consciousness that our timid mainstream
media has begun to explore, lightly explore, delicately dancing around
the edges to avoid setting off the land mine of religion.

Two weeks ago in the Christian Science Monitor, Francine Kiefer
wrote that "Bush's religious beliefs are emerging as a central
influence to his policies and politics -- inextricably linked to
everything from the war on terrorism to the November elections." "For
Bush," Kiefer continued, "who reads his Bible every morning, faith
extends beyond the national catharsis of the moment. By his own
admission, his religious views shape much of who he is and, by
extension, experts say, some of his most important decision-making."

Just over a week ago, Time published an article by Michael Duffy,
who had interviewed more than a dozen senior Republican Party
operatives, people who advise and support the president and talk
regularly to him and his inner circle. "Bush has always preferred his
poison straight up or down, good vs. bad, dead or alive, you're either
with us or you're with the terrorists," Duffy wrote. "In one
horrifying two-hour period [on September 11], the world shuddered and
conformed to his way of thinking: there was good and there was evil,
and it wasn't hard to tell the difference." Then Duffy
added: "Privately, Bush even talked of being chosen by the grace of
God to lead at that moment."

So Bush is chosen by God, but not by the U.S. Congress and not by
the United Nations, to lead an invasion of Iraq. During the Vietnam
War, evidently Bush was chosen by God not to lead anyone into that
war, least of all himself. Welcome to America's Chicken Heart
administration: chicken when they were asked to fight a war that they
themselves believed in, and now all heart to send other young men off
to a war that only they believe in.

And just a few days ago, The New York Times reported a new Bush
doctrine whereby the chosen by God Bush can unilaterally declare war
on any country he deems is run by evil-doers. Today Iraq, maybe next
week Madagascar. Next month, possibly Philadelphia.

Let's face it, our chosen by God leader is in a modern Christian
crusade frame of mind. He's probably riding his lead pony right now
around the White House war room. A year ago, God's choice used the
word "crusade" to describe his War on Terrorism, which knocked the
Arab world right off its camel. Although Bush drank his way through
Yale and then slept through Harvard Business School, since Yale
produced one long hangover, the Arab heathens haven't had excessive
consumption and innate laziness black out their history. Christian
Crusades are still unpopular in the Middle East.

With 9/11 as Revelation, the President of the United States,
personally chosen by God, is about to lead us, sisters and brothers,
saints and sinners, into what he believes will be Armageddon. In the
New Testament, Armageddon is described in Revelations "as the place
where the kings of the Earth under demonic leadership will wage war on
the forces of God at the end of World history. God's heavenly armies
will defeat the demonic forces of evil."

Bush has singled out the "evil doer;" co-ideologue Pat Robertson
can't shut up about Armageddon, which will bring on the Second Coming
and the conversion of all the Jews to Jesus. The direct mail campaign
of "Jews for Jesus" is right in step; cowriter Rick Friedman is urged
to "take Christ into your heart before Armageddon happens or you're
doomed!" Actually, if we don't get this nut out of the White House
we're all doomed.

If the chosen by God George Bush invades demonic Iraq he may very
well ignite a larger war in the Middle East that will pull in other
Arab states and Israel, leading us to the conclusion of Armageddon
with both God's forces and Satan's army all going down the toilet of
defeat. And just think, all of this from a man who can't
spell "banana." So sisters and brothers, saints and sinners, hang on
because revelation is bringing a revolution and we just may end up
back in the Stone Age.

By the way, if you're not the fatalistic type, you could get off
your spreading computer butt and raise some hell! Bush might be chosen
by God, but this is still a democracy.

Rick Friedman is contributing editor and Stewart Nusbaumer is editor
of Intervention Magazine. Both would like to thank West End Bar for
its gracious, copious support of this writing project.


This article comes from War, Politics, Culture
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fw: Greg Stillson is President
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 21:44:57 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

This can be summarized as follows:

Osama bin Laden is a Muslim religious fanatic. Osama bin Laden is a bad
man who wants to bring about the apocalypse.

Bush is a religious Christian. Therefore, Bush is a Christian religious
fanatic. Therefore, Bush is a bad man who wants to bring about the
apocalypse.

Oh yeah, the author throws in a few "guilt-by-association" sidebars
mentioning a few other Christian religious fanatics who have done some
things they believe will bring about the end times.

This might make a good essay in an introductory class on logic for a "point
out all the logical fallacies" exercise--at the middle-school level.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

At 12:03 03/06/03 -0500, you wrote:
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:garyonthenet@yahoo.com>G Triest
>To: <mailto:lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com>lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:57 AM
>Subject: Greg Stillson is President
>
>Anyone ever hear of Greg Stillson?
>The similarities are uncanny . . . .
>__________________________________________
>
>
>All of us know that Osama bin Laden is a Muslim religious fanatic
>hell-bent on implementing his demented version of Armageddon in the
>Middle East. What we're not sure about, however, is whether or not
>George Bush is a Christian religious fanatic hell-bent on his demented
>version of Armageddon in the Middle East. It's this scary thought
>planted in the air of public consciousness that our timid mainstream
>media has begun to explore, lightly explore, delicately dancing around
>the edges to avoid setting off the land mine of religion.
>
>Two weeks ago in the Christian Science Monitor, Francine Kiefer
>wrote that "Bush's religious beliefs are emerging as a central
>influence to his policies and politics -- inextricably linked to
>everything from the war on terrorism to the November elections." "For
>Bush," Kiefer continued, "who reads his Bible every morning, faith
>extends beyond the national catharsis of the moment. By his own
>admission, his religious views shape much of who he is and, by
>extension, experts say, some of his most important decision-making."
>
>Just over a week ago, Time published an article by Michael Duffy,
>who had interviewed more than a dozen senior Republican Party
>operatives, people who advise and support the president and talk
>regularly to him and his inner circle. "Bush has always preferred his
>poison straight up or down, good vs. bad, dead or alive, you're either
>with us or you're with the terrorists," Duffy wrote. "In one
>horrifying two-hour period [on September 11], the world shuddered and
>conformed to his way of thinking: there was good and there was evil,
>and it wasn't hard to tell the difference." Then Duffy
>added: "Privately, Bush even talked of being chosen by the grace of
>God to lead at that moment."
>
>So Bush is chosen by God, but not by the U.S. Congress and not by
>the United Nations, to lead an invasion of Iraq. During the Vietnam
>War, evidently Bush was chosen by God not to lead anyone into that
>war, least of all himself. Welcome to America's Chicken Heart
>administration: chicken when they were asked to fight a war that they
>themselves believed in, and now all heart to send other young men off
>to a war that only they believe in.
>
>And just a few days ago, The New York Times reported a new Bush
>doctrine whereby the chosen by God Bush can unilaterally declare war
>on any country he deems is run by evil-doers. Today Iraq, maybe next
>week Madagascar. Next month, possibly Philadelphia.
>
>Let's face it, our chosen by God leader is in a modern Christian
>crusade frame of mind. He's probably riding his lead pony right now
>around the White House war room. A year ago, God's choice used the
>word "crusade" to describe his War on Terrorism, which knocked the
>Arab world right off its camel. Although Bush drank his way through
>Yale and then slept through Harvard Business School, since Yale
>produced one long hangover, the Arab heathens haven't had excessive
>consumption and innate laziness black out their history. Christian
>Crusades are still unpopular in the Middle East.
>
>With 9/11 as Revelation, the President of the United States,
>personally chosen by God, is about to lead us, sisters and brothers,
>saints and sinners, into what he believes will be Armageddon. In the
>New Testament, Armageddon is described in Revelations "as the place
>where the kings of the Earth under demonic leadership will wage war on
>the forces of God at the end of World history. God's heavenly armies
>will defeat the demonic forces of evil."
>
>Bush has singled out the "evil doer;" co-ideologue Pat Robertson
>can't shut up about Armageddon, which will bring on the Second Coming
>and the conversion of all the Jews to Jesus. The direct mail campaign
>of "Jews for Jesus" is right in step; cowriter Rick Friedman is urged
>to "take Christ into your heart before Armageddon happens or you're
>doomed!" Actually, if we don't get this nut out of the White House
>we're all doomed.
>
>If the chosen by God George Bush invades demonic Iraq he may very
>well ignite a larger war in the Middle East that will pull in other
>Arab states and Israel, leading us to the conclusion of Armageddon
>with both God's forces and Satan's army all going down the toilet of
>defeat. And just think, all of this from a man who can't
>spell "banana." So sisters and brothers, saints and sinners, hang on
>because revelation is bringing a revolution and we just may end up
>back in the Stone Age.
>
>By the way, if you're not the fatalistic type, you could get off
>your spreading computer butt and raise some hell! Bush might be chosen
>by God, but this is still a democracy.
>
>Rick Friedman is contributing editor and Stewart Nusbaumer is editor
>of Intervention Magazine. Both would like to thank West End Bar for
>its gracious, copious support of this writing project.
>
>
>
>This article comes from War, Politics, Culture
><http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/>http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fw: Greg Stillson is President
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:33:32 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is not an aristotlean proposition essay.
It is a review and assessment of observable facts, and a proffer that xyz
MAY be a likelihood.
It is easy to take an abstraction of what was said there, reduce it to a
simplistic logical form, and dismiss the whole thing as unviable.

Read it holistically, not differentially, and you might at least get the
message that is being conveyed, whether right or wrong.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 12:44 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Greg Stillson is President

> This can be summarized as follows:
>
> Osama bin Laden is a Muslim religious fanatic. Osama bin Laden is a bad
> man who wants to bring about the apocalypse.
>
> Bush is a religious Christian. Therefore, Bush is a Christian religious
> fanatic. Therefore, Bush is a bad man who wants to bring about the
apocalypse.
>
> Oh yeah, the author throws in a few "guilt-by-association" sidebars
> mentioning a few other Christian religious fanatics who have done some
> things they believe will bring about the end times.
>
> This might make a good essay in an introductory class on logic for a
"point
> out all the logical fallacies" exercise--at the middle-school level.
>
> Lowell C. Savage
> It's the freedom, stupid!
> Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
>
> At 12:03 03/06/03 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <mailto:garyonthenet@yahoo.com>G Triest
> >To: <mailto:lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com>lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com
> >Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:57 AM
> >Subject: Greg Stillson is President
> >
> >Anyone ever hear of Greg Stillson?
> >The similarities are uncanny . . . .
> >__________________________________________
> >
> >
> >All of us know that Osama bin Laden is a Muslim religious fanatic
> >hell-bent on implementing his demented version of Armageddon in the
> >Middle East. What we're not sure about, however, is whether or not
> >George Bush is a Christian religious fanatic hell-bent on his demented
> >version of Armageddon in the Middle East. It's this scary thought
> >planted in the air of public consciousness that our timid mainstream
> >media has begun to explore, lightly explore, delicately dancing around
> >the edges to avoid setting off the land mine of religion.
> >
> >Two weeks ago in the Christian Science Monitor, Francine Kiefer
> >wrote that "Bush's religious beliefs are emerging as a central
> >influence to his policies and politics -- inextricably linked to
> >everything from the war on terrorism to the November elections." "For
> >Bush," Kiefer continued, "who reads his Bible every morning, faith
> >extends beyond the national catharsis of the moment. By his own
> >admission, his religious views shape much of who he is and, by
> >extension, experts say, some of his most important decision-making."
> >
> >Just over a week ago, Time published an article by Michael Duffy,
> >who had interviewed more than a dozen senior Republican Party
> >operatives, people who advise and support the president and talk
> >regularly to him and his inner circle. "Bush has always preferred his
> >poison straight up or down, good vs. bad, dead or alive, you're either
> >with us or you're with the terrorists," Duffy wrote. "In one
> >horrifying two-hour period [on September 11], the world shuddered and
> >conformed to his way of thinking: there was good and there was evil,
> >and it wasn't hard to tell the difference." Then Duffy
> >added: "Privately, Bush even talked of being chosen by the grace of
> >God to lead at that moment."
> >
> >So Bush is chosen by God, but not by the U.S. Congress and not by
> >the United Nations, to lead an invasion of Iraq. During the Vietnam
> >War, evidently Bush was chosen by God not to lead anyone into that
> >war, least of all himself. Welcome to America's Chicken Heart
> >administration: chicken when they were asked to fight a war that they
> >themselves believed in, and now all heart to send other young men off
> >to a war that only they believe in.
> >
> >And just a few days ago, The New York Times reported a new Bush
> >doctrine whereby the chosen by God Bush can unilaterally declare war
> >on any country he deems is run by evil-doers. Today Iraq, maybe next
> >week Madagascar. Next month, possibly Philadelphia.
> >
> >Let's face it, our chosen by God leader is in a modern Christian
> >crusade frame of mind. He's probably riding his lead pony right now
> >around the White House war room. A year ago, God's choice used the
> >word "crusade" to describe his War on Terrorism, which knocked the
> >Arab world right off its camel. Although Bush drank his way through
> >Yale and then slept through Harvard Business School, since Yale
> >produced one long hangover, the Arab heathens haven't had excessive
> >consumption and innate laziness black out their history. Christian
> >Crusades are still unpopular in the Middle East.
> >
> >With 9/11 as Revelation, the President of the United States,
> >personally chosen by God, is about to lead us, sisters and brothers,
> >saints and sinners, into what he believes will be Armageddon. In the
> >New Testament, Armageddon is described in Revelations "as the place
> >where the kings of the Earth under demonic leadership will wage war on
> >the forces of God at the end of World history. God's heavenly armies
> >will defeat the demonic forces of evil."
> >
> >Bush has singled out the "evil doer;" co-ideologue Pat Robertson
> >can't shut up about Armageddon, which will bring on the Second Coming
> >and the conversion of all the Jews to Jesus. The direct mail campaign
> >of "Jews for Jesus" is right in step; cowriter Rick Friedman is urged
> >to "take Christ into your heart before Armageddon happens or you're
> >doomed!" Actually, if we don't get this nut out of the White House
> >we're all doomed.
> >
> >If the chosen by God George Bush invades demonic Iraq he may very
> >well ignite a larger war in the Middle East that will pull in other
> >Arab states and Israel, leading us to the conclusion of Armageddon
> >with both God's forces and Satan's army all going down the toilet of
> >defeat. And just think, all of this from a man who can't
> >spell "banana." So sisters and brothers, saints and sinners, hang on
> >because revelation is bringing a revolution and we just may end up
> >back in the Stone Age.
> >
> >By the way, if you're not the fatalistic type, you could get off
> >your spreading computer butt and raise some hell! Bush might be chosen
> >by God, but this is still a democracy.
> >
> >Rick Friedman is contributing editor and Stewart Nusbaumer is editor
> >of Intervention Magazine. Both would like to thank West End Bar for
> >its gracious, copious support of this writing project.
> >
> >
> >
> >This article comes from War, Politics, Culture
> ><http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/>http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fw: Greg Stillson is President
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 21:00:39 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Gary Triest wrote, in part:
>This is not an aristotlean proposition essay.
>It is a review and assessment of observable facts, and a proffer that xyz
>MAY be a likelihood.

No, it is attempting to stretch those observable facts all out of
proportion with any reasonable reality. It makes about as much sense as
saying "Well, Israel would have known that an attack by Muslims on the US
would benefit Isreal. So therefore, Israel actually used its agents to
carry out the 9/11 attacks."

>It is easy to take an abstraction of what was said there, reduce it to a
>simplistic logical form, and dismiss the whole thing as unviable.

I see. And would you similarly dismiss my argument above about Israel
simply because some author turned that argument into a whole book?

>Read it holistically, not differentially, and you might at least get the
>message that is being conveyed, whether right or wrong.

I did read it "holistically", I got the message and the message is
wrong. Every minor piece of evidence was blown up far beyond the meaning
intended by the original writer or speaker, portrayed in the worst possible
light, and then the worst possible motives are ascribed to Bush. The essay
is speculation built on leaps of logic built on misinterpretations,
untruths, irrelevancies, guilt-by-association (without even showing an
association!) and (anti-)religious bigotry.

I've interspersed comments after most of the paragraphs below.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

My post (to which Gary was responding) follows.
> > This can be summarized as follows:
> >
> > Osama bin Laden is a Muslim religious fanatic. Osama bin Laden is a bad
> > man who wants to bring about the apocalypse.
> >
> > Bush is a religious Christian. Therefore, Bush is a Christian religious
> > fanatic. Therefore, Bush is a bad man who wants to bring about the
> > apocalypse.
> >
> > Oh yeah, the author throws in a few "guilt-by-association" sidebars
> > mentioning a few other Christian religious fanatics who have done some
> > things they believe will bring about the end times.
> >
> > This might make a good essay in an introductory class on logic for a
> > "point out all the logical fallacies" exercise--at the middle-school
level.
> >
> > Lowell C. Savage
> > It's the freedom, stupid!
> > Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
> >
> > Gary Triest wrote:
> > >Anyone ever hear of Greg Stillson?
> > >The similarities are uncanny . . . .
> > >__________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >All of us know that Osama bin Laden is a Muslim religious fanatic
> > >hell-bent on implementing his demented version of Armageddon in the
> > >Middle East. What we're not sure about, however, is whether or not
> > >George Bush is a Christian religious fanatic hell-bent on his demented
> > >version of Armageddon in the Middle East. It's this scary thought
> > >planted in the air of public consciousness that our timid mainstream
> > >media has begun to explore, lightly explore, delicately dancing around
> > >the edges to avoid setting off the land mine of religion.

Speculation. "Is George Bush a religious fanatic bent on
Armageddon?" They think so and play cute by posing it as a question.

> > >Two weeks ago in the Christian Science Monitor, Francine Kiefer
> > >wrote that "Bush's religious beliefs are emerging as a central
> > >influence to his policies and politics -- inextricably linked to
> > >everything from the war on terrorism to the November elections." "For
> > >Bush," Kiefer continued, "who reads his Bible every morning, faith
> > >extends beyond the national catharsis of the moment. By his own
> > >admission, his religious views shape much of who he is and, by
> > >extension, experts say, some of his most important decision-making."

Misinterpretation. Does this mean that Bush seeks to impose a government
run by church officials, or ban practices (like eating pork) found in the
Bible? Or does it mean that Bush seeks to ground his morality in something
he believes is higher than himself--instead of simply "winging it" based on
opinion polls?

> > >Just over a week ago, Time published an article by Michael Duffy,
> > >who had interviewed more than a dozen senior Republican Party
> > >operatives, people who advise and support the president and talk
> > >regularly to him and his inner circle. "Bush has always preferred his
> > >poison straight up or down, good vs. bad, dead or alive, you're either
> > >with us or you're with the terrorists," Duffy wrote. "In one
> > >horrifying two-hour period [on September 11], the world shuddered and
> > >conformed to his way of thinking: there was good and there was evil,
> > >and it wasn't hard to tell the difference." Then Duffy
> > >added: "Privately, Bush even talked of being chosen by the grace of
> > >God to lead at that moment."

Misinterpretation again. "Being chosen by God to..." is something that has
a different meaning to a Christian than this essayist obviously is trying
to imply. Christians who say this sort of thing generally take it as God
working through the events and people around them to put them where they
are. Once in that position, they still have the obligation to humbly
attempt to do the right thing. Does this mean that Bush thinks the "right
thing" is to bring on Armegeddon? That's ridiculous.

> > >
> > >So Bush is chosen by God, but not by the U.S. Congress and not by
> > >the United Nations, to lead an invasion of Iraq.

Not true. Bush was chosen by the people of this country (a majority for
Gore not-with-standing--that's the system and that's the way it works) to
be the "Johnny on the spot" if something like 9/11 happened. Congress
passed a war resolution. And I don't give a rat's ass about that
collection of "diplomats" sent by dictators, thugs and
"presidents-for-life" that constitute the UN.

> > > During the Vietnam
> > >War, evidently Bush was chosen by God not to lead anyone into that
> > >war, least of all himself. Welcome to America's Chicken Heart
> > >administration: chicken when they were asked to fight a war that they
> > >themselves believed in, and now all heart to send other young men off
> > >to a war that only they believe in.

A cheap shot. And irrelevant. Does the fact that Bush avoided Vietnam
make a war decision on Iraq invalid? How?

> > >And just a few days ago, The New York Times reported a new Bush
> > >doctrine whereby the chosen by God Bush can unilaterally declare war
> > >on any country he deems is run by evil-doers. Today Iraq, maybe next
> > >week Madagascar. Next month, possibly Philadelphia.

Oh sure. Of course, since I'm not aware of that "doctrine", I can't
comment on it. Based on the way the other "facts" have been twisted, I
have no doubt that there's plenty of exaggeration or facts left out. There
is the "old" Bush doctrine of going after "all terrorists of global reach
and any country that harbors them." That one is "old" because it was
articulated by Bush in his speech to Congress right after 9/11.

> > >Let's face it, our chosen by God leader is in a modern Christian
> > >crusade frame of mind.

So therefore, Bush is a religious fanatic.

> > > He's probably riding his lead pony right now
> > >around the White House war room. A year ago, God's choice used the
> > >word "crusade" to describe his War on Terrorism, which knocked the
> > >Arab world right off its camel.

Religious bigotry. Yes, he carelessly used a word he shouldn't
have. "Crusade" is used carelessly in the Christian community to mean
"struggle". In fact, the most prominent organization that has "Crusade" in
its name is "Campus Crusade for Christ" (see
"www.campuscrusadeforchrist.com"). While the main page has a picture of a
soldier at attention with his rifle, the link is anything but warlike. I
defy anyone to find anything on that site which advocates violence of any
kind (even self-defense). It doesn't excuse Bush's careless use of the
word. But it does illustrate that his careless use was unlikely to be a
"Freudian slip" revealing some deep desire to convert the Arab world to
Christianity by force.

My personal reaction was that the word "Crusade" was insulting to me as a
Christian, because it would imply that the coming struggle against
terrorism was going to be a struggle between religions rather than simply a
struggle between civilized society and terrorists (some of who may claim
the mantle of religion.)

> > >Although Bush drank his way through
> > >Yale and then slept through Harvard Business School, since Yale
> > >produced one long hangover, the Arab heathens haven't had excessive
> > >consumption and innate laziness black out their history. Christian
> > >Crusades are still unpopular in the Middle East.

Amazing, all that drinking and sleeping and he still got better grades than
that supposedly "real smart" Al Gore--who BTW, only managed an
undergraduate degree. But, of course, another irrelevant shot.

> > >With 9/11 as Revelation, the President of the United States,
> > >personally chosen by God, is about to lead us, sisters and brothers,
> > >saints and sinners, into what he believes will be Armageddon. In the
> > >New Testament, Armageddon is described in Revelations "as the place
> > >where the kings of the Earth under demonic leadership will wage war on
> > >the forces of God at the end of World history. God's heavenly armies
> > >will defeat the demonic forces of evil."

So, after piling up all the non-evidence and stretching and twisting it
every way possible, we get to the final far-out leap. We are breathlessly
informed that Bush wants to lead the world into Armageddon.

> > >Bush has singled out the "evil doer;" co-ideologue Pat Robertson
> > >can't shut up about Armageddon, which will bring on the Second Coming
> > >and the conversion of all the Jews to Jesus. The direct mail campaign
> > >of "Jews for Jesus" is right in step; cowriter Rick Friedman is urged
> > >to "take Christ into your heart before Armageddon happens or you're
> > >doomed!" Actually, if we don't get this nut out of the White House
> > >we're all doomed.

Guilt by association. Although I'm not sure what association there is
between Pat Robertson (a Baptist), Jews for Jesus (see
"www.jewsforjesus.org" unknown denomination, probably multi-denominational)
and Bush (an Episcopalian) other than that they all profess Christianity.

> > >If the chosen by God George Bush invades demonic Iraq he may very
> > >well ignite a larger war in the Middle East that will pull in other
> > >Arab states and Israel, leading us to the conclusion of Armageddon
> > >with both God's forces and Satan's army all going down the toilet of
> > >defeat. And just think, all of this from a man who can't
> > >spell "banana." So sisters and brothers, saints and sinners, hang on
> > >because revelation is bringing a revolution and we just may end up
> > >back in the Stone Age.

So, they needed all the above to get to the idea that maybe a war in Iraq
could widen and turn into some sort of Armageddon? They certainly *could*
be correct about that but they didn't provide much to back up their
claim. It's also possible that if Bush waits, there will eventually be a
war anyway, and if so, it will be far more destructive than what we face
now. So which is more likely? These people apparently are more afraid of
a war now but have hardly provided evidence for their position.

> > >
> > >By the way, if you're not the fatalistic type, you could get off
> > >your spreading computer butt and raise some hell! Bush might be chosen
> > >by God, but this is still a democracy.

Yeah, whatever.

> > >Rick Friedman is contributing editor and Stewart Nusbaumer is editor
> > >of Intervention Magazine. Both would like to thank West End Bar for
> > >its gracious, copious support of this writing project.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >This article comes from War, Politics, Culture
> > ><http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/>
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fw: Greg Stillson is President
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:08:34 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

The essay does not totally rely on raw logic, and yes some of the evidence
may not weight as highly with you as others.
The point I was making in my last post, was that you had dismissed the whole
essay a priori as fundamentally logically flawed, and therefore not even
worthy or reading, e.g., 1+1=3.

I may agree that the article is reaching, but it is still a valid
proposition.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Greg Stillson is President

>
> Gary Triest wrote, in part:
> >This is not an aristotlean proposition essay.
> >It is a review and assessment of observable facts, and a proffer that xyz
> >MAY be a likelihood.
>
> No, it is attempting to stretch those observable facts all out of
> proportion with any reasonable reality. It makes about as much sense as
> saying "Well, Israel would have known that an attack by Muslims on the US
> would benefit Isreal. So therefore, Israel actually used its agents to
> carry out the 9/11 attacks."
>
> >It is easy to take an abstraction of what was said there, reduce it to a
> >simplistic logical form, and dismiss the whole thing as unviable.
>
> I see. And would you similarly dismiss my argument above about Israel
> simply because some author turned that argument into a whole book?
>
> >Read it holistically, not differentially, and you might at least get the
> >message that is being conveyed, whether right or wrong.
>
> I did read it "holistically", I got the message and the message is
> wrong. Every minor piece of evidence was blown up far beyond the meaning
> intended by the original writer or speaker, portrayed in the worst
possible
> light, and then the worst possible motives are ascribed to Bush. The
essay
> is speculation built on leaps of logic built on misinterpretations,
> untruths, irrelevancies, guilt-by-association (without even showing an
> association!) and (anti-)religious bigotry.
>
> I've interspersed comments after most of the paragraphs below.
>
> Lowell C. Savage
> It's the freedom, stupid!
> Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
>
> My post (to which Gary was responding) follows.
> > > This can be summarized as follows:
> > >
> > > Osama bin Laden is a Muslim religious fanatic. Osama bin Laden is a
bad
> > > man who wants to bring about the apocalypse.
> > >
> > > Bush is a religious Christian. Therefore, Bush is a Christian
religious
> > > fanatic. Therefore, Bush is a bad man who wants to bring about the
> > > apocalypse.
> > >
> > > Oh yeah, the author throws in a few "guilt-by-association" sidebars
> > > mentioning a few other Christian religious fanatics who have done some
> > > things they believe will bring about the end times.
> > >
> > > This might make a good essay in an introductory class on logic for a
> > > "point out all the logical fallacies" exercise--at the middle-school
level.
> > >
> > > Lowell C. Savage
> > > It's the freedom, stupid!
> > > Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
> > >
> > > Gary Triest wrote:
> > > >Anyone ever hear of Greg Stillson?
> > > >The similarities are uncanny . . . .
> > > >__________________________________________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >All of us know that Osama bin Laden is a Muslim religious fanatic
> > > >hell-bent on implementing his demented version of Armageddon in the
> > > >Middle East. What we're not sure about, however, is whether or not
> > > >George Bush is a Christian religious fanatic hell-bent on his
demented
> > > >version of Armageddon in the Middle East. It's this scary thought
> > > >planted in the air of public consciousness that our timid mainstream
> > > >media has begun to explore, lightly explore, delicately dancing
around
> > > >the edges to avoid setting off the land mine of religion.
>
> Speculation. "Is George Bush a religious fanatic bent on
> Armageddon?" They think so and play cute by posing it as a question.
>
> > > >Two weeks ago in the Christian Science Monitor, Francine Kiefer
> > > >wrote that "Bush's religious beliefs are emerging as a central
> > > >influence to his policies and politics -- inextricably linked to
> > > >everything from the war on terrorism to the November elections." "For
> > > >Bush," Kiefer continued, "who reads his Bible every morning, faith
> > > >extends beyond the national catharsis of the moment. By his own
> > > >admission, his religious views shape much of who he is and, by
> > > >extension, experts say, some of his most important decision-making."
>
> Misinterpretation. Does this mean that Bush seeks to impose a government
> run by church officials, or ban practices (like eating pork) found in the
> Bible? Or does it mean that Bush seeks to ground his morality in
something
> he believes is higher than himself--instead of simply "winging it" based
on
> opinion polls?
>
> > > >Just over a week ago, Time published an article by Michael Duffy,
> > > >who had interviewed more than a dozen senior Republican Party
> > > >operatives, people who advise and support the president and talk
> > > >regularly to him and his inner circle. "Bush has always preferred his
> > > >poison straight up or down, good vs. bad, dead or alive, you're
either
> > > >with us or you're with the terrorists," Duffy wrote. "In one
> > > >horrifying two-hour period [on September 11], the world shuddered and
> > > >conformed to his way of thinking: there was good and there was evil,
> > > >and it wasn't hard to tell the difference." Then Duffy
> > > >added: "Privately, Bush even talked of being chosen by the grace of
> > > >God to lead at that moment."
>
> Misinterpretation again. "Being chosen by God to..." is something that
has
> a different meaning to a Christian than this essayist obviously is trying
> to imply. Christians who say this sort of thing generally take it as God
> working through the events and people around them to put them where they
> are. Once in that position, they still have the obligation to humbly
> attempt to do the right thing. Does this mean that Bush thinks the "right
> thing" is to bring on Armegeddon? That's ridiculous.
>
> > > >
> > > >So Bush is chosen by God, but not by the U.S. Congress and not by
> > > >the United Nations, to lead an invasion of Iraq.
>
> Not true. Bush was chosen by the people of this country (a majority for
> Gore not-with-standing--that's the system and that's the way it works) to
> be the "Johnny on the spot" if something like 9/11 happened. Congress
> passed a war resolution. And I don't give a rat's ass about that
> collection of "diplomats" sent by dictators, thugs and
> "presidents-for-life" that constitute the UN.
>
> > > > During the Vietnam
> > > >War, evidently Bush was chosen by God not to lead anyone into that
> > > >war, least of all himself. Welcome to America's Chicken Heart
> > > >administration: chicken when they were asked to fight a war that they
> > > >themselves believed in, and now all heart to send other young men off
> > > >to a war that only they believe in.
>
> A cheap shot. And irrelevant. Does the fact that Bush avoided Vietnam
> make a war decision on Iraq invalid? How?
>
> > > >And just a few days ago, The New York Times reported a new Bush
> > > >doctrine whereby the chosen by God Bush can unilaterally declare war
> > > >on any country he deems is run by evil-doers. Today Iraq, maybe next
> > > >week Madagascar. Next month, possibly Philadelphia.
>
> Oh sure. Of course, since I'm not aware of that "doctrine", I can't
> comment on it. Based on the way the other "facts" have been twisted, I
> have no doubt that there's plenty of exaggeration or facts left out.
There
> is the "old" Bush doctrine of going after "all terrorists of global reach
> and any country that harbors them." That one is "old" because it was
> articulated by Bush in his speech to Congress right after 9/11.
>
> > > >Let's face it, our chosen by God leader is in a modern Christian
> > > >crusade frame of mind.
>
> So therefore, Bush is a religious fanatic.
>
> > > > He's probably riding his lead pony right now
> > > >around the White House war room. A year ago, God's choice used the
> > > >word "crusade" to describe his War on Terrorism, which knocked the
> > > >Arab world right off its camel.
>
> Religious bigotry. Yes, he carelessly used a word he shouldn't
> have. "Crusade" is used carelessly in the Christian community to mean
> "struggle". In fact, the most prominent organization that has "Crusade"
in
> its name is "Campus Crusade for Christ" (see
> "www.campuscrusadeforchrist.com"). While the main page has a picture of a
> soldier at attention with his rifle, the link is anything but warlike. I
> defy anyone to find anything on that site which advocates violence of any
> kind (even self-defense). It doesn't excuse Bush's careless use of the
> word. But it does illustrate that his careless use was unlikely to be a
> "Freudian slip" revealing some deep desire to convert the Arab world to
> Christianity by force.
>
> My personal reaction was that the word "Crusade" was insulting to me as a
> Christian, because it would imply that the coming struggle against
> terrorism was going to be a struggle between religions rather than simply
a
> struggle between civilized society and terrorists (some of who may claim
> the mantle of religion.)
>
> > > >Although Bush drank his way through
> > > >Yale and then slept through Harvard Business School, since Yale
> > > >produced one long hangover, the Arab heathens haven't had excessive
> > > >consumption and innate laziness black out their history. Christian
> > > >Crusades are still unpopular in the Middle East.
>
> Amazing, all that drinking and sleeping and he still got better grades
than
> that supposedly "real smart" Al Gore--who BTW, only managed an
> undergraduate degree. But, of course, another irrelevant shot.
>
> > > >With 9/11 as Revelation, the President of the United States,
> > > >personally chosen by God, is about to lead us, sisters and brothers,
> > > >saints and sinners, into what he believes will be Armageddon. In the
> > > >New Testament, Armageddon is described in Revelations "as the place
> > > >where the kings of the Earth under demonic leadership will wage war
on
> > > >the forces of God at the end of World history. God's heavenly armies
> > > >will defeat the demonic forces of evil."
>
> So, after piling up all the non-evidence and stretching and twisting it
> every way possible, we get to the final far-out leap. We are breathlessly
> informed that Bush wants to lead the world into Armageddon.
>
> > > >Bush has singled out the "evil doer;" co-ideologue Pat Robertson
> > > >can't shut up about Armageddon, which will bring on the Second Coming
> > > >and the conversion of all the Jews to Jesus. The direct mail campaign
> > > >of "Jews for Jesus" is right in step; cowriter Rick Friedman is urged
> > > >to "take Christ into your heart before Armageddon happens or you're
> > > >doomed!" Actually, if we don't get this nut out of the White House
> > > >we're all doomed.
>
> Guilt by association. Although I'm not sure what association there is
> between Pat Robertson (a Baptist), Jews for Jesus (see
> "www.jewsforjesus.org" unknown denomination, probably
multi-denominational)
> and Bush (an Episcopalian) other than that they all profess Christianity.
>
> > > >If the chosen by God George Bush invades demonic Iraq he may very
> > > >well ignite a larger war in the Middle East that will pull in other
> > > >Arab states and Israel, leading us to the conclusion of Armageddon
> > > >with both God's forces and Satan's army all going down the toilet of
> > > >defeat. And just think, all of this from a man who can't
> > > >spell "banana." So sisters and brothers, saints and sinners, hang on
> > > >because revelation is bringing a revolution and we just may end up
> > > >back in the Stone Age.
>
> So, they needed all the above to get to the idea that maybe a war in Iraq
> could widen and turn into some sort of Armageddon? They certainly *could*
> be correct about that but they didn't provide much to back up their
> claim. It's also possible that if Bush waits, there will eventually be a
> war anyway, and if so, it will be far more destructive than what we face
> now. So which is more likely? These people apparently are more afraid of
> a war now but have hardly provided evidence for their position.
>
> > > >
> > > >By the way, if you're not the fatalistic type, you could get off
> > > >your spreading computer butt and raise some hell! Bush might be
chosen
> > > >by God, but this is still a democracy.
>
> Yeah, whatever.
>
> > > >Rick Friedman is contributing editor and Stewart Nusbaumer is editor
> > > >of Intervention Magazine. Both would like to thank West End Bar for
> > > >its gracious, copious support of this writing project.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >This article comes from War, Politics, Culture
> > >
><http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/>http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: The DEAD ZONE - Greg Stillson is President
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 21:39:44 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<ken@faradaylabs.com>,
<wes@logicallearning.net>,
<allisont@charter.net>,
<platzer1@mindspring.com>,
<robnchar@earthlink.net>,
<michael@kusuma.com>,
<fdboring@aol.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoo.com>

Gary,

Thanks, double thanks, response below:

From: G Triest <mailto:garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:57 AM
Subject: Greg Stillson is President

Anyone ever hear of Greg Stillson?
The similarities are uncanny . . . .
__________________________________________

Well, Gary, my first thought was the **wonderful**, old Frank
Sinatra movie,
Manchurian Candidate.

Then, knowing before I thought it, I dismissed my favorite book by
Dean Koontz.

I've settled on my favorite book/movie by Steven King, "The Dead
Zone" (which,
in the movie, was C. Walken's finest preformance.

Partly, I settled on the "Dead Zone" because I wanted to ask you:
Now that you've
seen the future, what are you going to do about it?? (grin, i
think)

And, thanks for the forward, remaining below. As I wrote Frank
awhile back, the
evidence is, for me, this war with Iraq is just the latest stage
of white, Christian,
Manifest Destiny. Of course, Judaism has it's "destiny", as
well, as do the Muslims,
all the above of whom share the story of Abraham - "would you kill
for god?" They've
all shown that willingness.

It looks to me like Armagedon is a self-fullfilling prophecy.

Some white, Christian, Texan rancher (no not, Bush) has bred the
*prefect* RED COW,
with the breeding funded by jewish fundamentalist so's to bring
about the "end of times",
with the Bible predicting a perfect red cow in Israel, just before
Armagedon. It's there, now.

As I see it, the evidence is in. This is **nothing** but a
religious war, on all three sides, with
the whole damned bunch of nuttsos 'dying' for Armagedon - wanting
it, begging for it.

Sincerely,
Larry

All of us know that Osama bin Laden is a Muslim religious fanatic
hell-bent on implementing his demented version of Armageddon in
the
Middle East. What we're not sure about, however, is whether or not

George Bush is a Christian religious fanatic hell-bent on his
demented
version of Armageddon in the Middle East. It's this scary thought
planted in the air of public consciousness that our timid
mainstream
media has begun to explore, lightly explore, delicately dancing
around
the edges to avoid setting off the land mine of religion.

Two weeks ago in the Christian Science Monitor, Francine Kiefer
wrote that "Bush's religious beliefs are emerging as a central
influence to his policies and politics -- inextricably linked to
everything from the war on terrorism to the November elections."
"For
Bush," Kiefer continued, "who reads his Bible every morning, faith

extends beyond the national catharsis of the moment. By his own
admission, his religious views shape much of who he is and, by
extension, experts say, some of his most important
decision-making."

Just over a week ago, Time published an article by Michael Duffy,
who had interviewed more than a dozen senior Republican Party
operatives, people who advise and support the president and talk
regularly to him and his inner circle. "Bush has always preferred
his
poison straight up or down, good vs. bad, dead or alive, you're
either
with us or you're with the terrorists," Duffy wrote. "In one
horrifying two-hour period [on September 11], the world shuddered
and
conformed to his way of thinking: there was good and there was
evil,
and it wasn't hard to tell the difference." Then Duffy
added: "Privately, Bush even talked of being chosen by the grace
of
God to lead at that moment."

So Bush is chosen by God, but not by the U.S. Congress and not by
the United Nations, to lead an invasion of Iraq. During the
Vietnam
War, evidently Bush was chosen by God not to lead anyone into that

war, least of all himself. Welcome to America's Chicken Heart
administration: chicken when they were asked to fight a war that
they
themselves believed in, and now all heart to send other young men
off
to a war that only they believe in.

And just a few days ago, The New York Times reported a new Bush
doctrine whereby the chosen by God Bush can unilaterally declare
war
on any country he deems is run by evil-doers. Today Iraq, maybe
next
week Madagascar. Next month, possibly Philadelphia.

Let's face it, our chosen by God leader is in a modern Christian
crusade frame of mind. He's probably riding his lead pony right
now
around the White House war room. A year ago, God's choice used the

word "crusade" to describe his War on Terrorism, which knocked the

Arab world right off its camel. Although Bush drank his way
through
Yale and then slept through Harvard Business School, since Yale
produced one long hangover, the Arab heathens haven't had
excessive
consumption and innate laziness black out their history. Christian

Crusades are still unpopular in the Middle East.

With 9/11 as Revelation, the President of the United States,
personally chosen by God, is about to lead us, sisters and
brothers,
saints and sinners, into what he believes will be Armageddon. In
the
New Testament, Armageddon is described in Revelations "as the
place
where the kings of the Earth under demonic leadership will wage
war on
the forces of God at the end of World history. God's heavenly
armies
will defeat the demonic forces of evil."

Bush has singled out the "evil doer;" co-ideologue Pat Robertson
can't shut up about Armageddon, which will bring on the Second
Coming
and the conversion of all the Jews to Jesus. The direct mail
campaign
of "Jews for Jesus" is right in step; cowriter Rick Friedman is
urged
to "take Christ into your heart before Armageddon happens or
you're
doomed!" Actually, if we don't get this nut out of the White House

we're all doomed.

If the chosen by God George Bush invades demonic Iraq he may very
well ignite a larger war in the Middle East that will pull in
other
Arab states and Israel, leading us to the conclusion of Armageddon

with both God's forces and Satan's army all going down the toilet
of
defeat. And just think, all of this from a man who can't
spell "banana." So sisters and brothers, saints and sinners, hang
on
because revelation is bringing a revolution and we just may end up

back in the Stone Age.

By the way, if you're not the fatalistic type, you could get off
your spreading computer butt and raise some hell! Bush might be
chosen
by God, but this is still a democracy.

Rick Friedman is contributing editor and Stewart Nusbaumer is
editor
of Intervention Magazine. Both would like to thank West End Bar
for
its gracious, copious support of this writing project.

This article comes from War, Politics, Culture
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Take responsibility for you own actions, Bill!!! - Re: Robert -
Re: bill - Re: LIBERTY!!! - Re: your turn
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 22:04:55 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Hey, Ya, Bill,

I dunno who you were responding to below, but it was not me!!!

And **such** a rant you got on to, at the very bottom, about me!

Near as I can tell, you were responding to Robert and Frank (?).

Maybe you gotten as confused by what's going on hear as I have, eh?

I don't give a damn what messages you recieve! What I give a damn
about is the messages **I** don't recieve!! And the messages from
me which *did not* show up in my in-box.

LF

on 3/6/03 2:30 AM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:

> On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 08:34, Robert Goodman wrote:
>> "Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org> wrote in part:
>>
>>> Nolan, as founder of the LP and author of the oath (at the same time),
>>> holds ultimate authority as to what it was intended to be.
>>
>> At this point I'd like to inject:
>>
>> (1) David Nolan was not "founder of the LP", but an important
>> co-founder.
>
> He's the only one I see listed as being there in the archives so, that's
> what I go with.
>
>>
>> (2) Some who were there or heard about it soon afterward dispute that he
>> was the author (it was a committee product, though he did present that
>> wording to the committee).
>
> But then some do not.
>
>
>> (3) They also dispute that that's what they understood it to mean at the
>> time.
>>
>
> Who is this they?
>
>> I first heard David Nolan give this explanation of the non-aggression
>> certification on a bus at the 1991 LP national convention. However, its
>> wording is almost exactly that of John Galt's in "Atlas Shrugged".
>>
>> My guess is that it had dual purposes, being both the disclaimer David
>> Nolan now says it has and a hook for Objectivists.
>
> I've not seen anywhere he's said this, links?
>
>>
>>> It is my understanding that Nolan has said as well that Rand had no
>>> influence on his wording of the oath/pledge. Indeed, as I understand
>> it
>>> Rand was a vehement opponent of the LP.
>>
>> Yes, but it was not certain at LP's founding that her followers would
>> continue to oppose it. BTW, you're getting this from someone who has
>> recently concluded it'd be better if LP had never been founded, and that
>> the sooner it disbands the better -- so libertarians in the USA can get
>> down to more serious politics, and also more effective education &
>> protest.
>
> What, you mean yelling at anyone who *might* disagree with you, calling
> the assholes and short-dicks, and insisting on putting words in your
> mouth, etc., etc., etc. doesn't work?
>
> I'm getting there (the point of the LP being a setback)myself. With
> people like Larry around ... hell he whines about how there's "no women"
> in the LP, then drives out the ones that he finds out about. My wife has
> lost nearly all hope for the LP due in a large part to the Larry. I've
> just lost hope for Larry himself. That's why he just went back into the
> killfile. I don't need his mindless and slobbering rantings Maybe his
> frothing at the mouth in an effort to ensure he alienates himself has
> caused a short in his keyboard, or may soon. When he settles down, my
> killfile watch script will let me know. Maybe, just maybe, I'll care
> enough to read his sewage. But Larry, if you're reading, don't hold your
> breath. No, wait, please do hold your breath. Do it every time you sit
> down to the keyboard. ;)
>
> hopefully, late next week things will settle down around here again and
> I can post the links to my amoral derivation of rights here. As it is,
> I'm authoring the courseware for ~12 Linux classes, and looking into the
> creation of a NW Linux training center.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Hey, Bill, Frank is 1/2 a world away - Re: Problem must have been
resolved...
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 22:07:46 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Bill,

I'm in Pocatello, Frank is 1/2 a world away. What are the odds that
it's DNS servers for both of us??

LF

on 3/6/03 2:33 AM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:

> On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 19:47, Frank M. Reichert wrote:
>> Greetings everyone!
>>
>> Don't know what the problem was with immosys.com, but I just received a
>> bundle of 45 messages, many dated ones including my repeats, into Liberty
>> Northwest a moment ago. Whatever the problem was, must now have been
>> resolved.
>
> As Ed (I think it was) noted, they may have been a DNS name lookup
> failure between here and there that could have caused the problem. it
> would not be something I'd be privy too, since I don;t run every DNS
> server in the world (if I did, things would dramatically improve, all
> this .com/.net/.org squatting would go bye-bye, and the need for complex
> porn-filtering would essentially go bye-bye too.)
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Hey, Bill, Frank is 1/2 a world away - Re: Problem must
have been resolved...
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 21:38:25 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Depends on who your ISPs are and whether the DNS servers that went down
served both of them. The thing that takes a bit of getting used to is that
physical geography doesn't map to internet "geography" very well.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

Larry Fullmer, in a rare moment of rationality, wrote:
>Bill,
>
>I'm in Pocatello, Frank is 1/2 a world away. What are the odds that
>it's DNS servers for both of us??
>
>LF
>
>on 3/6/03 2:33 AM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 19:47, Frank M. Reichert wrote:
> >> Greetings everyone!
> >>
> >> Don't know what the problem was with immosys.com, but I just received a
> >> bundle of 45 messages, many dated ones including my repeats, into
Liberty
> >> Northwest a moment ago. Whatever the problem was, must now have been
> >> resolved.
> >
> > As Ed (I think it was) noted, they may have been a DNS name lookup
> > failure between here and there that could have caused the problem. it
> > would not be something I'd be privy too, since I don;t run every DNS
> > server in the world (if I did, things would dramatically improve, all
> > this .com/.net/.org squatting would go bye-bye, and the need for complex
> > porn-filtering would essentially go bye-bye too.)
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
> >
> > To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> > To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> > Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> > Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
> >
> > URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> > Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> > Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
>To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
>URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Lowell's BS games!! - Re: lowell asskes
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:05:38 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Folks,

Lowell asked:

>> on 3/6/03 12:45 AM, Lowell C. Savage at savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>>> After all, how many
>>> troops do we have in Germany?

I replied, 70,000.

And I asked him why? Why? Why? In every way I could think of to ask him,
and this was his reply:

on 3/6/03 9:27 PM, Lowell C. Savage at savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Let me guess, Larry. We have 70,000 troops in Germany so that we can
order
> their Chancellor to run on an anti-American platform, and then do and say
> everything he can to prevent us from going after Iraq. Yeah, we're real
> imperialists. Sure, just the way that Larry Fulmer is a polite,
> thoughtful, respectful debater who prefers facts over emotion and avoids
> calling his opponents names.

Now, folks, Lowell is a guy who prides himself in pointing out logical
fallacy. Once it was pointed out to him how many troops "we" have in
Germany, not to mention nearly every where else on the Earth, and I asked
him why, why, why?? He replied with the above.

So, Lowell, lemmie try again. Do **you** think "we" oughta have 70,000
troops in Germany? Why? Even if you think I've been a name-caller, name
calling is no answer to my question (unless you want to descend to "my"
level).

So, Lowell, what Ya think about the fact that there are 70,000 U.S. troops
in Germany. What Ya think, Lowell, huh, huh, huh. Or do you do that?

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: thank gawd lowell isn't - Re: Greg Stillson is President
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:48:22 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Folks,

Lowell wrote, to which I will respond with intersperse:

on 3/6/03 9:44 PM, Lowell C. Savage at savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> This can be summarized as follows:
>
> Osama bin Laden is a Muslim religious fanatic. Osama bin Laden is a bad
> man who wants to bring about the apocalypse.

Yup, with Ya.
>
> Bush is a religious Christian.

Well, it's a bit more than that. He's a guy who got "born again!!", to save
himself from drugs and alcohol. And, as he told the press-conference
tonight, hey prays every day, just like Saddam, and has found himself buoyed
by the prayers of other Christians, while Moslems are praying for his death.

> Therefore, Bush is a Christian religious fanatic.

Yup, and his "Faith Based Initative" is just one of many peices of evidence.

> Therefore, Bush is a bad man who wants to bring about the apocalypse.

With God on his side, he's a *very* bad man!! He's conducting multiple wars
in the Homeland, against humans who use drugs, taxpayers, and anything to
increase government power (patriot act). And abroad? Same mission!!
Multiple wars against heathens, with God on his side, and nukes in his belt,
with not the ***slightest*** understanding or concern with liberty.
>
> Oh yeah, the author throws in a few "guilt-by-association" sidebars
> mentioning a few other Christian religious fanatics who have done some
> things they believe will bring about the end time

Well, that was easy to do. There have been religious fanatics of all three
stripes, expecting, and begging for, the "end of times" for 2K years. But
the current war actually started 6K years ago when a bunch of lost sheep
hearders slaughterd the Cannanites, and kicked 'em off the land **their**
god promised 'em.

With Gawd on all sides, as Bob Dylan sang, this is just the latest
installment of death and destruction generated by those three stripes who
share the "Story of Abraham", with him willing to kill his son, even.
"Would You Kill For God?" Well,they've all answered yes, time and time
again. This is just the latest BS!
>
> This might make a good essay in an introductory class on logic for a
"point
> out all the logical fallacies" exercise--at the middle-school level.

You complain about logic when it suits you. When it doesn't, you get real
damned down and dirty, with not the slightest respect for logic, reason, or
liberty.
>
> Lowell C. Savage

larrry
> It's the freedom, stupid!
> Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

What ya think, Lowell, is the shrub doing this so's he can grant full 2nd
Ammendments rights to Iraqies, lower their taxes drastically, and give 'em
the right to have sex and smoke dope?? Or is something else going on?

>
> At 12:03 03/06/03 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <mailto:garyonthenet@yahoo.com>G Triest
>> To: <mailto:lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com>lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:57 AM
>> Subject: Greg Stillson is President
>>
>> Anyone ever hear of Greg Stillson?
>> The similarities are uncanny . . . .
>> __________________________________________
>>
>>
>> All of us know that Osama bin Laden is a Muslim religious fanatic
>> hell-bent on implementing his demented version of Armageddon in the
>> Middle East. What we're not sure about, however, is whether or not
>> George Bush is a Christian religious fanatic hell-bent on his demented
>> version of Armageddon in the Middle East. It's this scary thought
>> planted in the air of public consciousness that our timid mainstream
>> media has begun to explore, lightly explore, delicately dancing around
>> the edges to avoid setting off the land mine of religion.
>>
>> Two weeks ago in the Christian Science Monitor, Francine Kiefer
>> wrote that "Bush's religious beliefs are emerging as a central
>> influence to his policies and politics -- inextricably linked to
>> everything from the war on terrorism to the November elections." "For
>> Bush," Kiefer continued, "who reads his Bible every morning, faith
>> extends beyond the national catharsis of the moment. By his own
>> admission, his religious views shape much of who he is and, by
>> extension, experts say, some of his most important decision-making."
>>
>> Just over a week ago, Time published an article by Michael Duffy,
>> who had interviewed more than a dozen senior Republican Party
>> operatives, people who advise and support the president and talk
>> regularly to him and his inner circle. "Bush has always preferred his
>> poison straight up or down, good vs. bad, dead or alive, you're either
>> with us or you're with the terrorists," Duffy wrote. "In one
>> horrifying two-hour period [on September 11], the world shuddered and
>> conformed to his way of thinking: there was good and there was evil,
>> and it wasn't hard to tell the difference." Then Duffy
>> added: "Privately, Bush even talked of being chosen by the grace of
>> God to lead at that moment."
>>
>> So Bush is chosen by God, but not by the U.S. Congress and not by
>> the United Nations, to lead an invasion of Iraq. During the Vietnam
>> War, evidently Bush was chosen by God not to lead anyone into that
>> war, least of all himself. Welcome to America's Chicken Heart
>> administration: chicken when they were asked to fight a war that they
>> themselves believed in, and now all heart to send other young men off
>> to a war that only they believe in.
>>
>> And just a few days ago, The New York Times reported a new Bush
>> doctrine whereby the chosen by God Bush can unilaterally declare war
>> on any country he deems is run by evil-doers. Today Iraq, maybe next
>> week Madagascar. Next month, possibly Philadelphia.
>>
>> Let's face it, our chosen by God leader is in a modern Christian
>> crusade frame of mind. He's probably riding his lead pony right now
>> around the White House war room. A year ago, God's choice used the
>> word "crusade" to describe his War on Terrorism, which knocked the
>> Arab world right off its camel. Although Bush drank his way through
>> Yale and then slept through Harvard Business School, since Yale
>> produced one long hangover, the Arab heathens haven't had excessive
>> consumption and innate laziness black out their history. Christian
>> Crusades are still unpopular in the Middle East.
>>
>> With 9/11 as Revelation, the President of the United States,
>> personally chosen by God, is about to lead us, sisters and brothers,
>> saints and sinners, into what he believes will be Armageddon. In the
>> New Testament, Armageddon is described in Revelations "as the place
>> where the kings of the Earth under demonic leadership will wage war on
>> the forces of God at the end of World history. God's heavenly armies
>> will defeat the demonic forces of evil."
>>
>> Bush has singled out the "evil doer;" co-ideologue Pat Robertson
>> can't shut up about Armageddon, which will bring on the Second Coming
>> and the conversion of all the Jews to Jesus. The direct mail campaign
>> of "Jews for Jesus" is right in step; cowriter Rick Friedman is urged
>> to "take Christ into your heart before Armageddon happens or you're
>> doomed!" Actually, if we don't get this nut out of the White House
>> we're all doomed.
>>
>> If the chosen by God George Bush invades demonic Iraq he may very
>> well ignite a larger war in the Middle East that will pull in other
>> Arab states and Israel, leading us to the conclusion of Armageddon
>> with both God's forces and Satan's army all going down the toilet of
>> defeat. And just think, all of this from a man who can't
>> spell "banana." So sisters and brothers, saints and sinners, hang on
>> because revelation is bringing a revolution and we just may end up
>> back in the Stone Age.
>>
>> By the way, if you're not the fatalistic type, you could get off
>> your spreading computer butt and raise some hell! Bush might be chosen
>> by God, but this is still a democracy.
>>
>> Rick Friedman is contributing editor and Stewart Nusbaumer is editor
>> of Intervention Magazine. Both would like to thank West End Bar for
>> its gracious, copious support of this writing project.
>>
>>
>>
>> This article comes from War, Politics, Culture
>> <http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/>http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: thank gawd lowell isn't - Re: Greg Stillson is President
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 01:58:57 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Larry responding to my sarcastic commentary, wrote in part:
>Folks,
>
>Lowell wrote, to which I will respond with intersperse:
>
> > Bush is a religious Christian.
>
>Well, it's a bit more than that. He's a guy who got "born again!!", to
save
>himself from drugs and alcohol. And, as he told the press-conference
>tonight, hey prays every day, just like Saddam, and has found himself
buoyed
>by the prayers of other Christians, while Moslems are praying for his
death.

OOooooh! Scary!

> > Therefore, Bush is a Christian religious fanatic.
>
>Yup, and his "Faith Based Initative" is just one of many peices of
evidence.

Suuure. Interesting thing is that *some* faith-based programs have worked
much better than government programs. Granted, I don't particularly like
the idea of government twiddling around in faith-based programs. And
granted, I don't think that some of the programs the government is running
or supporting happen to be things the government should have anything to do
with. However, trying to make things the government *IS* doing more
effective hardly constitutes evidence that someone is a religious fanatic.

> > Therefore, Bush is a bad man who wants to bring about the apocalypse.
>
>With God on his side, he's a *very* bad man!! He's conducting multiple
wars
>in the Homeland, against humans who use drugs, taxpayers, and anything to
>increase government power (patriot act). And abroad? Same mission!!
>Multiple wars against heathens, with God on his side, and nukes in his
belt,
>with not the ***slightest*** understanding or concern with liberty.

And your evidence that he thinks God is on his side is??? And your
evidence that he is waging wars against people simply because they are
heathen (and not for some other reason)? And do you really believe that
the people in Afghanistan have less liberty than they did in, say August,
2001?

> > Oh yeah, the author throws in a few "guilt-by-association" sidebars
> > mentioning a few other Christian religious fanatics who have done some
> > things they believe will bring about the end time
>
>Well, that was easy to do. There have been religious fanatics of all three
>stripes, expecting, and begging for, the "end of times" for 2K years. But
>the current war actually started 6K years ago when a bunch of lost sheep
>hearders slaughterd the Cannanites, and kicked 'em off the land **their**
>god promised 'em.

And the evidence that Bush is a religious fanatic and is waging or
continuing this war for this reason (other than the "guilt-by-association")
is????

>With Gawd on all sides, as Bob Dylan sang, this is just the latest
>installment of death and destruction generated by those three stripes who
>share the "Story of Abraham", with him willing to kill his son, even.
>"Would You Kill For God?" Well,they've all answered yes, time and time
>again. This is just the latest BS!

The evidence for this among the radical Muslims is there. Where is it
among Christians? (Other than "guilt-by-association," gratuitous
assertions, and wild accusations?)

> > This might make a good essay in an introductory class on logic for a
"point
> > out all the logical fallacies" exercise--at the middle-school level.
>
>You complain about logic when it suits you. When it doesn't, you get real
>damned down and dirty, with not the slightest respect for logic, reason, or
>liberty.

Well, you haven't shown much better logic than the essay to which I was
responding.

> >
> > Lowell C. Savage
>
>larrry
> > It's the freedom, stupid!
> > Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
>
>What ya think, Lowell, is the shrub doing this so's he can grant full 2nd
>Ammendments rights to Iraqies, lower their taxes drastically, and give 'em
>the right to have sex and smoke dope?? Or is something else going on?

Probably not. But back to the topic of whether Bush is a religious
fanatic, so what if he's not going to do any of those things. (Although
the taxes under a new regime will probably be considerably lower than they
are now--especially if you count the "corruption tax" levied by Saddam's
friends and relatives.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: thank gawd lowell isn't - Re: Greg Stillson is President
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 20:34:32 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Lowell!

Lowell Savage, writing to Larry Fullmer wrote...

Larry Fullmer wrote:
> >Well, it's a bit more than that. He's a guy who got "born again!!", to
save
> >himself from drugs and alcohol. And, as he told the press-conference
> >tonight, hey prays every day, just like Saddam, and has found himself
buoyed
> >by the prayers of other Christians, while Moslems are praying for his
death.

And, you reponded:
> OOooooh! Scary!

Yea. Maybe it really IS. Considering that Islam is one of the fastest
growing religions in America today, and we are importing even more of 'em
all the time through legal immigration. True, they are largely on the
defensive edge today, largely as a result of the 9/11 events and the
subsequent fallout of the Shrub Regime's<tm> sabre rattling. I would
suggest however, as Larry just wrote, that their true loyalties in many
cases lie elsewhere. They likely don't have much time or motivation for
supporting the Shrub Regime's<tm> efforts at religious cleansing in Iraq or
elsewhere.

Also, scary for you: the Shrub Regime's<tm> ratings amongst Americans are
falling proportionally rather rapidly as well. I predict, scary as it may
be, that The Shrub<tm> is a one-term President. Tony Blair is already toast
in the UK. Maybe you ought to wake up and take a look around. We DON'T
have any allies! Spain. Bulgaria. the UK (which is dwindling rapidly as
Tony Blair tries to backtrack and put the best spin on things as he can)!
Not much of a coalition as I see it. Even in America, we are largely equally
divided over this need for aggression.

If this war proceeds, the only "rogue state" right now that is emerging,
will likely be the United States of America! Satisfied Lowell? Brute
force. Raw power. Well, power has a tendency to shift historically from time
to time, and America's power is dwindling rapidly, both in economic
recognition as the dollar falls on foreign exchange markets, and our own
stock market attests in terms of equity.

> Suuure. Interesting thing is that *some* faith-based programs have worked
> much better than government programs.

I agree. But that's not the issue here is it? Why the shift? Just about ANY
private sector alternative works much better than almost all government
programmes! That's not the point, nor is it the issue.

> Granted, I don't particularly like
> the idea of government twiddling around in faith-based programs. And
> granted, I don't think that some of the programs the government is running
> or supporting happen to be things the government should have anything to
do
> with. However, trying to make things the government *IS* doing more
> effective hardly constitutes evidence that someone is a religious fanatic.

Well, maybe so. But there are also a lot of non-religious, private sector
choices that also make the same point, e.g.: that government should NOT be
running such programmes in the first place. I'm wondering how you were able
to shift this discussion from a critique over whether or not we should be
engaging in a unilateral war against an enemy that hasn't even been proven
to be a threat, to government social programmes that have no relevance?

Let's regress a minute... here WAS the focus of this conversation
previously... Larry Fullmer wrote:
> >With God on his side, he's a *very* bad man!! He's conducting multiple
wars
> >in the Homeland, against humans who use drugs, taxpayers, and anything to
> >increase government power (patriot act). And abroad? Same mission!!
> >Multiple wars against heathens, with God on his side, and nukes in his
belt,
> >with not the ***slightest*** understanding or concern with liberty.

And, you replied:
> And your evidence that he thinks God is on his side is??? And your
> evidence that he is waging wars against people simply because they are
> heathen (and not for some other reason)? And do you really believe that
> the people in Afghanistan have less liberty than they did in, say August,
2001?

Again, a giant obfuscation on your part. The people in Afghanistan don't
really "love" the United States of America. I said that even long before we
launched the aggression in Afghanistan. Iraqi's are buying up personal
firearms by the "Bush load" (pun intended)... Guns and Ammo are a huge
business in Iraq as the US attack is contemplated. Iraqi's don't like
Americans either, and are willing to fight, house to house, street by
street, to save their own country against the aggressors, even if they don't
like Suddam Hussein!

As a quick sidebar. I don't like The Shrub Regime<tm> either.
Nevertheless, if I knew for a fact that Iraq was sending 250,000 of its
forces onto US soil, I'd be stockpiling guns and ammo myself. Not to
support The Shrub<tm>, but to defend my homeland against such imperialistic
aggression. Iraq is a proud country, and the people hardly "love America"!
The Shrub<tm> WILL NOT be viewed as their liberator or saviour! It doesn't
really matter if Iraqis like Saddam Hussein. They hate America even more
than they hate their own country's government.

And, then you actually wrote this:
> >Well, that was easy to do. There have been religious fanatics of all
three
> >stripes, expecting, and begging for, the "end of times" for 2K years.
But
> >the current war actually started 6K years ago when a bunch of lost sheep
> >hearders slaughterd the Cannanites, and kicked 'em off the land **their**
> >god promised 'em.

Oh my God! I give up. Reason has no basis at all in trying to deal with you
on this subject. You've really lost it!

Are YOU really trying to suggest that this current 'war against Islam' as
much of the world is starting to picture it, has a Biblical basis going back
to Cannan? There were NO muslims around at the time, and for a millenium
since for crying out loud! Listen and observe closely the movement of my
lips: There is no "muslim" connection -- there was no islamic religion, and
there was NOT the islamic nations in place today over which presently they
reside from Indonesia to Morocco! This has absolutely got to be the greatest
nonsence I've read in a long, long time!

Larry Fullmer also wrote:
> >With Gawd on all sides, as Bob Dylan sang, this is just the latest
> >installment of death and destruction generated by those three stripes who
> >share the "Story of Abraham", with him willing to kill his son, even.
> >"Would You Kill For God?" Well,they've all answered yes, time and time
> >again. This is just the latest BS!

Again, you replied:
> The evidence for this among the radical Muslims is there. Where is it
> among Christians? (Other than "guilt-by-association," gratuitous
> assertions, and wild accusations?)

Although I don't necessarily agree with Larry's definitions, however, you
have gone overboard with this idea that radical Muslim extremists form an
historical block with ancient traditions that long predate Islam. If we are
dealing specifically in current realities, and given the historical islamic
history in such a context, then it follows there is NO such connection with
ancient history.

> But back to the topic of whether Bush is a religious
> fanatic

I likely don't believe that the Shrub<tm> is guided by religious fanaticism.
For the current regime, "religion" is largely being covertly used to gain
political approval from the masses. That has occurred many times throughout
the course of human history. He won't say so outright, but a lot of this has
religious undertones, and for political justification in terms of
consolidating and affirming political power. It appears that this might be
coming to an end. As the US government loses it's economic and political
hegemony, we could easily find new realities in place once the present war
has been fought, and it has been determined that we did NOT win ultimately.
And, under the current justifications for "this war", the basis is ending,
or at least lessening terrorism. So, even if we manage to sack and pillage
Baghdad, the economic and political costs in terms of a decreasing size in
the US economy, and political irrelevance, may spell the end for over a half
century of US imperialism.

That doesn't mean that life for Americans will be better. It may be
horribly a lot worse. But that is the price we have to pay for our own
grievous sins, and our own aggressive conduct in foreign affairs for a very
long time.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: thank gawd lowell isn't - Re: Greg Stillson is President
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 01:42:17 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank, Lowell, Others,

>on 3/7/03 4:34 AM, Frank M. Reichert at frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com
wrote:
>responding to Lowell:
<snip>

> And, then you actually wrote this:

Uhhhh, actually to be fair to Lowell, it was, me, Larry, who wrote
the below paragraph. I'll intersperse a bit, below:

>>> Well, that was easy to do. There have been religious fanatics of all
>>> three stripes, expecting and begging for the "end of times" for 2K
years.
>>> But the current war actually started 6K years ago when a bunch of lost
sheep
>>> hearders slaughterd the Cannanites, and kicked 'em off the land
**their**
>>> god promised 'em.
>
> Oh my God! I give up. Reason has no basis at all in trying to deal with
you
> on this subject. You've really lost it!

See why I was a bit reluctant to point out it was me, not Lowell.
>
> Are YOU really trying to suggest that this current 'war against Islam' as
> much of the world is starting to picture it, has a Biblical basis going
back
> to Cannan? There were NO muslims around at the time, and for a millenium
> since for crying out loud! Listen and observe closely the movement of my
> lips: There is no "muslim" connection -- there was no islamic religion,
and
> there was NOT the islamic nations in place today over which presently they
> reside from Indonesia to Morocco! This has absolutely got to be the
greatest
> nonsence I've read in a long, long time!

I understand your response to me, Frank, especially when I failed to make my
point very clearly. I guess I was thinking the context of my communication
would handle that for me. As I see it, it is *very* relevant that the
Middle East has been a continuing location of violence, destruction and war.

Why the Middle East? Because that is where the three 'great' religions
originated - with Jerusalem continuing to be the symbolic focus for war
among them to this very day.

Since those three religions all share at least a good part of the same book,
I thought it significant to point out the horrors committed by the Jews on
the Cannanites, with no justification other than they claimed a special
dispensation from their God. With that book a book of God for all three,
it seems reasonable to concluded that those who fight and die, today,
believing that God is on their side, have been influenced by God's book,
including such stories at that of Abraham (would you kill you own son for
God?).

I written you before, Frank, about the evil of white Christian Manifest
Destiny in American, with its genocide (not to mention the Crusades & the
Inquisition). I also believe the other two of the 'great' three belive they
have a Manifist Destiny which they are more than willing to kill and die
for (and have).

While alliances shift over time, those three mutually exclusive Manifest
Destinys meet head-on in Jerusalem (and the Mid-East).

It is self-evident to me that that is an underlying, **very** significant
factor in this soon to be war, with yet again, slaughter in the "Holy Land".

Most of those who beat the drums for war, using 9/11 as an excuse (as Bush
did eight times in his speech last night), are doing nothing more than
fanning the flames of their particular version of Manifest Destiny, just as
Ossamma has been doing, and just as George Bush has been doing, with him
praying every day, buoyed by the prayers of others, so he says.

With the three "great" religions fanning the flames every chance, it begins
to seem we truly could get an Armaggedon sooner or later. Not as
punishment/salvation from God, but as a self-fullfilling prophecy of
religion.

So sad. What hath God's belivers wrought....

sincerely,

larry

PS

you wrote, Frank:

> I likely don't believe that the Shrub<tm> is guided by religious
fanaticism.
> For the current regime, "religion" is largely being covertly used to gain
> political approval from the masses.

Well, Frank, I figure I won't convice you, and especially Lowell, but I
believe Bush when he tells the world he is guided by God, as he goes to war.
That fanaticism to me! And *that's* why 'we're' going to have a war, no
matter the opposition to it.




---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: thank gawd lowell isn't - Re: Greg Stillson is President
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 01:48:19 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Well Larry, I have to say that with this post, you've shown that you are at
least *capable* of reasoned, reasonable discussion. I also have to respect
your "fessing up" to Frank about who actually wrote what. Keep it up and I
might actually start respecting your opinion (how's that for a scary
thought, eh Larry? :-)

That said, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree regarding the level
and type of religious influence in the White House. I suspect that Bush
would be making similar decisions if he weren't so religious--perhaps not
identical, but similar. For instance, I cannot imagine a Republican
president, Christian, atheist, or somewhere in between, looking at the
evidence we've seen (which is probably only a small portion of what he has
available) and *not* going all out to disarm Iraq--with war if
necessary. I really don't understand why people seem to think they need to
invent all the conspiracy or "hidden agenda" theories to explain why Bush
would want to go to war. Perhaps its simply a variation on "straw man"
arguments that allow them to not address the reasons that Bush and his
supporters have given.

Finally, perhaps it's simply because I'm a Christian and have seen a lot of
Christian writing and know that the "Armageddon" crowd is a very small
minority in a huge sea of devout people who use the language that the
President uses in ways that are a far cry from the interpretations in the
fevered essay that started this thread off. So, thinking that Bush wants
to bring about Armageddon because he claims that religion is a significant
influence in his life is really like blaming Timothy McVeigh on Alan Keyes
(or Harry Browne, for that matter) because they use some of the same
language and expressions.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
Larry Fullmer wrote:
>Frank, Lowell, Others,
>
> >on 3/7/03 4:34 AM, Frank M. Reichert at frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com
wrote:
> >responding to Lowell:
><snip>
>
> > And, then you actually wrote this:
>
> Uhhhh, actually to be fair to Lowell, it was, me, Larry, who wrote
> the below paragraph. I'll intersperse a bit, below:
>
> >>> Well, that was easy to do. There have been religious fanatics of all
> >>> three stripes, expecting and begging for the "end of times" for 2K
years.
> >>> But the current war actually started 6K years ago when a bunch of
> lost sheep
> >>> hearders slaughterd the Cannanites, and kicked 'em off the land
**their**
> >>> god promised 'em.
> >
> > Oh my God! I give up. Reason has no basis at all in trying to deal
> with you
> > on this subject. You've really lost it!
>
>See why I was a bit reluctant to point out it was me, not Lowell.
> >
> > Are YOU really trying to suggest that this current 'war against Islam'
as
> > much of the world is starting to picture it, has a Biblical basis going
> back
> > to Cannan? There were NO muslims around at the time, and for a
millenium
> > since for crying out loud! Listen and observe closely the movement of
my
> > lips: There is no "muslim" connection -- there was no islamic
> religion, and
> > there was NOT the islamic nations in place today over which presently
they
> > reside from Indonesia to Morocco! This has absolutely got to be the
> greatest
> > nonsence I've read in a long, long time!
>
>I understand your response to me, Frank, especially when I failed to make
my
>point very clearly. I guess I was thinking the context of my communication
>would handle that for me. As I see it, it is *very* relevant that the
>Middle East has been a continuing location of violence, destruction and
war.
>
>Why the Middle East? Because that is where the three 'great' religions
>originated - with Jerusalem continuing to be the symbolic focus for war
>among them to this very day.
>
>Since those three religions all share at least a good part of the same
book,
>I thought it significant to point out the horrors committed by the Jews on
>the Cannanites, with no justification other than they claimed a special
>dispensation from their God. With that book a book of God for all three,
>it seems reasonable to concluded that those who fight and die, today,
>believing that God is on their side, have been influenced by God's book,
>including such stories at that of Abraham (would you kill you own son for
>God?).
>
>I written you before, Frank, about the evil of white Christian Manifest
>Destiny in American, with its genocide (not to mention the Crusades & the
>Inquisition). I also believe the other two of the 'great' three belive
they
>have a Manifist Destiny which they are more than willing to kill and die
>for (and have).
>
>While alliances shift over time, those three mutually exclusive Manifest
>Destinys meet head-on in Jerusalem (and the Mid-East).
>
>It is self-evident to me that that is an underlying, **very** significant
>factor in this soon to be war, with yet again, slaughter in the "Holy
Land".
>
>Most of those who beat the drums for war, using 9/11 as an excuse (as Bush
>did eight times in his speech last night), are doing nothing more than
>fanning the flames of their particular version of Manifest Destiny, just as
>Ossamma has been doing, and just as George Bush has been doing, with him
>praying every day, buoyed by the prayers of others, so he says.
>
>With the three "great" religions fanning the flames every chance, it begins
>to seem we truly could get an Armaggedon sooner or later. Not as
>punishment/salvation from God, but as a self-fullfilling prophecy of
>religion.
>
>So sad. What hath God's belivers wrought....
>
>
>sincerely,
>
>larry
>
>PS
>
>you wrote, Frank:
>
> > I likely don't believe that the Shrub<tm> is guided by religious
> fanaticism.
> > For the current regime, "religion" is largely being covertly used to
gain
> > political approval from the masses.
>
>Well, Frank, I figure I won't convice you, and especially Lowell, but I
>believe Bush when he tells the world he is guided by God, as he goes to
war.
>That fanaticism to me! And *that's* why 'we're' going to have a war, no
>matter the opposition to it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
>To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
>URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: thank gawd lowell isn't - Re: Greg Stillson is President
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 04:10:22 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Hi, Lowell, Others,

Thanks for the response, interspersing below:

on 3/8/03 1:48 AM, Lowell C. Savage at savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Well Larry, I have to say that with this post, you've shown that you are
at
> least *capable* of reasoned, reasonable discussion. I also have to
respect
> your "fessing up" to Frank about who actually wrote what. Keep it up and
I
> might actually start respecting your opinion (how's that for a scary
> thought, eh Larry? :-)

Well, it's been a few days since I've read Robert or Bill, with their
"morality has nothing to do with rights or liberty". That's always good
for my mood. BTW, I would have thought you would have checked in on that
claim, or maybe you have, and I haven't seen it. I know lots of Christians
don't expect to see an atheists supporting morality, but here I am.

I'd gladly form an alliance with Christians, Jews, and Muslims, against
Nihlists (no guns, though). Moral Nihilist are the worst of the lot, as I
see it.
>
> That said, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree regarding the level
> and type of religious influence in the White House.

I think I already conceded I could not win your mind on that one, nor
Frank's.

> I suspect that Bush
> would be making similar decisions if he weren't so religious--perhaps not
> identical, but similar. For instance, I cannot imagine a Republican
> president, Christian, atheist, or somewhere in between, looking at the
> evidence we've seen (which is probably only a small portion of what he has
> available) and *not* going all out to disarm Iraq--with war if
> necessary.

Why is that, Lowell? I truly don't understand! As I see it, Saddam is a
backwater dictator in a backwater county. He's a Luzer, and he's gonna die
real damn soon from natural causes. Criminee, his Scuds caused no damned
damage to Israel!! Why the hell should Americans feel the threat. Even
with no other evidence that he's disarmed (AND BY THE DAMNED WAY, THERE I
**NO** WAY TO PROVE A NEGATIVE), he has no delivery system, not even in
relation to Israel.

Saddam is Gawd, in his own mind. And Iraq, with all of it's horrible faults,
is a secular state, unlike Saudia, Arabia which supplied all of the 9/11
bombers.

Criminee, Saddam has been getting on the carpet lately, for the same reason
Frank claimed Bush is! Well, Saddam is a hypocrite, unlike Bush. Saddam is
no damned Muslim. He thinks he's Gawd!!, and he has *not the slightest use
for Al Qudea*, unless pushed to the limit - enemy of my enemy.

WHY, SINCERELY, DO YOU SEE SADDAM AS SUCH A THREAT? HE'S A LOSER WHO'S
GONNA DIE, AS I SEE IT, PROBALBY AT THE HANDS OF A RELATIVE, IF A CRUISE
MISSLE DOESN'T TAKE HIM OUT FIRST.

But there is N. Korea, with delivery capability to take out the West Coast,
so says the CIA - not to mention Putin, and a host of others.

Why the hell is Saddam on the top of the list, except that he's setting on
top of a lot of oil, next door to Jerusalem?

> I really don't understand why people seem to think they need to
> invent all the conspiracy or "hidden agenda" theories to explain why Bush
> would want to go to war. Perhaps its simply a variation on "straw man"
> arguments that allow them to not address the reasons that Bush and his
> supporters have given.

Well, Lowell, you are certainly writng as if you are a Bush Supporter!!

Keep that jock strap clean, eh (grin).

Why, Lowell, why, do you feel so threatened by Saddam, the Luzer, that
you are willling to authorize war, with all of its horrible costs??!!
>
> Finally, perhaps it's simply because I'm a Christian and have seen a lot
of
> Christian writing and know that the "Armageddon" crowd is a very small
> minority in a huge sea of devout people who use the language that the
> President uses in ways that are a far cry from the interpretations in the
> fevered essay that started this thread off.

Well, Lowell, I figure you were writing about my fevered essays. All I can
say was the Armageddon, and hell-fire-&-brimstone was put in the back of my
mind at 4-years old, born and raised as a Mormon, as I was.

I don't mean to be to hard here, but if you ain't among the "Armaggedon
Crowd", I figure it's too damn long since you read the Bible!! Is the Bible
just a toy for you?!

I know there are a lot of Christians, Jews, and Muslims who never read the
Founding documents, and just use bits and pieces to suit their fear.

The helluva it is, when push comes to shove, they all choose the "manifest
destiny' that suits 'em, and nuclear bombs, or planes hitting the WTC, are a
small price to pay.

> So, thinking that Bush wants
> to bring about Armageddon because he claims that religion is a significant
> influence in his life is really like blaming Timothy McVeigh on Alan Keyes
> (or Harry Browne, for that matter) because they use some of the same
> language and expressions.

Actually, in a letter to the Washington Post, Timmmy claimed he was a
libertarian, written from the jail cell.

Naw, Lowell, my argument is not nearly speific enough to convince you, or
Frank. No damned way I could get that specific before I die.

I you can't see it for youself, well, as you wrote, let's agree to disagree.

Though I WILL NEVER DO THAT WITH SICK NIHILIST 'Fs' LIKE ROBERT AND BILL,
who claim morality is irrelevant!!

Sincerely,

Larry

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: thank gawd lowell isn't - Re: Greg Stillson is President
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 06:43:13 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello Larry,
>Hi, Lowell, Others,
>
> > I suspect that Bush
> > would be making similar decisions if he weren't so religious--perhaps
not
> > identical, but similar. For instance, I cannot imagine a Republican
> > president, Christian, atheist, or somewhere in between, looking at the
> > evidence we've seen (which is probably only a small portion of what he
has
> > available) and *not* going all out to disarm Iraq--with war if
> > necessary.
>
>Why is that, Lowell? I truly don't understand! As I see it, Saddam is a
>backwater dictator in a backwater county. He's a Luzer, and he's gonna die
>real damn soon from natural causes. Criminee, his Scuds caused no damned
>damage to Israel!! Why the hell should Americans feel the threat. Even
>with no other evidence that he's disarmed (AND BY THE DAMNED WAY, THERE I
>**NO** WAY TO PROVE A NEGATIVE), he has no delivery system, not even in
>relation to Israel.

Yes, he's a loser and I'm not afraid of his Scuds (other than what they
might do to US troops in the region. Yeah, yeah, I know. They wouldn't be
there if we weren't preparing for war, but bear with me a moment.) What I
am afraid of is Saddam either smuggling NBC weapons into the US or giving
them to terrorists (not necessarily Al Qaeda) to do the dirty work for
him. See:

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/comment/comment-volokh092702.asp
for a column that expresses it far better and more completely than I have
time to--including what his motives might be. Also, see a followup post on
the author's blog, here:
http://volokh.blogspot.com/2002_09_29_volokh_archive.html#85512006

>Saddam is Gawd, in his own mind. And Iraq, with all of it's horrible
faults,
>is a secular state, unlike Saudia, Arabia which supplied all of the 9/11
>bombers.

Sounds like you think he's even more of a threat than Bush. You just think
that Bush thinks he's working for God while Saddam thinks he is God.

And just because Iraq is a secular state, that makes it rate better than
Saudi Arabia? You really do hate religion, don't you? BTW. Have you
heard that Saudi Arabia is making noises about kicking the US troops out
(as soon as Iraq is no longer a threat) so that the ruling family can get
about the business of reforming their country before it gets reformed out
from under them? Kind of interesting that some democracy dominos are
falling even before we actually go to work on Iraq.

>But there is N. Korea, with delivery capability to take out the West Coast,
>so says the CIA - not to mention Putin, and a host of others.

Yup. And the capability to take out Seoul just with conventional
artillery. So we start talking about pulling troops out or maybe moving
them further south in the penninsula and guess what, the South Koreans
suddenly get all exercised and say "Not until this thing with North Korea
gets fixed, you don't!" In other words, they don't want our troops
there--until we decide to pull them out. Some imperialists we are!

>Why the hell is Saddam on the top of the list, except that he's setting on
>top of a lot of oil, next door to Jerusalem?

Because he got there before North Korea did and because the US is NOT going
to drag troops to one corner of the globe just to drag them off to
another. Don't like that answer? Tough, it's life.

> > Finally, perhaps it's simply because I'm a Christian and have seen a lot
of
> > Christian writing and know that the "Armageddon" crowd is a very small
> > minority in a huge sea of devout people who use the language that the
> > President uses in ways that are a far cry from the interpretations in
the
> > fevered essay that started this thread off.
>
>Well, Lowell, I figure you were writing about my fevered essays. All I can
>say was the Armageddon, and hell-fire-&-brimstone was put in the back of my
>mind at 4-years old, born and raised as a Mormon, as I was.

I heard plenty of fire&brimstone too, but nothing about bringing on
Armageddon or that doing so would be a good idea. And that was what the
original essay accused Bush of wanting.

>I don't mean to be to hard here, but if you ain't among the "Armaggedon
>Crowd", I figure it's too damn long since you read the Bible!! Is the
Bible
>just a toy for you?!

Oh, I've read Revelations and spent my share of time puzzling over what it
meant and read some of the people who think they got it all figured
out. Nowhere (other than a few crackpots) have I read anything claiming
that bringing Armageddon on would be a good thing.

>I know there are a lot of Christians, Jews, and Muslims who never read the
>Founding documents, and just use bits and pieces to suit their fear.

So you think all of them do this?

>The helluva it is, when push comes to shove, they all choose the "manifest
>destiny' that suits 'em, and nuclear bombs, or planes hitting the WTC, are
a
>small price to pay.

Haven't met many of these kinds of people myself--ready to go to war over
their religion.

> > So, thinking that Bush wants
> > to bring about Armageddon because he claims that religion is a
significant
> > influence in his life is really like blaming Timothy McVeigh on Alan
Keyes
> > (or Harry Browne, for that matter) because they use some of the same
> > language and expressions.
>
>Actually, in a letter to the Washington Post, Timmmy claimed he was a
>libertarian, written from the jail cell.

So, are you saying that you think Harry Browne is responsible for
Timmy? Or are you agreeing with my analogy?

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: thank gawd lowell isn't - Re: Greg Stillson is President
Date: 08 Mar 2003 15:33:57 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 05:34, Frank M. Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again Lowell!
>
> Lowell Savage, writing to Larry Fullmer wrote...
>
> Larry Fullmer wrote:
> > >Well, it's a bit more than that. He's a guy who got "born again!!", to
> save
> > >himself from drugs and alcohol. And, as he told the press-conference
> > >tonight, hey prays every day, just like Saddam, and has found himself
> buoyed
> > >by the prayers of other Christians, while Moslems are praying for his
> death.
>
> And, you reponded:
> > OOooooh! Scary!
>
> Yea. Maybe it really IS. Considering that Islam is one of the fastest
> growing religions in America today, and we are importing even more of 'em
> all the time through legal immigration. True, they are largely on the
> defensive edge today, largely as a result of the 9/11 events and the
> subsequent fallout of the Shrub Regime's<tm> sabre rattling. I would
> suggest however, as Larry just wrote, that their true loyalties in many
> cases lie elsewhere. They likely don't have much time or motivation for
> supporting the Shrub Regime's<tm> efforts at religious cleansing in Iraq
or
> elsewhere.

Oooh, now it's a "religious cleansing" ....

>
> Also, scary for you: the Shrub Regime's<tm> ratings amongst Americans are
> falling proportionally rather rapidly as well. I predict, scary as it may
> be, that The Shrub<tm> is a one-term President. Tony Blair is already
toast
> in the UK. Maybe you ought to wake up and take a look around. We DON'T
> have any allies! Spain. Bulgaria. the UK (which is dwindling rapidly as
> Tony Blair tries to backtrack and put the best spin on things as he can)!
> Not much of a coalition as I see it. Even in America, we are largely
equally
> divided over this need for aggression.
>
> If this war proceeds, the only "rogue state" right now that is emerging,
> will likely be the United States of America! Satisfied Lowell? Brute
> force. Raw power. Well, power has a tendency to shift historically from
time
> to time, and America's power is dwindling rapidly, both in economic
> recognition as the dollar falls on foreign exchange markets, and our own
> stock market attests in terms of equity.

you put way too much stock in the exchange markets (pun intended)

> Well, maybe so. But there are also a lot of non-religious, private sector
> choices that also make the same point, e.g.: that government should NOT be
> running such programmes in the first place. I'm wondering how you were
able
> to shift this discussion from a critique over whether or not we should be
> engaging in a unilateral war against an enemy that hasn't even been proven
> to be a threat, to government social programmes that have no relevance?

The original post made the connection to faith-based programs. it
offered them as proof that Bush was a religious fanatic. A logical
counter is that one can look at them in terms of efficacy.

>
> Let's regress a minute... here WAS the focus of this conversation
> previously... Larry Fullmer wrote:
> > >With God on his side, he's a *very* bad man!! He's conducting multiple
> wars
> > >in the Homeland, against humans who use drugs, taxpayers, and anything
to
> > >increase government power (patriot act). And abroad? Same mission!!
> > >Multiple wars against heathens, with God on his side, and nukes in his
> belt,
> > >with not the ***slightest*** understanding or concern with liberty.
>
> And, you replied:
> > And your evidence that he thinks God is on his side is??? And your
> > evidence that he is waging wars against people simply because they are
> > heathen (and not for some other reason)? And do you really believe that
> > the people in Afghanistan have less liberty than they did in, say
August,
> 2001?
>
> Again, a giant obfuscation on your part. The people in Afghanistan don't
> really "love" the United States of America. I said that even long before
we
> launched the aggression in Afghanistan. Iraqi's are buying up personal

And it is *still* a strawman. Nobody has made the claim you attack
Frank. Although I do recall watching several stations showing how happy
many Afghanis were that they could shave, show their face sin public, go
back to schools, etc.

Larry asserted that bush was carrying out religious wars "...wars
against heathens...". Lowell called him on it, and rightly so.You
obfuscated by bringing up a strawman. Lowell said nothing about love,
instead he asked about the relative change in freedom/liberty for
Afghanis prior to the US action there.

Yet, I suspect you know full well that the level of liberty for the
Afghani has increased, yet do not want to admit it. So instead, you go
on about "love" from the Afghani people. All the while avoiding the
issue that you said was what was the focus.

> firearms by the "Bush load" (pun intended)... Guns and Ammo are a huge
> business in Iraq as the US attack is contemplated. Iraqi's don't like
> Americans either, and are willing to fight, house to house, street by
> street, to save their own country against the aggressors, even if they
don't
> like Suddam Hussein!
>
> As a quick sidebar. I don't like The Shrub Regime<tm> either.
> Nevertheless, if I knew for a fact that Iraq was sending 250,000 of its
> forces onto US soil, I'd be stockpiling guns and ammo myself. Not to
> support The Shrub<tm>, but to defend my homeland against such
imperialistic
> aggression. Iraq is a proud country, and the people hardly "love
America"!
> The Shrub<tm> WILL NOT be viewed as their liberator or saviour! It doesn't
> really matter if Iraqis like Saddam Hussein. They hate America even more
> than they hate their own country's government.

Everyone: save this, I expect Frank will be backtracking in 6 months or
so on it.

So, we have Frank's prediction": The people of Iraq will fight tooth and
nail, and in the end the US will suffer massive casualties, and Baghdad
will be "sacked" and "pillaged".

Mine: He's wrong on all accounts.

The action will take less than 60 days, there will be cities that 'rise
up" against Hussein, Hussein will try to have troops impersonate
American and British forces (unilateral ... meaning with multiple
nations? Funny thing about the word unilateral, all wars or activities
are unilateral with it meaning one side. of course, it ignores the fact
that the US is not and will not be going it alone, and more than Britain
are involved), some will buy it (possibly Frank), and we will not see
"street to street, house to house" fighting by the people of Iraq.
Instead, those people will try to stay out of the whole thing.

After the action, indeed *during* it, we will see the US providing food
and other aid to the people of Iraq (and Frank may well call it
bribery), the power will not be taken down by the US (we'll need it to
show our concern for the people of Iraq), nor will civilian
infrastructure. This action will be more like the Afghani campaign than
the 1992 GW.

I am not going to make a prediction about the UN Sec. Council. I would
rather see the action take w/o UN sanction if it is going to happen. It
will be a nice chunk out of the UN's "authority". It will put us one
step closer to pulling out of it. Unfortunately, IMO, NATO pulled
together. I'd still like to see it dissolved too.

Post-action: over the next five years Iraq will be governed by a
coalition as is being done if Afghanistan, minor skirmishes will occur
from terrorist organizations, troops will be pulled from Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait and the new Iraqi government will become strong allies, Islamic
terrorism will not see a statistically significant change *either way*.

France will get really hacked that their people will no longer be in
charge in Iraq anymore (funny, everyone talks about Germany's historical
conquest attempts, but leaves out France's), Germany will be a strong
backer of post-2003 Iraqi government, as *may* Egypt (gut feeling
primarily). Turkey will too, provided it gets a good oil deal.

Depending on how the UN thing turned out, we could see a serious
weakening in it. if it decides against the
Us/Britain/Europe/Australia/Former-Soviet-States group, and the action
is successful and less than three months (I predict it will be) the UN
will have lost a huge chunk of "credibility" and we may see another vote
in Congress to pull out of it, it will either pass or fail by a very
slim margin. IMO, the current administration has made it apparent that
could be an option given it's rhetoric about how this is a moment of
truth for the UN security Council.

Anyway, one last thing below and I'm off to eat lunch. :)

> Again, you replied:
> > The evidence for this among the radical Muslims is there. Where is it
> > among Christians? (Other than "guilt-by-association," gratuitous
> > assertions, and wild accusations?)
>
> Although I don't necessarily agree with Larry's definitions, however, you
> have gone overboard with this idea that radical Muslim extremists form an
> historical block with ancient traditions that long predate Islam. If we
are
> dealing specifically in current realities, and given the historical
islamic
> history in such a context, then it follows there is NO such connection
with
> ancient history.

There is in "recent" history, where recent is about 200-250 years.
Reading *their* writings (I take their word over their reasons over
yours, of course), most of them are still pissed at the US over the
Crusades! Need I remind you that the US did not exist during that time?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: thank gawd lowell isn't - Re: Greg Stillson is President
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 20:07:11 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Hi, Lowell,

little interspersing:

on 3/8/03 6:43 AM, Lowell C. Savage at savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

<snip>

> Yes, he's a loser and I'm not afraid of his Scuds (other than what they
> might do to US troops in the region. Yeah, yeah, I know. They wouldn't
be
> there if we weren't preparing for war, but bear with me a moment.) What I
> am afraid of is Saddam either smuggling NBC weapons into the US or giving
> them to terrorists (not necessarily Al Qaeda) to do the dirty work for
> him. See:
>
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/comment/comment-volokh
> 092702.asp
> for a column that expresses it far better and more completely than I have
> time to--including what his motives might be. Also, see a followup post
on
> the author's blog, here:
> http://volokh.blogspot.com/2002_09_29_volokh_archive.html#85512006

I checked out the above links. Thanks for giveing me insight in to what I
truly belive is paranoia, or, more likely, an attempt to introduce it to
motivate others for war.

No one claims Saddam has nukes. And there is *no* eveidence he has been
trying to make 'em. None. U.N. inspectors disposed of the "special alloy
tubing" question just a couple of days ago. Hence, the 'paranoia' of Saddam
hiding a plethora of nukes around the U.S. is just that - paranoia.

And, if glory is his mission, and I agree with the link that it likely is,
he can't pull that off with chemical or biologicals. First, again, he ain't
got the delivery system (to do a lot of damage he's gotta have the tech to
airesolize. Suitcase won't do for Glory. They only work for terrorists.
And, even at that, he doesn't get to make demands of Glory over suitcases of
chemicals or biologicals, unless he acknowledges responsibility. Such would
be a no win for Saddam.

So, there is **no** evidence/argument that Saddam is a threat to the U.S.
None!! You have to do better than war-mongering, paranoid, conservative
fiction!! from National Review.

He strikes me as fully as crazy as Hitler, as so many have called him, but
he's no damned threat to anyone but his own 'citizens'. None! I figure If
he were, you would have presented the evidence/argument. You've not yet
done that.

So, if he is **no** threat to the U.S., what are the real motives for
Wolfiwitz/Bush, dragging Colin Powell kicking and screaming??

Let me ask you, Lowell, if you weren't convinced that Saddam would salt the
U.S. with suitcase nukes, as you appear to be - if you weren't - what
motives do you think Wolfiwitz/Bush might have? Any chance you'd speculate
here?
>
>> Saddam is Gawd, in his own mind. And Iraq, with all of it's horrible
faults,
>> is a secular state, unlike Saudia, Arabia which supplied all of the 9/11
>> bombers.
>
> Sounds like you think he's even more of a threat than Bush. You just
think
> that Bush thinks he's working for God while Saddam thinks he is God.

He's crazier than Bush, no question. But he ain't armed with 6,000 nuke
warheads with delivery capability, among a very long list. Plus, Bush is
constrained by his context. As a general statement, yeah, I'm more
concerned by those who believe they are doing God's work, than by those who
wanna be God themselves. The 9/11 pilots represent the first; Saddam is the
latter. He knows that to be "God" he's gotta stay alive. He ain't no
suicide bomber. He doesn't give a crap about religion. That, as I see it,
makes him far more predictable, and far less of a threat to anyone but his
own citizens.
>
> And just because Iraq is a secular state, that makes it rate better than
> Saudi Arabia? You really do hate religion, don't you?

Uhhh, I might have made a larger claim, without intending to. But the fact
is 9/11 came from Saudia Arabia, in so far as the manpower. It was manned
by the Saudi sponsered Wahhabbe sect. Bush railed about 9/11 the other
night, every eight minutes. Iraq had ****nothing**** to do with that!! I
figure if Bush is gonna rail about 9/11, as justification for war, that was
nothing but pure demagoguery!!!!!, picking the wrong country.

Humm, tired, gotta take nap.

Back to ya,

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: THE HISTORY OF THE U.S. IN BED WITH IRAQ.....
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 01:37:43 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>,
"Joseph A. Rohner III" <realtor@idahojoe.com>,
<ken@faradaylabs.com>,
<wes@logicallearning.net>,
<fdboring@aol.com>,
<allisont@charter.net>,
<platzer1@mindspring.com>,
<robnchar@earthlink.net>,
<michael@kusuma.com>,
<libnw@immosys.com>,
<azbengal@msn.com>

Folks,

Unfortunately, the history is taken up only in relation to the Reagan years,
long after Saddam was installed into power by the CIA.

Still, it's a 'MUST READ'!!

LF

http://www.ithaca.edu/politics/gagnon/talks/us-iraq.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Folks,

Unfortunately, the history is taken up only in relation to the Reagan years,
long after Saddam was installed into power by the CIA.

Still, it's a 'MUST READ'!!

LF

http://www.ithaca.edu/politics/gagnon/talks/us-iraq.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: loose tounges...
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 02:09:10 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>,
"Joseph A. Rohner III" <realtor@idahojoe.com>,
<ken@faradaylabs.com>,
<wes@logicallearning.net>,
<fdboring@aol.com>,
<allisont@charter.net>,
<platzer1@mindspring.com>,
<robnchar@earthlink.net>,
<michael@kusuma.com>,
<libnw@immosys.com>,
<azbengal@msn.com>

hey, ya, folks,

wanna sink a ship?!

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: loose.jpg
loose.jpg Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg)
Encoding: base64

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Lowell's BS games!!
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 01:32:42 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Actually, as a matter of fact, I do NOT think that we should have 70,000
troops in Germany.

But, of course, your question was an attempt to evade the issue that I was
discussing. You claimed that the US was acting as an Imperialist
power. So I asked, "[If the US is acting as or intending to become an
imperialist power] ...why not just take over the places where our troops
already are, like Germany, and Kuwait and Bahrain and Qatar?" Then, later
in the message, I wrote "After all, how many troops do we have in Germany",
which brought your response about the 70,000 troops in Germany.

So Larry, I've answered your question. How about you answer the one I was
asking and which you evaded. I'll try to state it very simply and plainly
so that even you can understand it:

If the US is an "imperial power" like you claim, why don't we simply take
over the countries close to us or where we already have large numbers of
troops? And especially, why do we "allow" those countries to disagree with
us and work against us?

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

At 00:05 03/07/03 -0800, you wrote:
>Folks,
>
>Lowell asked:
>
> >> on 3/6/03 12:45 AM, Lowell C. Savage at savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> After all, how many
> >>> troops do we have in Germany?
>
>I replied, 70,000.
>
>And I asked him why? Why? Why? In every way I could think of to ask him,
>and this was his reply:
>
>on 3/6/03 9:27 PM, Lowell C. Savage at savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > Let me guess, Larry. We have 70,000 troops in Germany so that we can
order
> > their Chancellor to run on an anti-American platform, and then do and
say
> > everything he can to prevent us from going after Iraq. Yeah, we're real
> > imperialists. Sure, just the way that Larry Fulmer is a polite,
> > thoughtful, respectful debater who prefers facts over emotion and avoids
> > calling his opponents names.
>
>Now, folks, Lowell is a guy who prides himself in pointing out logical
>fallacy. Once it was pointed out to him how many troops "we" have in
>Germany, not to mention nearly every where else on the Earth, and I asked
>him why, why, why?? He replied with the above.
>
>So, Lowell, lemmie try again. Do **you** think "we" oughta have 70,000
>troops in Germany? Why? Even if you think I've been a name-caller, name
>calling is no answer to my question (unless you want to descend to "my"
>level).
>
>So, Lowell, what Ya think about the fact that there are 70,000 U.S. troops
>in Germany. What Ya think, Lowell, huh, huh, huh. Or do you do that?
>
>LF
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
>To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
>URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: what about your starving family Bill??? There's no hope for
Robert, unless he gits a cat.
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 03:02:30 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Folks,

I love it when Bill and Robert fight. They expend so many words, and then
it comes to this:

on 3/6/03 3:04 PM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

bill wrote, not tending to his starving family:

>> Huh? I *think* you just said that Nolan said what I said. Is that
>> correct?

And Robert replied:
>
> Yes.

Lemmie get this straight. The argument is about morality, in relation to
liberty and rights. So, Bill and Robert ended up fighting about the
intentions of Nolan, all those years ago, in relation to the Pledge.

Well, I was there, but I'd hate to interupt a fight 'tween two nihlists.

And the whole damned time Bill & Robert agree that morality was/is
irrelevant. It was just an argument over who said what, when and why. And
the whole damned time the two were on the same side.

"I think what you said is what I said about what Nolan said, about what Libs
back then said, about what Rand and Rothbard said, is what I'm saying about
what you said about what I said about what Nolan said, about what libs said
about the Pledge back then".

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!! **I** SAID THAT!!

Tend to you kids, Bill!!, and Robert, get yourself a cat. I'm getting tired
of the pain of reading your bullshit. Sorry, Michelle, it's me, or a cat
for Robert. I'm selfish.

LF




>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: It's about freedom, stupid - Re: Lowell's BS games!!
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 04:18:43 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

So, Lowelle,

Your responded with now name calling. I'll do the same.

interspered below:

on 3/7/03 1:32 AM, Lowell C. Savage at savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Actually, as a matter of fact, I do NOT think that we should have 70,000
> troops in Germany.

Why is that, Lowell. Are even you getting a little freaked about the
politics of Empire. Why?, Lowell, do you think "we" should not have 70,000
troops in Germany??!!
>
> But, of course, your question was an attempt to evade the issue that I was
> discussing.

Hey, Bud, I raised the question. Why the hell are the 70,000 U.S. troops in
Germany??! It was you who evaded, not even knowing they were there.

> You claimed that the US was acting as an Imperialist power.

Finally somebody understands what I write. Yup!!, it was me.

> So I asked, "[If the US is acting as or intending to become an
> imperialist power] ...why not just take over the places where our troops
> already are, like Germany, and Kuwait and Bahrain and Qatar?"

Criminee, give the U.S. state a little time. It's still licking the wounds
of Vietnam. Even though Rumsfield, Saddam's old buddy, has claimed "we" can
"fight a war on many fronts", "we" gotta be incrementle about ruling the
Earth. A step at a time, eh? First Iraq, then N. Korea, then Iran, then
Columbia (oops, they're "our" friends).

> Then, later in the message, I wrote "After all, how many troops do we
have in
> Germany", which brought your response about the 70,000 troops in Germany.

It ain't "about"!! It's 70 f'ing thousand, and the Germans want "us" the
"f" out of there as much as the s. koreans do, and the portreicans do, and
the phillipinos do (I quit it with worrying about spelling). Everwhere the
U.S. state is, they what "us" out, if for now other reason than raping their
women. Do you have any "f'ing" idea how pissed the South Koreans are at
"us". They don't give a "f" about N. Korean bombs, except for the bought
rulers, the South Koreans are way more peeded at "us" than the N. Koreans.
Want the evidence?
>
> So Larry, I've answered your question.

The hell you did? I missed it!! Why don't **you** think "we" oughata not
have 70,000 troops in Germany, and why do you think Bush got nooooo support
from Germany?????!!

> How about you answer the one I was
> asking and which you evaded. I'll try to state it very simply and plainly
> so that even you can understand it:
>
> If the US is an "imperial power" like you claim, why don't we simply take
> over the countries close to us or where we already have large numbers of
> troops? And especially, why do we "allow" those countries to disagree
with
> us and work against us?

"WE", don't Lowell!! "WE" try to buy, threaten and cajoloe them all!! $15
billion to Turkey, and they rejected that even. $2 billion to buy 'copters
for Columbia, and train their secret police. The Imperial State trys using
the velvet glove first. But it takes that glove off when need be.

> And especially, why do we "allow" those countries to disagree with
> us and work against us?

Yeah, Bush was real pissed about the very issue you raise, this very night.
"F" 'em all, he said. Well, Lowell, not even the U.S. Empire can fight 400
wars at one time. Ya gotta be incremental if ya wanna rule the Earth. And,
who the hell are "we" to have put "ourselves" in the position of "allowing"
which is **exactly** what "we" have done in relation to dictators and lots
of other sick shit.

So, Lowell, you're a regular critic, as is Robert & Bill. What the hell
do you **stand** for. I take it you think the U.S. pulling a **first
strike** on it's former buddy, Saddam, is just fine. Why is that,
Lowell??!!
>
> Lowell C. Savage
> It's the freedom, stupid!

I can't tell it from what you write. Do you think the U.S. is gonna grant
2nd Ammendments rights to Iraqies after the war??!! Or let 'em smoke mj?
Or cuts their taxes to the barebones, unlike in the U.S.?

This bullshit ***is not*** about liberty, Lowell! Sorry you can't see
that!!

Sincerely,

Larry

BTW, Lowell, you responded calmly, with respect. I did my best, failing, I
figure. I want you to know that I noticed!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: It's about freedom, stupid - Re: Lowell's BS games!!
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 19:24:16 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

> > So I asked, "[If the US is acting as or intending to become an
> > imperialist power] ...why not just take over the places where our troops
> > already are, like Germany, and Kuwait and Bahrain and Qatar?"
>
>Criminee, give the U.S. state a little time. It's still licking the wounds
>of Vietnam. Even though Rumsfield, Saddam's old buddy, has claimed "we"
can
>"fight a war on many fronts", "we" gotta be incrementle about ruling the
>Earth. A step at a time, eh? First Iraq, then N. Korea, then Iran, then
>Columbia (oops, they're "our" friends).
>
> > Then, later in the message, I wrote "After all, how many troops do we
> have in
> > Germany", which brought your response about the 70,000 troops in
Germany.
>
>It ain't "about"!! It's 70 f'ing thousand, and the Germans want "us" the
>"f" out of there as much as the s. koreans do, and the portreicans do, and
>the phillipinos do (I quit it with worrying about spelling). Everwhere the
>U.S. state is, they what "us" out, if for now other reason than raping
their
>women. Do you have any "f'ing" idea how pissed the South Koreans are at
>"us". They don't give a "f" about N. Korean bombs, except for the bought
>rulers, the South Koreans are way more peeded at "us" than the N. Koreans.
>Want the evidence?

Sure. Let's have the "evidence". Like the news reports of every little
anti-American protest in SK while ignoring the 100,000+ that show up for
*pro* American rallies.

> >
> > So Larry, I've answered your question.
>
>The hell you did? I missed it!! Why don't **you** think "we" oughata not
>have 70,000 troops in Germany, and why do you think Bush got nooooo support
>from Germany?????!!

Because you didn't ask it to begin with. I don't think they are
needed. And I think Bush got no support from Germany for two
reasons. First, because we are *NOT* an imperial power. And second,
because Germany has been trading on the sly with Iraq and they don't want
to lose a good thing (or get caught with their hand in the cookie jar.)

> > How about you answer the one I was
> > asking and which you evaded. I'll try to state it very simply and
plainly
> > so that even you can understand it:
> >
> > If the US is an "imperial power" like you claim, why don't we simply
take
> > over the countries close to us or where we already have large numbers of
> > troops? And especially, why do we "allow" those countries to disagree
with
> > us and work against us?
>
>"WE", don't Lowell!! "WE" try to buy, threaten and cajoloe them all!! $15
>billion to Turkey, and they rejected that even. $2 billion to buy 'copters
>for Columbia, and train their secret police. The Imperial State trys using
>the velvet glove first. But it takes that glove off when need be.

So, let me guess, you think we're going to invade Turkey or Germany now and
take over their governments?

> > And especially, why do we "allow" those countries to disagree with
> > us and work against us?
>
>Yeah, Bush was real pissed about the very issue you raise, this very night.
>"F" 'em all, he said. Well, Lowell, not even the U.S. Empire can fight 400
>wars at one time. Ya gotta be incremental if ya wanna rule the Earth.
And,
>who the hell are "we" to have put "ourselves" in the position of "allowing"
>which is **exactly** what "we" have done in relation to dictators and lots
>of other sick shit.

Well, "allowing" is not something an "Imperial power" will do. So
obviously, even in the past, the US was not acting as one.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: so, lowell, it was late - Re: It's about freedom, stupid - Re:
Lowell's BS games!!
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 04:22:57 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

on 3/7/03 4:18 AM, larry fullmer at lfullmer1@cableone.net wrote:

> So, Lowelle,
>
> Your responded with now name calling. I'll do the same.
>
> interspered below:
>
> on 3/7/03 1:32 AM, Lowell C. Savage at savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>> Actually, as a matter of fact, I do NOT think that we should have 70,000
>> troops in Germany.
>
> Why is that, Lowell. Are even you getting a little freaked about the
> politics of Empire. Why?, Lowell, do you think "we" should not have
70,000
> troops in Germany??!!
>>
>> But, of course, your question was an attempt to evade the issue that I
was
>> discussing.
>
> Hey, Bud, I raised the question. Why the hell are the 70,000 U.S. troops
in
> Germany??! It was you who evaded, not even knowing they were there.
>
>> You claimed that the US was acting as an Imperialist power.
>
> Finally somebody understands what I write. Yup!!, it was me.
>
>> So I asked, "[If the US is acting as or intending to become an
>> imperialist power] ...why not just take over the places where our troops
>> already are, like Germany, and Kuwait and Bahrain and Qatar?"
>
> Criminee, give the U.S. state a little time. It's still licking the
wounds
> of Vietnam. Even though Rumsfield, Saddam's old buddy, has claimed "we"
can
> "fight a war on many fronts", "we" gotta be incrementle about ruling the
> Earth. A step at a time, eh? First Iraq, then N. Korea, then Iran, then
> Columbia (oops, they're "our" friends).
>
>> Then, later in the message, I wrote "After all, how many troops do we
have in
>> Germany", which brought your response about the 70,000 troops in Germany.
>
> It ain't "about"!! It's 70 f'ing thousand, and the Germans want "us" the
> "f" out of there as much as the s. koreans do, and the portreicans do, and
> the phillipinos do (I quit it with worrying about spelling). Everwhere
the
> U.S. state is, they what "us" out, if for now other reason than raping
their
> women. Do you have any "f'ing" idea how pissed the South Koreans are at
> "us". They don't give a "f" about N. Korean bombs, except for the bought
> rulers, the South Koreans are way more peeded at "us" than the N. Koreans.
> Want the evidence?
>>
>> So Larry, I've answered your question.
>
> The hell you did? I missed it!! Why don't **you** think "we" oughata not
> have 70,000 troops in Germany, and why do you think Bush got nooooo
support
> from Germany?????!!
>
>> How about you answer the one I was
>> asking and which you evaded. I'll try to state it very simply and
plainly
>> so that even you can understand it:
>>
>> If the US is an "imperial power" like you claim, why don't we simply take
>> over the countries close to us or where we already have large numbers of
>> troops? And especially, why do we "allow" those countries to disagree
with
>> us and work against us?
>
> "WE", don't Lowell!! "WE" try to buy, threaten and cajoloe them all!!
$15
> billion to Turkey, and they rejected that even. $2 billion to buy
'copters
> for Columbia, and train their secret police. The Imperial State trys
using
> the velvet glove first. But it takes that glove off when need be.
>
>> And especially, why do we "allow" those countries to disagree with
>> us and work against us?
>
> Yeah, Bush was real pissed about the very issue you raise, this very
night.
> "F" 'em all, he said. Well, Lowell, not even the U.S. Empire can fight
400
> wars at one time. Ya gotta be incremental if ya wanna rule the Earth.
And,
> who the hell are "we" to have put "ourselves" in the position of
"allowing"
> which is **exactly** what "we" have done in relation to dictators and lots
> of other sick shit.
>
> So, Lowell, you're a regular critic, as is Robert & Bill. What the hell
> do you **stand** for. I take it you think the U.S. pulling a **first
> strike** on it's former buddy, Saddam, is just fine. Why is that,
> Lowell??!!
>>
>> Lowell C. Savage
>> It's the freedom, stupid!
>
> I can't tell it from what you write. Do you think the U.S. is gonna grant
> 2nd Ammendments rights to Iraqies after the war??!! Or let 'em smoke mj?
> Or cuts their taxes to the barebones, unlike in the U.S.?
>
> This bullshit ***is not*** about liberty, Lowell! Sorry you can't see
> that!!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Larry
>
> BTW, Lowell, you responded calmly, with respect. I did my best, failing,
I
> figure. I want you to know that I noticed!!
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: so, Lowell, it was late - Re: It's about freedom, stupid - Re:
Lowell's BS games!!
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 04:28:17 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Gawd,

I just sent a blank message. So sorry. Lowell, I wrote:

on 3/7/03 4:18 AM, larry fullmer at lfullmer1@cableone.net wrote:

> So, Lowelle,
>
> Your responded with now name calling. I'll do the same.

Uhhh, at least I shoulda spelled your name right, Lowell.

And where the hell the "w" came from, I have no idea. I meant
to write "you responded with ***no*** name calling".

Criminee, I try, but I had to apologize for failures in the salutation, and
in the first sentence.

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Progress finally... and Moderator information....
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:19:44 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings everyone!

Finally, just today, I have discovered that the liberty-northwest.org domain
has been transferred to the new host provider. I have just today made the
new NameServer DNS settings, but it will still take another 24-48 hours
before the site will be recognized by the rest of the planet, and functional
for users again.

It would be nice if the site could host an on-line archiver, but I don't
have the software to set something like that up. At least not now. However,
I will add an update to the site where Liberty Northwest matters can be
automated, as is partially the case now with the "unsubscribe" and
"subscribe" functions. The structure of the web page is under thorough
renovation at this time, and I won't be able to make many changes until the
DNS settings click in for FTP file transfers, etc.

Also, for everyone's information; hopefully, if everything works right, and
on schedule, I should be returning to Idaho in early May. I am in the
process of backing up my drives onto CD ROM disks for transfer to a new
system that will be set up when I return. Since I've been gone for so long,
it may take several days just to get a phone line connection re-established,
much more to get a functional system running again. In short, I've been
gone for over five years, and the computer I previously ran in Idaho can't
handle what my computer here handles routinely every day. Therefore, I'll
be working from the ground up as you can see.

In fact, during this transition period, I might ask Bill Anderson to step in
temporarily as Moderator of Liberty Northwest, that is, if he would agree to
do that on a temporary basis until I have a functional system in place which
could likely take several weeks. I'll be able to do everything from here up
until April 24th, the date for my wife's immigration interview at the US
Embassy in Manila. After that date, if her visa is approved, I'll be in the
process of shutting down my system here. Once my phone line here is cut, I
will only have sporadic and temporary access to my email accounts via local
internet cafes and such. When I physically leave the Philippines, I will
place all of my accounts in a "no email" status until I get a remedial
system up and running again in Idaho.

I believe Bill is the logical choice here to act as Moderator during this
transition period. He has been a subscriber to Liberty Northwest for
several years, and he hosts this forum on his own platform. So on both
rules, and technical matters, he has the expertise to address both issues
accordingly should anything arise in my absence.

Kindest regards,
Frank
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: What we may have lost...
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 21:51:30 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

Ruminating over some of the conversations taking place today between
some of us, I had to reflect on just how much we may really be losing
in terms of international respect, if any indeed is left anymore. We
seem to be perched upon this idea of unilateral aggression against a
nation that really has not been defined in any way justifiably
targeting America, Americans, or the US government.

1. First, let's start off with Russia. In case some of you haven't
noticed, it was Russian President Vladimir Putin who was the very
FIRST head of state to phone up The Shrub<tm> and offer his support
over the attacks on 9/11. President Putin even made a visit to The
Shrub's<tm> ranch in Crawford, Texas cruising the landscape in the
Shrub's<tm> pickup truck, claiming everything GREAT about the GREAT
State of Texas!

Epilogue: Russia has since joined with France, Germany and most
others condemning any unilateral attack against Iraq. In short, we
lost our best possibly long term ally over something that everyone
else agrees is absolutely insane vis-a-vis, the US government's
insatiable desire to launch an aggressive attack upon a dead beat
state for the purpose of maintaining US hegemony over a region that is
not within its own security interests.

2. NATO is in shambles (probably a good thing for the US, but not
necessarily so under the present circumstances).

3. Ibid. The UN. The monster we helped to create will largely come
home to haunt the US, as the Shrub disavows Security Council consensus
and flies in the face of public opinion across the planet. (again, in
the long run, this might not be such a bad development after all, but
it still could be in the immediate future).

4. Historical allies, such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia (yes we helped
created that too), German, France, just about everybody, is quickly
distancing themselves from US imperialism. Maybe a good thing for the
planet, but hardly all that great for the future of the US economy or
liberty for that matter!

5. Destabilization. North Korea depends upon the current US unilateral
aggression against Iraq to gain political advantage in north-east
Asia. The US cannot attack North Korea unless militarily attacked, or
else Japan, South Korea and China would become a kettle of fish that
the US government could NEVER predict any successful outcome. So
now, you have east Asia's chief economic powers, e.g.: China, Japan,
South Korea, and further to the south, becoming even further
economically fragmented and unstable. Not really a great picture for
foreign trade, or so-called global economic stability.

It's sickening to see all of this transpire. It's happening before our
own eyes. If it is prolonged, at least long enough, maybe enough
Americans will storm the streets and demand the immediate impeachment
of the current regime in power. The alternative isn't that good
either unfortunately. It's a no-win situation. We're stuck with the
fascist policies of the Shrub Regime<tm> versus the Socialist
alternative, which really is nothing other than the same fascist
design under a different name and label.

For now, libertarians aren't going to come out on top. We'll be
marginalized yet again as "anarchists" -- or not seeing the 'big
picture' in so-called geo-political politics. No liberty around here
folks in either case.

I'd like to write more on this, but you're probably wondering when I
might just shut up and cease and desist. You want to just go to bed
and get some sleep, or watch the Super Bowl, or mindless comedy
programming on your favourite network channel.

Either way, the beat goes on.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Part time business
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:57:58 -0500
From: Oscar <victor02@aol.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi, Do you want me to show you how you can earn
$1,000 to $5,000 a month
working from home Part Time?


NEXT

I

This e-mail is sent in compliance with our strict anti-abuse regulations.
You have received this e-mail because you or someone using your computer has
used an FFA List, Safe List or requested other information. If you do not
wish to receive any mail from our servers you may permanently block your
e-mail address by clicking on the following link. (Please be advised by
blocking your e-mail you will not have access to over 900 domains and the
thousands of users and services they represent)

.Thank you,
The Postmaster

Unsubscribe

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fw: [LPNY DISCUSS] How about talk before slaughter?
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:29:52 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: "Libertarian Newsgroups Northwest" <libnw@immosys.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: G Triest
To: lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: [LPNY DISCUSS] How about talk before slaughter?

Ronald:

You miss the point entirely.
Debates notwithstanding, you argue for invasion of a sovereign state because
you (US) do not like the way they do things in their country, e.g. lack of
civil rights, tyranny of the populace, arbitrary torture, etc.

You assert essentially that because of the evil done within the confines of
Iraq, we have every justification to rumble on in and make a regime change.
Juxtapose that justification to Soviet Russia, to Nazi Germany or to any
expansionist intolerant nation. It just doesn't work.

You (we'all) think that because we think our way of living is better than
theirs, we are obligated to overrun their country with our overwhelming
firepower, and make involuntary changes.

This is so philistine and narrow minded as to be laughable if the stakes and
lives weren't so deadly serious.

The whole idea of sovereignty is that a country gets to do what it wants
within the confines of their jurisdiction; how would/do you feel if/when
another sovereignty or governing entity says "You americans aren't living in
a manner that is moral, correct or in-line with our philosophy and mandate
for society. We will therefore invade your country and re-shape it into a
form that is correct, irrespective of how you have evolved."
I know the answer, and it is you wouldn't stand for it.

Finally, the justification for invasion of Iraq on the grounds that it is
supra-nationally offensive, that perspective barely has any evidence
supporting it at this time. Yes, Iraq could make WOMD in the future, but so
could any country, and in fact many countries do already.
The claim that Iraq has WOMD already is not supported by any evidence. Nor
has any evidence been shown that Iraq is involved in international
terrorism.

The scenario is plain and simple; we have a shtload of firepower, Iraq has
been beaten into a non military entity. We don't like them cause he is
haughty, nasty, and annoying, and possibly because he controls a whole bunch
of oil.

We bigger than them, we no like, we crush them like grape.
Might makes right here, there are not subleties.

----- Original Message -----
From: Ronald J. Wieck
To: lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: [LPNY DISCUSS] How about talk before slaughter?

Don, I'm dismayed to hear someone I regard as intelligent and
thoughtful propose something so pointless and immoral as a debate
between an American president and a blood-soaked tyrant. Saddam
Hussein is a brutal thug who shot his way to power. In an earlier
post I asked if a suitable topic might be: Resolved, torturing
children in front of their parents is better than reality TV. What
on
earth would you like to hear them talk about? Let's transport
ourselves back to 1940
and imagine the sort of debate you favor, featuring FDR and Adolf
Hitler. They would begin by discussing world economics. Hitler
would
make an emotional and highly compelling case that Germany had been

screwed at Versailles. He would charge the U.S. with betraying the

principles of its founders by supporting an imperialist power in a

purely European conflict. FDR, a member of Wilson's party, would
find
himself on the defensive here. Somewhere the indelicate matter of
the
Jews would come up, but Der Fuehrer would deftly deflect any
criticism. Jews, he would say, are being encouraged to leave
Germany:
they are not being mistreated. Roosevelt, having no hard data,
would
be forced to abandon that approach. The exchange would conclude
with
stirring oratory by Hitler, visibly discomforting FDR. The French
would observe that the American had been exposed as
unsophisticated.
The principles you and other libertarians hold dear would
hamstring
America, totally blocking any aid to Britain (Historical note:
even
after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, there was still strong
reluctance in Congress to go to war in Europe. Hitler solved FDR's

potentially huge problem by declaring war on us.), discouraging
our
mobilization, resulting in, quite conceivably, Nazi domination of
the
world. Again, what's your point? Undeniably, Hitler was
charismatic
and an extraordinary speaker. He was also an evil genocidal
maniac.
Would winning a debate with FDR justify the mass-murders he
contemplated? Why not?

--- In lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com, Don Silberger
<DonSilberger@h...> wrote:
> At 08:40 PM 3/6/03 -0500, you wrote:
> >"Don Silberger" <DonSilberger@h...> wrote in part:
> >
> >> Until recently I have been somewhat ambivalent about the
rush
to
> >> war with Iraq....
> >
> >> Then I heard what HBO allowed me to witness of Dan
Rather's
> >> hours-long uncensored and unrestricted interview with the
Great
> >> Villain himself. In particular I learned from Rather of
Saddam's
> >> offer to debate our own Fearless Leader over international
T.V.,
and
> >> then learned of George W. Bush's refusal to debate the man.
> >
> >> Now I say: Goddamn it, before a bombardment begins that
will
> >> slaughter hundreds of thousands of mainly innocent people in
> >> their own homes in Iraq, LET THAT OPEN CONVERSATION OCCUR.
> >
> >Did anything in the debates between Bush & Gore influence your
opinion
> >about who should be the next POTUS? Was there a chance
anything
they'd
> >be likely to have said would have influenced your opinion
thereon?
>
> Robert, nothing I heard in the carefully controlled
non-debate
beauty
> contests that were staged between Gore and Bush had much
influence
> on many people. I believe that is your point, and I got it.
> The present situation is quite different. I am not proposing
a
beauty
> contest. I am proposing an disciplined but otherwise
unregulated
> prolonged exchange between one person who talks at us in his
heroic
> folksy way and convinces me of nothing, and another man who has
> been villified for a decade but whom I have never had a chance
to
hear
> and judge at all.
> Furthermore, very narrow and specific and obviously important

issues
> are at hand now -- besides whether Tweedledum or Tweedledee
should
> get sworn in as POTUS.
> So I insist: The sort of conversation I'm asking for now is
basically
> different from the sort of bullshit palaver which has been
passing
for
> political discuss among the media and the political class you
admire.
> But let me step aside from your specific and
characteristically
> cynical queries. It appears to me that you are proposing that
we,
> citizens of this purported republic, should face the reality
that
we
> are brainlessly attached to our opinions and therefore should
see
it
> as a waste of our and everybody's time to WITNESS actual
exchanges
> between the representatives of governments which will otherwise
soon
> be killing our children in large numbers and to no
sharp-focussed
end.
> Now, go ahead and make an argument out of that. You have
> succeeded in causing me temporarily to lose patience with you.
> -- Donald
>
> >
> >If not, then what makes you think anything either of THESE
politicians
> >would say debating each other would influence your opinion
about
> >international affairs?
> >
> >In Your Sly Tribe,
> >Robert
> >
> >
> >~~~ LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF NEW YORK ~~~
> >~~~~~~ http://www.ny.lp.org ~~~~~~
> >
> >To unsubscribe, send an empty message to
> >lpny_discuss-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT


~~~ LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF NEW YORK ~~~
~~~~~~ http://www.ny.lp.org ~~~~~~

To unsubscribe, send an empty message to
lpny_discuss-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fw: [LPNY DISCUSS] How about talk before slaughter?
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:37:33 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: "Libertarian Newsgroups Northwest" <libnw@immosys.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: G Triest
To: lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: [LPNY DISCUSS] How about talk before slaughter?

Ronald:

Ok, so one country's removing the head of state of another, particularly
when war has not been declared, is not violating the sovereignty of a
subject country.

This is a very interesting position for you to take. Incredible, but
interesting.

You justify your position by critisizing the method by which its current
leader managed to accumulate power, that somehow he didn't follow your
standards of due process.
How presuptuous for you to make a judgement call as the viability of a
foreign leader's right to rule, because he didn't get there the way you
think is right.
(Don't you ever watch Star Trek? e.g. Klingon High Counsel, fiction yes but
germane nonetheless.)

If his rule was truly unbearable, there would have been a revolution; he
rules with the tacit, even if unenthusiastic, support of his people en
masse.

As to WOMD. Where's the beef? Maybe he doo, maybe he don't. Proof is on the
protagonist. The Bush Admin, despite all the resources it has available to
it, has not been able to come up with a smidgeon of evidence showing that
Iraq has them. Inspectors swarm over Iraq, and even when directed by the US
as to where to look, haven't found any.
Your standard of proof is exceedingly low, to justify a war action. By these
standards we can justify war on ANY country at any time.

I say maintain our integrity in respect of foregin sovereignty, and have
some viable level of proof, before invading another country - that is unless
we come clean and stop trying to justify it under these terms.
Why not just say we don't like them, we don't feel secure with them, and
that is enough to invade them.

----- Original Message -----
From: Ronald J. Wieck
To: lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 5:01 AM
Subject: Re: [LPNY DISCUSS] How about talk before slaughter?

--- In lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com, "G Triest"
<garyonthenet@y...>
wrote:
> Ronald:
>
> You miss the point entirely.
> Debates notwithstanding, you argue for invasion of a sovereign
state because you (US) do not like the way they do things in their

country, e.g. lack of civil rights, tyranny of the populace,
arbitrary torture, etc.
>
> You assert essentially that because of the evil done within the
confines of Iraq, we have every justification to rumble on in and
make a regime change. Juxtapose that justification to Soviet
Russia,
to Nazi Germany or to any expansionist intolerant nation. It just
doesn't work.
>
> You (we'all) think that because we think our way of living is
better than theirs, we are obligated to overrun their country with

our overwhelming firepower, and make involuntary changes.
>
> This is so philistine and narrow minded as to be laughable if
the
stakes and lives weren't so deadly serious.
>
> The whole idea of sovereignty is that a country gets to do what
it
wants within the confines of their jurisdiction; how would/do you
feel if/when another sovereignty or governing entity says "You
americans aren't living in a manner that is moral, correct or
in-line
with our philosophy and mandate for society. We will therefore
invade
your country and re-shape it into a form that is correct,
irrespective of how you have evolved."
> I know the answer, and it is you wouldn't stand for it.
>
> Finally, the justification for invasion of Iraq on the grounds
that
it is supra-nationally offensive, that perspective barely has any
evidence supporting it at this time. Yes, Iraq could make WOMD in
the
future, but so could any country, and in fact many countries do
already.
> The claim that Iraq has WOMD already is not supported by any
evidence. Nor has any evidence been shown that Iraq is involved in

international terrorism.
>
> The scenario is plain and simple; we have a shtload of
firepower,
Iraq has been beaten into a non military entity. We don't like
them
cause he is haughty, nasty, and annoying, and possibly because he
controls a whole bunch of oil.
>
> We bigger than them, we no like, we crush them like grape.
> Might makes right here, there are not subleties.

You distort or misunderstand my statements and then contend that I

miss the point. In case you have not read anything I've posted,
let
me re-state that Saddam does not embody the Iraqi people. Removing

him from power does not violate the "sovereignty" of Iraq. It is a

fact that Saddam invaded a neighboring state; was defeated
militarily; was required to eliminate a stockpile of chemical and
biological weapons; failed to do so. By the terms of the truce he
agreed to, military force may now be applied to compel his
compliance. The argument that the threat posed by Saddam's arsenal

has diminished is, depending on who is making it, disingenuous or
uninformed. The Iraqi people have suffered extreme privation
because
of Saddam's stubborn refusal to abandon his weapons program. The
Food-
for-Oil program transforms Iraqi oil into cash, which Saddam then
uses to build new palaces and buy military supplies. Iraqi
medicine
shows up on the black markets of Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.
To
any reasonable person, the implications are clear. If Saddam
wanted
to disarm, why, he'd simply do it. What is so confusing about
that?
Your contention that there is no evidence for the existence of
prohibited weapons is incorrect: information provided by Iraq
demonstrates that vast quantities of chemical and biological
agents
known to have existed at the end of the Gulf War have not been
accounted for. I recommend (as I have done several times) that you

read Kenneth Pollack's, The Threatening Storm.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ronald J. Wieck
> To: lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 7:51 AM
> Subject: Re: [LPNY DISCUSS] How about talk before slaughter?
>
>
> Don, I'm dismayed to hear someone I regard as intelligent and
> thoughtful propose something so pointless and immoral as a
debate
> between an American president and a blood-soaked tyrant.
Saddam
> Hussein is a brutal thug who shot his way to power. In an
earlier
> post I asked if a suitable topic might be: Resolved, torturing

> children in front of their parents is better than reality TV.
What on
> earth would you like to hear them talk about? Let's transport
> ourselves back to 1940
> and imagine the sort of debate you favor, featuring FDR and
Adolf
> Hitler. They would begin by discussing world economics. Hitler

would
> make an emotional and highly compelling case that Germany had
been
> screwed at Versailles. He would charge the U.S. with betraying

the
> principles of its founders by supporting an imperialist power
in
a
> purely European conflict. FDR, a member of Wilson's party,
would
find
> himself on the defensive here. Somewhere the indelicate matter
of
the
> Jews would come up, but Der Fuehrer would deftly deflect any
> criticism. Jews, he would say, are being encouraged to leave
Germany:
> they are not being mistreated. Roosevelt, having no hard data,

would
> be forced to abandon that approach. The exchange would
conclude
with
> stirring oratory by Hitler, visibly discomforting FDR. The
French
> would observe that the American had been exposed as
unsophisticated.
> The principles you and other libertarians hold dear would
hamstring
> America, totally blocking any aid to Britain (Historical note:

even
> after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, there was still strong

> reluctance in Congress to go to war in Europe. Hitler solved
FDR's
> potentially huge problem by declaring war on us.),
discouraging
our
> mobilization, resulting in, quite conceivably, Nazi domination
of
the
> world. Again, what's your point? Undeniably, Hitler was
charismatic
> and an extraordinary speaker. He was also an evil genocidal
maniac.
> Would winning a debate with FDR justify the mass-murders he
> contemplated? Why not?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com, Don Silberger
> <DonSilberger@h...> wrote:
> > At 08:40 PM 3/6/03 -0500, you wrote:
> > >"Don Silberger" <DonSilberger@h...> wrote in part:
> > >
> > >> Until recently I have been somewhat ambivalent about
the
rush
> to
> > >> war with Iraq....
> > >
> > >> Then I heard what HBO allowed me to witness of Dan
Rather's
> > >> hours-long uncensored and unrestricted interview with the

Great
> > >> Villain himself. In particular I learned from Rather of
Saddam's
> > >> offer to debate our own Fearless Leader over
international
T.V.,
> and
> > >> then learned of George W. Bush's refusal to debate the
man.
> > >
> > >> Now I say: Goddamn it, before a bombardment begins
that
will
> > >> slaughter hundreds of thousands of mainly innocent people
in
> > >> their own homes in Iraq, LET THAT OPEN CONVERSATION
OCCUR.
> > >
> > >Did anything in the debates between Bush & Gore influence
your
> opinion
> > >about who should be the next POTUS? Was there a chance
anything
> they'd
> > >be likely to have said would have influenced your opinion
thereon?
> >
> > Robert, nothing I heard in the carefully controlled non-
debate
> beauty
> > contests that were staged between Gore and Bush had much
influence
> > on many people. I believe that is your point, and I got it.
> > The present situation is quite different. I am not
proposing a
> beauty
> > contest. I am proposing an disciplined but otherwise
unregulated
> > prolonged exchange between one person who talks at us in his

heroic
> > folksy way and convinces me of nothing, and another man who
has
> > been villified for a decade but whom I have never had a
chance
to
> hear
> > and judge at all.
> > Furthermore, very narrow and specific and obviously
important
> issues
> > are at hand now -- besides whether Tweedledum or Tweedledee
should
> > get sworn in as POTUS.
> > So I insist: The sort of conversation I'm asking for now
is
> basically
> > different from the sort of bullshit palaver which has been
passing
> for
> > political discuss among the media and the political class
you
> admire.
> > But let me step aside from your specific and
characteristically
> > cynical queries. It appears to me that you are proposing
that
we,
> > citizens of this purported republic, should face the reality

that
> we
> > are brainlessly attached to our opinions and therefore
should
see
> it
> > as a waste of our and everybody's time to WITNESS actual
exchanges
> > between the representatives of governments which will
otherwise
> soon
> > be killing our children in large numbers and to no sharp-
focussed
> end.
> > Now, go ahead and make an argument out of that. You have

> > succeeded in causing me temporarily to lose patience with
you.
> > -- Donald
> >
> > >
> > >If not, then what makes you think anything either of THESE
> politicians
> > >would say debating each other would influence your opinion
about
> > >international affairs?
> > >
> > >In Your Sly Tribe,
> > >Robert
> > >
> > >
> > >~~~ LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF NEW YORK ~~~
> > >~~~~~~ http://www.ny.lp.org ~~~~~~
> > >
> > >To unsubscribe, send an empty message to
> > >lpny_discuss-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> > >
> > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
> ~~~ LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF NEW YORK ~~~
> ~~~~~~ http://www.ny.lp.org ~~~~~~
>
> To unsubscribe, send an empty message to
> lpny_discuss-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT


~~~ LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF NEW YORK ~~~
~~~~~~ http://www.ny.lp.org ~~~~~~

To unsubscribe, send an empty message to
lpny_discuss-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: ADV: Don't Limit Your Access to In-Depth Financial Intelligence
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:45:49 -0600
From: <subscriptions@financialweb.org>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image] [Image]
FinancialWeb.org is dedicated to delivering [Image]
in-depth financial intelligence to [Image]
independent thinking investors who want to Check your email address
build and protect their wealth. below for accuracy and
click submit to receive
Our electronic publishing platform connects a FREE 2003 Forecast and
analysts, editors, and publishers with to be added to our
qualified investors through a proprietary network of informed
content distribution technology and provides investors.
FREE priority access to an exclusive archive [Image]
of investment knowledge and information.
[Image]
[btn]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
If you don't want to limit your access to in-depth financial
intelligence, simply do nothing. And welcome to our special network
of savvy investors who desire access to veteran analysts, investment
professionals, and world-class advisors.
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
If you choose to limit your access, you'll be excluded from all of the
future FREE economic reports, financial forecasts, and investment
strategies you might need to negotiate the tough markets ahead. CLICK
HERE if you want to go it alone. We honor all remove requests.
[Image]
FinancialWeb.org 502 N. Haskell PO Box 710117 Dallas, Texas 75371
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Checking Account . . .
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 03:03:36 PST
From: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
To: Robert Goodman <libnw@immosys.com>

On 05-Mar-03, Robert Goodman wrote:

RG> Have all of you been getting these e-gold solicitations thru this list
RG> periodically?...

Oh yeah!

RG> ... Something in its HTML causes MS Outlook Express to jump to the next
RG> message.

Maybe M$ OE can be config'ed to automatically delete them. :)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Please activate your account
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:18:03 -0500
From: kevJill <sales@moreinfoneeded.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

<P ALIGN=CENTER><FONT
FACE="Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif"></FONT><FONT
COLOR="#6600FF" SIZE="+2"><B>&nbsp;Hi, Do you want me to show you how you
can earn <BR>$1,000 to $5,000 a month <BR>working from home Part
Time?</B></FONT><B></B></P>
<P ALIGN=CENTER><FONT
FACE="Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif"></FONT><A
HREF="http://www.moreinfoneeded.com/One/one.html"><B><FONT COLOR="#6600FF"
SIZE="+2">NEXT</FONT></B></A></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT><FONT
FACE="Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif">&nbsp;</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT><FONT
FACE="Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif"></FONT><FONT
COLOR="#333333" FACE="Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif">This
e-mail is sent in compliance with our strict anti-abuse regulations. You
have received this e-mail because you or someone using your computer has
used an FFA List, Safe List or requested other information. If you do not
wish to receive any mail from our servers you may permanently block your
e-mail address by clicking on the following link. (Please be advised by
blocking your e-mail you will not have access to over 900 domains and the
thousands of users and services they represent)</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT><FONT
FACE="Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif"></FONT><FONT
COLOR="#333333" FACE="Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif">.Thank
you, <BR>The Postmaster</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000CC" SIZE="+2"> </FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=LEFT><FONT
FACE="Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif"></FONT><A
HREF="http://www.megadiscounts4u.com"><FONT COLOR="#0000CC"
SIZE="+2">Unsubscribe</FONT></A></P>
---

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: How to Get 17,169 Visitors a Day to Any WebSite!
Date: 7 Mar 2003 19:23:16 -0300
From: mpamweb@mixmail.com
To: libnw@immosys.com

Massive Hits to your Website...
[Image]

How to Get 17,169 Visitors a Day to Any WebSite!

Follow these Step-by-Step instructions!
Starting Now, You can have a phenomenal advertising machine that will
literally build any online business.

Many people believe (There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch)
Guess what? THERE IS!

And you do not need to outlay a single, solitary dollar, pound,
punt, rand, mark or euro for this plan to work for YOU!

And even better - you can earn while you learn!

MPAM (Massive Passive Advertising Machine) is a Viral Marketing Strategy
that out-performs anything you have seen.

It's all here for free(which most people charge for) and you will learn how
to combine the SYNERGISTIC POTENTIAL of over 50 FREE programs .

MPAM has had over 33 MILLION page views since it began in August 2001
this means EVERY SECOND of EVERY DAY for over 14 MONTHS
someone somewhere has viewed an MPAM page.

THIRTY THREE MILLION page views!! And over 14 MILLION visitors!
24 visitors EVERY MINUTE, EVERY DAY for over 14 MONTHS!!.
Does the MPAM system work? No hype needed - no fancy advertising
just FACTS and PROVEN STATISTICS!

Without MPAM traffic is flat...
[Image]

With MPAM traffic is Massive!
[Image]

You won't be charged ANYTHING for the FREE TRAFFIC lessons on this site.
NO STRINGS ATTACHED, EVER!

Your Success Will cost you Time and Effort - and you MUST be willing to put
in that Effort!

And as an extra benefit - not only is the system FREE but I will show
You how to link all systems together!

These lessons will teach you how to trigger a CHAIN-REACTION
by linking these FREE programs together.

You will learn how to plug one program into another to create a
Self-Feeding, Never-Ending stream of prospects into an
Exponential Explosion of Hits to your website.
Recruit Thousands of affiliates, make Thousands of sales!

I'm talking about a PERPETUAL-MOTION HIT MACHINE.
You cannot comprehend it until you study the entire SERIES of LESSONS.
And in the end, you will be convinced that nobody anywhere can promise You
more hits in the years ahead.

You can have as much as 60% increase every
month. Month DAILY HITS
Check out the chart at right and watch
this... 1 100
2 160
If you get only a TWO PERCENT INCREASE in 3 250
hits daily and funnel them correctly,
you can produce approximately SIXTY PERCENT 4 400
INCREASE in hits to your website 5 640
Every Month! 6 1025

This system CAN ABSOLUTELY give you that 7 1,640
TWO PERCENT INCREASE DAILY! 8 2,620

Do the calculations on 60% monthly 9 4,192
growth... 10 6,707
11 10,731
This Realistic Approximation shows how fast
your website can begin receiving 12 17,169
THOUSANDS OF HITS!

What will these massive hits do for your INCOME?
How much will this program be worth in 2 to 5 years? Will it compensate you
for your efforts over the next few months? YES!

WHY DO YOU NEED THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF HITS? Because ADVERTISING is the
engine that builds business, recruits affiliates into money-making programs,
and makes sales.
You will learn the absolutely easiest way to become a MASTER at mass
advertising.

One year from now, YOUR MASSIVE PASSIVE ADVERTISING MACHINE will be
producing enough hits to insure the sale or promotion of
ANY LEGITIMATE Program with PHENOMENAL SUCCESS.

You will be able to build a downline in a new program within DAYS instead of
YEARS by merely plugging in its URL for a few days!
You will be able to build a new income every few days, then move on to
another program immediately.

Once you have your MASSIVE PASSIVE ADVERTISING MACHINE running at full
throttle, I will then show you how to turn those VISITORS into CASH in your
ocket!

But first of all, you need to get your own MPAM web site.
placing your own referral codes in all locations.

CLICK HERE NOW for Your own FREE MPAM!

Sorry Uninterested Click Here

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: New Poll!
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 14:35:26 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@librty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

A new poll has been entered on the Liberty Northwest web site for
March 2003:

QUESTION: Is the US morally justified in initiating force by attacking
Iraq?

To vote go to:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Saddam's man quotes Wolfiwitz, Dep. Sec. of State.....
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 02:37:25 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Folks,

Quoting Saddam's U.N. man, from tonight's CNN, after the
day's activities there:

"This about the U.S. takeover of Iraq's oil, and the political
and economic domination of the entire region......"
--Saddam's Front Man

Sure enough. He's right on!

I'd still be a bit of a skeptic, except that I watched Paul
Wolfiwitz, Deputy Sec. of State, say exactly the same thing
on PBS's "Frontlines" 2 weeks ago.

Now, that's confirmation, don't you think.

This upcoming war is about religion, oil, and Empire.

It has **no** damned thing to do with liberty/dictators/9-11!!

Buy the "frontlines" video, or maybe you can still watch it on
their web-site - "The War Behind Closed Doors" - describing
the war between Colin Powell and Wolfiwitz for Bush's mind.
Wolfiwitz won the war, and now Colin, not wanting to lose his
job, is beating the drums, too!

How sick!

LF

sidebar: what ya think a guy with a name like Wolfiwitz thinks
about the religious state of Israel, which kicked 900,000 Palestinanins
out of their homes (those they didn't kill) to make way for Gawd's
chosen??!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: ezmlm warning
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 04:22:48 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

UHH, Bill, Frank, Others,

I don't know what the hell has been going on, and I did not want to
"blame" anyone. I was just expressing my frustration, especially since, in
part, it led to the end of my friendship with Michelle.

So, Bill, Frank, send you "probes" and get the National Security Agency
the hell off of our list, eh??!!

Tell Ya this, Bill, when it comes to folks who fail the probe, you are my
best damned friend. And you too, Frank!!!

LF

on 3/8/03 3:04 AM, libnw-help@immosys.com at libnw-help@immosys.com wrote:

> Greetings again!
>
> This concerns your subscription with the libnw@immosys.com mailing
> list.
>
>
> Messages to you from the libnw mailing list seem to
> have been bouncing. I've attached a copy of the first bounce
> message I received.
>
> If this message bounces too, I will send you a probe. If the probe
bounces,
> I will remove your address from the libnw mailing list,
> without further notice.
>
>
> I've kept a list of which messages from the libnw mailing list have
> bounced from your address.
>
> Copies of these messages may be in the archive.
> To retrieve a set of messages 123-145 (a maximum of 100 per request),
> send an empty message to:
> <libnw-get.123_145@immosys.com>
>
> To receive a subject and author list for the last 100 or so messages,
> send an empty message to:
> <libnw-index@immosys.com>
>
> Here are the message numbers:
>
> 1452
> 1470
> 1475
>
> --- Enclosed is a copy of the bounce message I received.
>
> Return-Path: <>
> Received: (qmail 21496 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2003 15:27:59 -0000
> Received: from scanmail2.cableone.net (24.116.0.122)
> by ucntcme224.dsl.micron.net with SMTP; 24 Feb 2003 15:27:59 -0000
> Received: from scanmail2.cableone.net ([10.116.0.122]) by
> scanmail2.cableone.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68);
> Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:05:34 -0700
> Received: from mxmail2.cableone.net [10.116.0.118] by
scanmail2.cableone.net
> with ESMTP
> (SMTPD32-7.04) id A4BD2D3300A6; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:05:33 -0700
> From: postmaster@mx2.cableone.net
> To: libnw-return-1452-lfullmer1=cableone.net@immosys.com
> Date: 24 Feb 2003 07:39:28 -0700
> Message-ID: <0b1022839141823MXMAIL2@mxmail2.cableone.net>
> Subject: Nondeliverable mail
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: Multipart/mixed;
> boundary="MXMAIL2UIJlFFP9C-A,tEB3FjVu(4+)5b5NdR??"
> Return-Path: <>
>
>
> --MXMAIL2UIJlFFP9C-A,tEB3FjVu(4+)5b5NdR??
>
> ------Transcript of session unavailable-------
>
> --MXMAIL2UIJlFFP9C-A,tEB3FjVu(4+)5b5NdR??
> Content-Type: message/rfc822; charset=us-ascii
>
> Received: from psmtp.com ([64.75.1.158]) by mxmail2.cableone.net with
> Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68);
> Mon, 24 Feb 2003 05:58:25 -0700
> Received: from source ([206.207.111.224]) by exprod5mx18.postini.com
> ([64.75.1.245]) with SMTP;
> Mon, 24 Feb 2003 04:58:53 PST
> Received: (qmail 20524 invoked by uid 503); 24 Feb 2003 12:58:52 -0000
> Mailing-List: contact libnw-help@immosys.com; run by ezmlm
> Precedence: bulk
> X-No-Archive: yes
> list-help: <mailto:libnw-help@immosys.com>
> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com>
> list-post: <mailto:libnw@immosys.com>
> Reply-To: libnw@immosys.com
> Delivered-To: mailing list libnw@immosys.com
> Received: (qmail 20520 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2003 12:58:52 -0000
> Message-ID: <000201c2dc04$54ad0400$c50a010a@iconnect>
> From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
> To: <libnw@immosys.com>
> References: <BA7D58FD.613F%lfullmer1@cableone.net>
> Subject: Re: morality, rights, liberty - (Second Amendment)
> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:23:41 +0800
> Organization: e-homebrew.com http://www.e-homebrew.com
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
> Return-Path: libnw-return-1452-lfullmer1=cableone.net@immosys.com
>
> Greetings again Larry!
>
> Larry Fuller analysing the 'Robert Goodman' world of contradictions...
>
> Larry observed:
>> you define liberty, below, with two self-contradictory definitions:
>
> Robert Goodman's contradictory statement, to wit:
>>> absence of all restraint of wilful beings by other wilful
>>> beings other than that necessary for their own maximal exercise of
>>> liberty. Sorry the definition is circular, but there's a way out. That
>>> state can be approached by a relaxation technique wherein one can start
>>> at any extreme of one's behaviour w.r.t. others. One reaches a point
>>> somewhere in the middle at which all have an equal degree of absence of
>>> restraint, which is achieved by restraining others just to the right
>>> extent, and that state is "liberty".
>
> Larry meticulously observed, then replied:
>> first, you define liberty as absence of **all** restraint, and then you
>> define it as **restraint** to just the right extent. given that, you
> figure
>> you get to switch back and forth any damned time you want - claming that
> any
>> restraint on ted bundy abridges his liberty, and claiming slavery should
> be
>> restrained because it promotes your alternate, mutually exclusive,
>> definition of liberty.
>
>> i'd claim you were a dummy, but only a real smart human could attempt to
>> pull off double-think like that. you're no dummy, you're just an asshole
>> with something to prove. maybe you don't think you are as smart as you
> are,
>> or maybe you think your dick is too short. either way, i figure you
ought
>> to seek counseling.
>
> You know Larry, although we have had many differences of opinion, I do
have
> to admire your for sticking with this one. I've all but given up trying to
> deal with such semantic games of nonsense, particularly with a cluster of
> folks here who employ such tactics so profusely. I've taken the liberty
of
> saving most of this thread, and you are correct. Robert has indeed
switched
> definitions, likely in an attempt to avoided clear damning conclusions
when
> it suits his fancy, simply avoiding dealing with such contradictions as
they
> are pointed out so clearly. Admittedly though, you have drawn him out
into
> the open more clearly than others (including myself) have, which exposes
his
> character for largely relying on useless one-liners to torpedo meaningful
> discussion, most often obfuscating any possible conclusions.
>
> Great job Larry.
>
> Kindest regards,
> Frank
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --MXMAIL2UIJlFFP9C-A,tEB3FjVu(4+)5b5NdR??--
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: ezmlm warning
Date: 08 Mar 2003 14:31:47 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sat, 2003-03-08 at 05:22, larry fullmer wrote:
> UHH, Bill, Frank, Others,
>
> I don't know what the hell has been going on, and I did not want to
> "blame" anyone. I was just expressing my frustration, especially since,
in
> part, it led to the end of my friendship with Michelle.

The below noted warning is the software telling you that for some
reason, your email provider had an issue with receiving mail, hence
messages were "bouncing". This is done to keep old addresses that are
invalid from clogging up the system.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Your free account is waiting
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:56:26 -0500
From: bkqJean <455rich@hotmail.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi, Do you want me to show you how you can earn
$1,000 to $5,000 a month
working from home Part Time?

If the answer is YES, click on Subscribe.


Abuse Policy: This e-mail is sent in compliance with our strict anti-abuse
regulations. You have received this e-mail because you or someone using your
computer has used an FFA List, Safe List, your email address was listed in
other optin listes posted on the Internet an/or you or someone using your
computer requested other information from other mailings that was sent to
your computer. If you do not wish to receive any mail from our servers you
may permanently block your e-mail address by clicking on the following link.

Subscribe

Remove


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Earn full time imcome while working part time
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:04:21 -0500
From: scshRob <retail@lycos.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi, Do you want me to show you how you can earn
$1,000 to $5,000 a month
working from home Part Time?

If the answer is YES, click on Subscribe.


Abuse Policy: This e-mail is sent in compliance with our strict anti-abuse
regulations. You have received this e-mail because you or someone using your
computer has used an FFA List, Safe List, your email address was listed in
other optin listes posted on the Internet an/or you or someone using your
computer requested other information from other mailings that was sent to
your computer. If you do not wish to receive any mail from our servers you
may permanently block your e-mail address by clicking on the following link.

Subscribe

Remove


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: And now for something completely different...
Date: 08 Mar 2003 16:00:05 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@immosys.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

I'm tired of all the "negative" news items. So, I'm going to start
posting pro-liberty ones the naysayers fail to. here is number one:

http://news.com.com/2100-1025-991652.html?tag=lh

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: signature.asc
signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: This war is Treason!
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 00:31:02 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

An FBI agent writes her superiors comparing the war against Iraq to the
previous 'war' against the Davidians in Waco:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: sunday night TV
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 01:42:27 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Folks,

If you get FX, you might want to check out "Pentagon Papers" at 9:00PM mtn
time. And, no, it's not "The" pentagon papers, it's even more highly
recommended than that.

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: "WE" & "US" & THE U.S....
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 02:51:23 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Folks,

Bill, and even Lowell (sorry to see) claim I'm a "we", even though I claim I
ain't. I figure they ain't gonna let me not be a we, in relation to the
U.S., until I "love it or leave it".

Well, here's a damned fine argument to back up my claim, without leaving my
geographical home.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/rattlehead/rattlehead1.html

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: The War Against Ourselves..Shaffer
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 02:24:07 -0800 (PST)
From: lfullmer1@cableone.net
To: libnw@immosys.com, wes@logicallearning.net, azbengal@msn.com

[Image]

[Image][Image]
[LewRockwell.com] [Image]
* Please note, the sender's email address has not been
verified.
[Image]

Profound wisdom, with witches and Saddam to burn.
lf

[Image]

Click the following to access the sent link:

[Image] The War Against Anger by Butler Shaffer*

[SAVE THIS link] [FORWARD THIS link]


Get your EMAIL THIS Browser Button
and use it to email information from [Image]
any Web site.

[Image]

*This article can also be accessed if you copy and
paste the entire address below into your web browser.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer37.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: The Next Boon On The Internet- Keyword Ownership
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 07:22:23 -0800
From: keywords@corporateweb.biz
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello We are a natural language search engine with 30 million daily end
users in the U.S.

We are currently looking for a select few to participate in keyword
ownership for our natural language search engine platform.

You have seen keyword ownership before, it's where a company asks you to use
their keyword on aol, then you are directed to their website. This is an
application of our technology at work.

The Advantages of Keyword Ownership

1. You have exclusive rights and first right of refusal for the words or
phrases you own.

2. Gateway to your Website solely.- Only 1 of each keyword or phrase
available

3. Access to 30 million daily end users in U.S.
4. Ground floor investment opportunity for keyword appreciation in
expanding marketplace
5. High traffic keywords are still available


If you can handle 1000's of extra visitors for the price of a cup of coffee,
please send email with contact information and keywords of interest, one of
our network advisors will contact you shortly

Thank You


The Natural Language Team

Click Here For More Information




To Be removed

Click Here


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:55:14 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automated. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Know your schitt.....the Schitt family.
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:02:58 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <wes@logicallearning.net>,
<ken@faradaylabs.com>,
<quicksilver810@yahoo.com>,
<libnw@usa.net>,
<libnw@immosys.com>,
<realtor@idahojoe.com>,
<Jbeaty@prodigy.net>,
<reike@allidaho.com>,
<teddunlap@outdrs.net>,
Chris <cdweimer@if.rmci.net>,
Chris <cdweimer@if.rmci.net>,
<cochmabinah@hotmail.com>,
<cochmabinah@hotmail.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>,
<adelaide31@yahoo.com>,
<groverw@citlink.net>,
<jlo@nichebuilders.com>,
<stolboe@yahoo.com>,
<atrplace1@msn.com>,
<beckcrompton@peoplepc.com>,
<lfullmer1@cableone.net>

Folks,

In case somebody tells you you don't know jack schitt!

http://home.pacbell.net/diana_do/knowjack.htm

Larry F.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: THERE BETTER BE A DAMNED GOOD REASON....
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 05:16:15 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<IDAHOLIBERTARIANS@YAHOOGROUPS.COM>

THIS IS WAR:

http://www.thememoryhole.com/war/thisiswar/

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Confirming Your Free Membership to Financial Intelligence
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:53:57 -0600
From: "Financial Web" <subscriptions@financialweb.org>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
As we promised last week, you will begin receiving our FREE weekly
financial intelligence reports. We hope you enjoy the unique and
insightful commentary and encourage you to review the in-depth financial
analysis you can use to build and protect your wealth.
[Image]
[Image] [Image] [Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
If you are like most investors, you're feeling a bit uncertain
about where the markets and the economy are headed. What impacts will
the 'geo-political' situation have on the value of your portfolio? Can
oil possibly top $50 per barrel? Have we found a market bottom yet?
[Image]
Yes, it's been a rough ride for many investors the last few years,
but not for our readers. Our chief analyst called the bear market and
NASDAQ crash in January 2000. He moved his followers into value stocks
in March before the bottom fell out. He accurately predicted the 2001
third quarter recession in August of 2000. His 2001 annual forecast was
amazingly on target. He positioned his readers out of stocks and into
bonds and nailed the currency and oil markets on the head. What's more,
his 2002 forecast was right on ... it's been a 'Muddle Through Economy.'
Now, he details what's ahead for this year. Click Here to review his
2003 Investment Forecast.
[Image]
It's no wonder that our weekly letters have grown from only a
handful of dedicated readers to over a million. I could go on and on,
but our readers are our biggest fans. Here's what just a few of the
hundreds of weekly e-mails we receive say:
[Image]
' ... your letters are the best information I've been able to find.
Though your economic positions usually disagree with most other sources,
I find them quite on target....'E.J.
[Image]
'Highest accolades to you for writing such a superb weekly letter.
I eagerly look forward to reading it every weekend. Your economic
analysis is comprehensive and brilliantly insightful. Please keep up the
great work. Many thanks!!' P.L., Ph.D.
[Image]
'It's the first thing I look for when I click open my e-mail.' C.E.
[Image]
Now, here's the kind of questions that will be answered from
week-to-week:
[Image]
'What type of returns should I expect from the stock market for the
next 5, 10 or 20 years?'
[Image]
'There are clearly times to be in the market and times when it's
safer to be on the sidelines. How can I tell the difference?'
[Image]
'I need an 8% return on my portfolio to retire in the next 10
years. Is that a safe assumption?'
[Image]
Here's what one of our analysts said in an earlier issue in
response to the last question.
[Image]
'If you expect to retire in 10 years, it is very unsafe to assume a
5-6% return on stocks from where we are today.... it might be unsafe to
assume 2%! Why, because there has never been a time when investors have
made a 2% return over 10 years when P/E ratios are over 21, which is
easily where they are today. I would not want to bet my retirement plans
on something that has never happened in history.
[Image]
'Now, don't jump off that ledge yet. This doesn't mean you can't
make 8% on your portfolio. It just means you have to look at
alternatives to traditional buy and hold mutual funds. Value will rule.
Think dividends. Absolute returns from bonds and specialized funds will
be critical to your portfolio.
[Image]
'If you are an accredited investor, you can also subscribe to my
free e-letter on hedge funds, private offerings and recommended
investment managers. Plus, we are working hard to add new information
each week (to our Web site) to help you in your efforts to maximize the
returns from your investment portfolio. Let us know what you think of
the Web site, and what you would like to see us add which can help make
you a better investor.'
[Image]
That's just a taste of what you can expect every week from our
analysts, advisors and investment professionals. Again, thank you for
your interest in becoming a more informed investor.
[Image]
Yours for Intelligent Investing,
The Editors
FinancialWeb.org and Affiliates
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
ABOUT OUR EMAIL POLICY
[Image]
You are receiving this special announcement because you choose not to
limit your access to our exclusive network of investment advisors and
financial publishers and have accepted an invitation to receive our FREE
weekly intelligence reports. Your first report will be arriving shortly
at the following email address: libnw@immosys.com
[Image]
However, If you feel that you have been mailed in error and do not wish
to receive any of our financial newsletters, our 2003 Forecast, or any
of our Special Investment Reports, please Click Here to unsubscribe.
[Image]
[Image]
[Image] [Image] [Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
This private announcement is sent only to new members of
FinancialWeb.org and our affiliates' network. Any republication or
transmission of this e-mail or any of the contents herein is expressly
prohibited.
[Image]
[Image] [Image] [Image]
[Image]
All material presented herein is believed to be reliable but we cannot
attest to its accuracy. Investment recommendations may change and
readers are urged to check with their personal investment counselors
before making any investment decisions.
[Image]
Opinions expressed in these reports may change without prior notice.
Staff members and affiliates of FinancialWeb.org may or may not have
investment in any funds, stocks, or programs cited above. We therefore
should not be considered independent.
[Image]
Communications from FinancialWeb.org or our affiliates are intended
solely for informational purposes. Statements made by various authors,
advertisers, sponsors, and other contributors do not necessarily reflect
the opinions of FinancialWeb.org and should not be construed as an
endorsement by FinancialWeb.org either expressed or implied.
FinancialWeb.org is not responsible for typographical errors or other
inaccuracies in the content. We believe the information contained herein
to be accurate and reliable. However, errors may occasionally occur.
Therefore, all information and materials are provided 'AS IS' without
any warranty of any kind. Past performance is not indicative of future
results.
[Image]
We encourage readers to review our legal and privacy statements on our
home page. Your agreement to receive our publications constitutes
implicit acceptance of all of these terms and conditions.
[Image]
Copyright 2003 FinancialWeb.org. All rights reserved.
[Image]
FinancialWeb.org 502 N. Haskell PO Box 710117 Dallas, Texas 75371
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: The New American - March 24, 2003 Issue
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:47:18 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@librty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

----------------------------------------
The March 24, 2003 issue is available at:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/03-24-2003/
----------------------------------------

Recycling Radicalism
The militants running the "anti-war" demonstrations are following a
plan
to organize, mobilize, radicalize, militarize, and globalize.

True Patriotism
Constitutionalists are challenging UN entanglements and the call to
war.
Some false conservatives are denouncing this principled stand as
unpatriotic, even treasonous.

Recommendations for Patriots
Remind representative and senators that the power to declare war
belongs
to Congress alone--not to the president, and not to the United
Nations.

----------------------------------------

Be sure to introduce friends and family who may be interested in these
issues to The New American by forwarding this e-mail, or by using the
e-mail forwarding link on these articles.

----------------------------------------
You are receiving this email alert because you have subscribed to The
New American Alert Network as: libnw@usa.net

Do not reply to this e-mail. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change your
e-mail address, please visit:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/contact/alert.htm To contact the staff,
visit: http://www.thenewamerican.com/contact/

The New American
http://www.thenewamerican.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: WORLD HISTORY 101 MID-TERM EXAM
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:47:41 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: alan zaccardi <azbengal@msn.com>,
<libnw@immosys.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>,
<ken@faradaylabs.com>,
<wes@logicallearning.net>

> Subject: WORLD HISTORY 101 MID-TERM EXAM

> Here's a list of the countries that the U.S. has bombed since
the end
> of
> World War II, compiled by historian William Blum:
> China: 1945-46
> Korea: 1950-53
> China: 1950-53
> Guatemala: 1954
> Indonesia: 1958
> Cuba: 1959-60
> Guatemala: 1960
> Congo: 1964
> Peru: 1965
> Laos: 1964-73
> Vietnam: 1961-73
> Cambodia: 1969-70
> Guatemala: 1967-69
> Grenada: 1983
> Libya: 1986
> El Salvador: 1980s
> Nicaragua: 1980s
> Panama: 1989
> Iraq: 1991-99
> Sudan: 1998
> Afghanistan: 1998
> Yugoslavia: 1999
>
> QUESTION: In how many of these instances did a democratic
government,
> respectful of human rights, occur as a direct result? Choose
one of the
>
> following:
> (a) 0
> (b) zero
> (c) none
>
> You Pass.

Larry F.

thanks, Allan.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: what the "f" frank????
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:01:36 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank,

I ain't got any messages from libnw for days (I was thinkin' I'd been kicked
out, yet again).

And then I get this peice of shit from you.

> Recommendations for Patriots
> Remind representative and senators that the power to declare war
> belongs
> to Congress alone--not to the president, and not to the United
> Nations.

Yeah, that's the John Birch Society's speal.

No damned **power** has relevance here.

This is a war about religion, imperialism, and oil!!!!

I don't give a "f" who authorizes it. I DO NOT!!!!!!

HOW ABOUT YOU, FRANK??!!! IF CONGRESS WERE TO AUTHORIZE IT, AND THEY DID,
PICKING A NIT, WOULD YOU, ARE YOU, GOING TO GO ALONG WITH IT??!!

YOU'RE SUCH A DAMNED RIGHT-WINGER, SOMETIMES, FRANK!!!!!!

LARRY F.

on 3/11/03 5:47 PM, Frank Reichert at admin@librty-northwest.org wrote:

> ----------------------------------------
> The March 24, 2003 issue is available at:
> http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/03-24-2003/
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Recycling Radicalism
> The militants running the "anti-war" demonstrations are following a
> plan
> to organize, mobilize, radicalize, militarize, and globalize.
>
> True Patriotism
> Constitutionalists are challenging UN entanglements and the call to
> war.
> Some false conservatives are denouncing this principled stand as
> unpatriotic, even treasonous.
>
> Recommendations for Patriots
> Remind representative and senators that the power to declare war
> belongs
> to Congress alone--not to the president, and not to the United
> Nations.
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Be sure to introduce friends and family who may be interested in these
> issues to The New American by forwarding this e-mail, or by using the
> e-mail forwarding link on these articles.
>
> ----------------------------------------
> You are receiving this email alert because you have subscribed to The
> New American Alert Network as: libnw@usa.net
>
> Do not reply to this e-mail. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change your
> e-mail address, please visit:
> http://www.thenewamerican.com/contact/alert.htm To contact the staff,
> visit: http://www.thenewamerican.com/contact/
>
> The New American
> http://www.thenewamerican.com
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: what the "f" frank????
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 18:52:19 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Larry!

Larry Fullmer wrote to Frank Reichert...

> I ain't got any messages from libnw for days (I was thinkin' I'd been
kicked
> out, yet again).
> And then I get this peice of shit from you.

I have some real connect problems, and they ain't over yet, Larry. Have
spent the last couple of days trying to track it down. I can only call up
very few email domains, only a handful. Today I paid a visit to the ISP for
some answers and was informed that the Western Pacific Internet Backbone is
down, or squirley. Also, in this period, I only have access to one mail
account, THIS ONE! Haven't had SMTP or POP3 access with my main account for
two days now.

TNA Press release stated:
> > Recommendations for Patriots
> > Remind representative and senators that the power to declare war
> > belongs
> > to Congress alone--not to the president, and not to the United
> > Nations.

And, you replied:
> Yeah, that's the John Birch Society's speal.
> No damned **power** has relevance here.
> This is a war about religion, imperialism, and oil!!!!

The JBS is both legally and technically right however, only the US Congress
has the legal and statutory power to declare war. I suppose I should be more
sympathetic too with what the JBS holds that the UN should have no legal
capacity in this case to influence any declaration of war, legally, by
Congress. But the problem I have with the Shrub Regime<tm>, as most all the
rest also which fueled this fiction over the UN's authority, is that Bush
has been hanging his hat on UN Mandates as rational for a war being
necessary. Now that the UN itself isn't playing along anymore, The Shrub<tm>
wants to go to war anyway, damn the rest of the world. This is the ONLY
reason I bring it up at all as an issue. If Bush had from the beginning been
consistent that the UN has no legitimate power to decide what the US
government does in relation to national defence, for me at least that would
be a different matter. But THAT is NOT the case, and it is pure arrogance,
wrongful use of power, imperialism, neo-colonialism, and hypocracy.

> I don't give a "f" who authorizes it. I DO NOT!!!!!!

In legitimate cases, where the US itself is under the threat of an attack, I
believe it is fully justified for the US Congress to declare war, and for
the President as Chief Executive, and Commander in Chief, to prosecute it as
such. That is not the case here.

> HOW ABOUT YOU, FRANK??!!! IF CONGRESS WERE TO AUTHORIZE IT, AND THEY DID,
> PICKING A NIT, WOULD YOU, ARE YOU, GOING TO GO ALONG WITH IT??!!
> YOU'RE SUCH A DAMNED RIGHT-WINGER, SOMETIMES, FRANK!!!!!!

Well, the Congress hasn't declared war against anyone for over 50 years.
"Authorizing the use of force" isn't in the Constitution -- so, as usual
we're going into another war in which none has even be declared. But some
of you folks might think I have an axe to grind, since I've lost about 30
percent of the value of my stock portfolio since January, and a large
percentage of that has been in the last two or three weeks. So I guess I'm
biased in some way, but I've been opposing this insanity over Iraq much
longer than that.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: BEN - Re: WORLD HISTORY 101 MID-TERM EXAM
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:17:49 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<IDAHOLIBERTARIANS@YAHOOGROUPS.COM>,
<WES@LOGICALLEARNING.NET>,
<QUICKSILVER810@YAHOO.COM>,
<AZBENGAL@MSN.COM>

BEN,

YOU "F'ING" INDIAN, OF COURSE I REMEMBER WACO, AND RANDY WEAVER (SICK AS HE
WAS, HE HAD A RIGHT TO BE).

NOW, YOU, BEN, REMIND ME OF WACO. WHAT I WANT TO 'F'ING' KNOW IS WHY YOU
DID NOT REMIND ME OF WOUNDED
KNEE?? WHAT'S UP, BEN???

ARE YOU JUST A WANNABE WHITE GUY??!!

LF

on 3/11/03 8:54 PM, Ben Irvin at birvin@allidaho.com wrote:

Larry,

You forgot Texas in 1993...remember Waco!

Ben
===============================

> Subject: WORLD HISTORY 101 MID-TERM EXAM

> Here's a list of the countries that the U.S. has bombed since
the end
> of
> World War II, compiled by historian William Blum:
> China: 1945-46
> Korea: 1950-53
> China: 1950-53
> Guatemala: 1954
> Indonesia: 1958
> Cuba: 1959-60
> Guatemala: 1960
> Congo: 1964
> Peru: 1965
> Laos: 1964-73
> Vietnam: 1961-73
> Cambodia: 1969-70
> Guatemala: 1967-69
> Grenada: 1983
> Libya: 1986
> El Salvador: 1980s
> Nicaragua: 1980s
> Panama: 1989
> Iraq: 1991-99
> Sudan: 1998
> Afghanistan: 1998
> Yugoslavia: 1999
>
> QUESTION: In how many of these instances did a democratic
government,
> respectful of human rights, occur as a direct result? Choose
one of the
>
> following:
> (a) 0
> (b) zero
> (c) none
>
> You Pass.

Larry F.

thanks, Allan.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
idaholibertarians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
idaholibertarians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: BEN - Re: WORLD HISTORY 101 MID-TERM EXAM
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:47:22 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com,<libnw@immosys.com>,
<IDAHOLIBERTARIANS@YAHOOGROUPS.COM>,<WES@LOGICALLEARNING.NET>,
<QUICKSILVER810@YAHOO.COM>,<AZBENGAL@MSN.COM>

Ben,

You mistakenly assumed that Larry was smart enough to realize that the
original message had been talking about "bombing" that had occurred "since
the end of WWII". Of course, there were a few reasonable posts for a while
there so I suppose I can understand what lulled you into that silly
assumption. Maybe he'll go back on his medication again or do whatever it
is that gets him to act almost normal.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
At 22:17 03/11/03 -0800, larry fullmer wrote:
>BEN,
>
>YOU "F'ING" INDIAN, OF COURSE I REMEMBER WACO, AND RANDY WEAVER (SICK AS
>HE WAS, HE HAD A RIGHT TO BE).
>
>NOW, YOU, BEN, REMIND ME OF WACO. WHAT I WANT TO 'F'ING' KNOW IS WHY YOU
>DID NOT REMIND ME OF WOUNDED
>KNEE?? WHAT'S UP, BEN???
>
>ARE YOU JUST A WANNABE WHITE GUY??!!
>
>LF
>
>on 3/11/03 8:54 PM, Ben Irvin at birvin@allidaho.com wrote:
>Larry,
>
>You forgot Texas in 1993...remember Waco!
>
>Ben
>===============================
>
> > Subject: WORLD HISTORY 101 MID-TERM EXAM
>
> > Here's a list of the countries that the U.S. has bombed since the end
> > of
> > World War II, compiled by historian William Blum:
> > China: 1945-46
> > Korea: 1950-53
> > China: 1950-53
> > Guatemala: 1954
> > Indonesia: 1958
> > Cuba: 1959-60
> > Guatemala: 1960
> > Congo: 1964
> > Peru: 1965
> > Laos: 1964-73
> > Vietnam: 1961-73
> > Cambodia: 1969-70
> > Guatemala: 1967-69
> > Grenada: 1983
> > Libya: 1986
> > El Salvador: 1980s
> > Nicaragua: 1980s
> > Panama: 1989
> > Iraq: 1991-99
> > Sudan: 1998
> > Afghanistan: 1998
> > Yugoslavia: 1999
> >
> > QUESTION: In how many of these instances did a democratic government,
> > respectful of human rights, occur as a direct result? Choose one of
the
> >
> > following:
> > (a) 0
> > (b) zero
> > (c) none
> >
> > You Pass.
>
>
>
>Larry F.
>
>thanks, Allan.
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>idaholibertarians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>idaholibertarians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: BEN - Re: WORLD HISTORY 101 MID-TERM EXAM
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 02:50:22 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Ben,

Per usual, lately, I did not recieve your reply.

Or maybe Lowell was replying for you?

Lowell wrote:

> Of course, there were a few reasonable posts for a while
> there so I suppose I can understand what lulled you into that silly
> assumption.

I notice, Lowell, that you quit replying to my reasonable posts.

Would you like me to re-post them again, along with my un-answered questions
to Bill Andersen??? Or do I count the "sounds of silence" as it should be
counted?

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Herman Goreing's psychatrist reports....
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 23:45:50 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <mormon-libertarian@yahoogroups.com>,
<halli@oakstone1.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>,
<azbengal@msn.com>,
<wes@logicallearning.net>,
<libnw@immosys.com>,
<ken@faradaylabs.com>

Folks,

>From Goering's psych, from the book "Nuremberg Daries".

>" We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to
his
> attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for
> leaders who bring them war and destruction.
> "Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would
> some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that
> he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally,
> the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in
> America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all,
> it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always
a
> simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a
> fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
>
> "There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have
> some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the
> United States only Congress can declare wars."
>
> "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can
> always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you
have
> to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for
> lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same
way
> in any country."

Wisdom, from a sick asshole, as I see it!!. And the beat goes on!!!!

Uhh, has Congress "declared war"?? Hell no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Here comes Kent State....
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 02:39:54 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: "lawrencebeaty@SSGroup.US" <lawrencebeaty@SSgroup.us>,
<azbengal@msn.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>,
<ken@faradaylabs.com>,
<wes@logicallearning.net>,
<libs4peace@yahoogroups.com>,
<libnw@immosys.com>

Folks,

"WAR IS THE HEALTH OF THE STATE", and it brings out the worst in everyone.

Read the below. Kent State is next!!! Especially since we've the Patriot
Act, with Patriot Act II
coming up real damned soon, as soon as the war starts, with the cover that
will allow.

LF

on 3/12/03 8:50 PM, lawrencebeaty@SSGroup.US at lawrencebeaty@SSgroup.us
wrote:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31471

Pluuze read it......

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Here comes Kent State....
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 18:59:54 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
"lawrencebeaty@SSGroup.US" <lawrencebeaty@SSgroup.us>,
<azbengal@msn.com>, <idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>,
<ken@faradaylabs.com>, <wes@logicallearning.net>,
<libs4peace@yahoogroups.com>

Here comes Kent State....Hello again Larry!

Again, my browser isn't picking up very much during the last couple of days,
and the link you provided happens to be another case of going into a black
hole. Sorry. I'll try linking up to it again once this mess has been
straightened out.

Larry Fullmer wrote to everyone (in html no less)...

QUOTE LARRY FULLER:
"WAR IS THE HEALTH OF THE STATE", and it brings out the worst in everyone.
Read the below. Kent State is next!!! Especially since we've the Patriot
Act, with Patriot Act II
coming up real damned soon, as soon as the war starts, with the cover that
will allow.

on 3/12/03 8:50 PM, lawrencebeaty@SSGroup.US at lawrencebeaty@SSgroup.us
wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31471
Pluuze read it......

UNQUOTE.

Sorry, I had to convert this into plain text. HTML is such a bear to respond
to.

I wished that I could read this article.

Rather sick and disgusted over most of everything that has been happening
since 9/11 all in the name of security and public safety. Isn't going to be
much fun to finally come home again in May and see the flourishing police
state that has emerged since I left.

Thanks Larry.

Kindest regards,
Frank
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Ben!!!
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 03:29:21 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>,
<libnw@immosys.com>

Ben,

I found you on an esoteric list called "idaholibertarians".

I did *not* read you on Frank's list, with Lowell putting words in your
mouth.

I know, Ben, I **KNOW**!!!!! AND THE EXTINCTION OF IDAHO'S SALMON WORRIES
ME THE MOST. I WILL USE YOU GAWD-DAMNED NATIVE AMERICANS ANY TIME I
CAN, WHAT WITH YOU HAVEING **JUST** CLAIMS.

And lowell wrote, "since WWII"! What wisdom, eh?!!!

Idaho's salmon did not start going extinct 'till the Sixties, with the US
Army fighting a war
on two fronts. One in Vietnam, and the other building 4 damns on the lower
Snake River,
to make Lewiston an inland seaport, at taxpayer expense.

So, with timing just right, I'm writing to another group, with 630 members.
The topic?
The ****rights***** of native americans. Remember, Ben, my Mormon ancestor
fucked an Indian
in the Lemhi Valley, fore he ran for cover. I got high cheek bones.

Love Ya, Ben,

LF

on 3/11/03 9:49 PM, Ben Irvin at birvin@allidaho.com wrote:

Larry,

I don't have enough computer space to list all Governmental
attacks on American Indians
since WWII. The Lakota and urban Indians at Wounded Knee II got a
lot of press because
they were Sioux and knew how to get mega media attention. Less
known are the attacks made
against my own Crow Tribe in the past twenty years.

In the early 1980's the U.S. Supreme Court took "for as long as
the grass grows, and
rivers run" (From the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie) to mean (7-2)
that the state of Montana
owned the Big Horn River on the reservation...not the crow tribe.
The Montana Eastern
Director of the MT Fish & Game quickly proceeded to lead 40 F&G
officers and 250+
non-Crow fishermen to forcefully open the Big Horn River to
non-Crow. My eldest son
(then 20) grabbed my old 30/30 and joined hundred of other young
Crow at Two Leggin's
bridge and erected at large barrier across the road. The MT F&G
actually fired a few
shots at the Crow. It would have been a real blood bath except
that the Montana Governor
ordered the MT Highway Patrol to arrest and disarm the MT F&G
Director (lol).

In 2000 a federal judge in Utah directed 60+ U.S. Marshals and FBI
agents to raid the Crow
Tribal Gambling Casino at Crow Agency. The Gestapo arrested four
Crow managers and stole
over $2,000,000 worth of gambling machines. The machines (or $)
have never been returned.
When the MT press printed what had happened, the federal judge
said he did this because
Montana wanted him to because the Crow had never signed a gambling
agreement with the
state of MT. Governor Marc Racicott instantly got on state-wide
TV and called the federal
judge a liar...that neither he or any agency of MT had authorized
the raid/theft or were told
that it was going to happen. In any case the feds still have the
machines and gave the four managers
six months in jail.

Yellow Tail Dam and the Big Horn Reservoir are another long, long,
story (stole in the early
1960's).

For the record, the media only generally covers the TV and movie
tribes: Sioux (Lakota),
Cheyenne, Apache, and Comanche. If you are not one of those four
tribes, you are ignored.
Because of this media bias, even friendly non-Indians get
confused. An example: I wonder
how many non-Indians are aware that the Battle of the Little Big
Horn (Custer's Last Stand),
fought by the Lakota (Sioux) and a few Cheyennes and Arapahos, was
not on Sioux, Cheyenne, or
Arapaho land. The land no more belonged to those tribes than
Iceland belongs to Iran. Indeed
the battle was fought in the middle of the Crow Reservation on
land (by right of occupation, and the
treaties of 1825, 1851, and 1868) we had lived on for over 500
years (when the Sioux and
Cheyenne were still in Minnesota).

Ben
--------------------------------------------------

BEN,

YOU "F'ING" INDIAN, OF COURSE I REMEMBER WACO, AND RANDY WEAVER
(SICK AS HE WAS, HE HAD A RIGHT TO BE).

NOW, YOU, BEN, REMIND ME OF WACO. WHAT I WANT TO 'F'ING' KNOW IS
WHY YOU DID NOT REMIND ME OF WOUNDED
KNEE?? WHAT'S UP, BEN???

ARE YOU JUST A WANNABE WHITE GUY??!!

LF

on 3/11/03 8:54 PM, Ben Irvin at birvin@allidaho.com wrote:

Larry,

You forgot Texas in 1993...remember Waco!

Ben
===============================

> Subject: WORLD HISTORY 101 MID-TERM EXAM

> Here's a list of the countries that the U.S. has bombed since
the end
> of
> World War II, compiled by historian William Blum:
> China: 1945-46
> Korea: 1950-53
> China: 1950-53
> Guatemala: 1954
> Indonesia: 1958
> Cuba: 1959-60
> Guatemala: 1960
> Congo: 1964
> Peru: 1965
> Laos: 1964-73
> Vietnam: 1961-73
> Cambodia: 1969-70
> Guatemala: 1967-69
> Grenada: 1983
> Libya: 1986
> El Salvador: 1980s
> Nicaragua: 1980s
> Panama: 1989
> Iraq: 1991-99
> Sudan: 1998
> Afghanistan: 1998
> Yugoslavia: 1999
>
> QUESTION: In how many of these instances did a democratic
government,
> respectful of human rights, occur as a direct result? Choose
one of the
>
> following:
> (a) 0
> (b) zero
> (c) none
>
> You Pass.

Larry F.

thanks, Allan.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
idaholibertarians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
idaholibertarians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
idaholibertarians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
idaholibertarians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: your turn
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 19:54:23 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Robert!

Robert, I told you many days ago that I was going to get around to this.
It's been a bad couple of weeks, so I hope you'll understand. The last
couple of days hasn't been much fun either, with my main domain mail address
going on the fritz as well as a good percentage of web sites.

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...

> Now it's your turn, Frank, to define "liberty". Explain why the word
> and your definition of it are useful.

I can spiel out all kinds of definitions, and why I have various twists on
specific things. A general consensus I have (and entirely support it) can
be found (not in my words) but here:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org/lp_platform.htm#sop

I also agree with David Berglund's definition of liberty, which implies
personal ownership, and accepting such as a central principle without which
liberty could never be conceived to exist. I've also sat many times and
listened to Bill Denman lecture on the basis for liberty, based upon the
condition of inalienable rights as a precursor for the structure of liberty
in such matters as the right to life being the first condition upon which
all other rights exist.

It is foundational however that rights and liberty are inseparable.
Inalienable rights are the foundation for liberty as Denman has suggested
for decades, and can be shown to be empirically and scientifically
demonstrated within the context of the science of human recorded history
itself. Of course at the time, the earliest records from ancient human
history don't probably point out that those civilization accepted such
rights as inalienable at the time. However CICERO and others certainly did!
By the time of Locke and Jefferson however, such scientific historical
observations of human history show that in the absence of basic and defined
human rights, liberty ceases to exist, and they are therefore necessary for
a free state, and for civilization itself to exist. Observations include the
rise and fall of civilizations based upon whether or not governments
recognized these rights as preconditional, and not emanating from government
edict.

In most cases, government did issue edicts which supported such rights, only
later to issue edicts suppressing them, as is the case of the U.S. federal
government today. I would suggest only that history shows if we continue on
such a course, we too will fall as a civilization, just as the Marxists
finally has done in the last several decades. Even that you may dispute if
you really want to, but in my judgement that too is a waste of time. Even
such states as China, claiming still to be Communist, aren't communist at
all, be declining dictatorship which depends largely on a growing free
economy. At best you can describe them as moving perhaps in a transition
from Marxist to Fascism, where the government controls an otherwise freer
economy than previously existed. The present dictatorship will collapse in
due course as economic freedom and prosperity demand more individual
freedom. Social freedom in China for example, is growing rapidly along with
greater economic freedom.

Conversely, about the only two other examples which are germane in this
argument are Cuba and North Korea. Vietnam is largely growing in the same
direction as that of China. Cuba continues to decline further economically
and remains isolated even by China. North Korea is such a dismal aberration
that it would be relegated to the sidelines in any geo-political discussion
today if it were not for the nuclear weapons issue. It is obvious that South
Korea is much more of interest to China that the dismal state of North Korea
today, mostly due to free economic realities. This points out again the huge
contradiction of calling China Marxist or Communist (although it still on
the surface claims to be both).

I only took this brief digression only to show that history itself is a
great barometer on whether or not any civilization can survive for very long
when it refuses to recognize inalienable individual rights.

Bill Denman begins his argument for human liberty on the basis of the one
thing that we know for sure. "We live, therefore we have life". Kind of
reminds me of Rene Descartes' declaration, "I think, therefore I am." So,
you asked me for my definition of liberty. Well, that's a great start.

So, we all know we have life. So, how does this form the basis for all other
such inalienable rights, such as property?

Denman continues along the line, that if we have life, then we have the
natural, individual right to sustain and defend that right. We cannot live
unless we control the necessary factors to sustain that life, such as food,
a home or dwelling. Without property, human life would not be sustainable.
We need property, and need control over that property to defend our life and
ensure its' survival. Private property here, and the individual right to
such ownership becomes indispensable to life itself. Admittedly, Denman does
much better along these lines than I do. It goes further than that however.
If we have an individual right to life, then it follows that everyone else
around us also has the same essential right to life and private property, as
David Berglund also argues.

This argument, in my opinion, forms the geneses, or essence, for the
argument for individual liberty. It is true that in early civilizations,
this was not necessary recognized in its most fundamental form, although the
premises upon which the argument rests are taken in large part from the
realization of such knowledge even in the earliest civilizations recorded by
history. Even nomads, or tribal groups recognized that survival depended
entirely upon the ability to own resources (such as a camel, reindeer, or
other property) necessary for human existence.

Again, I will never argue the fact that many governments have long sought to
deprive man of these basic human rights. Communism is one of our most recent
examples of that abortion. People starved, stood in line for bread, and
died under such conditions. Eventually the system broke, actually rather
rapidly in terms of recorded history when you consider the Greek or Roman
Empires for example. As Michelle so eloquently wrote, such liberty exists
whether or not ANY government chooses to recognize that it does or not!

I think I'll even go further than this, probably closer to Larry's
observations in fact. ALL GOVERNMENTS will eventually seek to deprive man of
these basic human rights and liberties, even when they start out (as our
did) on the principle of defending such rights. All I am saying here is
that ultimately it is up to the people themselves to ensure that GOVERNMENT
is confined to its smallest and least intrusive roll, that of aiding in our
own individual defence over aggression. The people MUST be responsible for
keeping government on a very short leash. Obviously, judging from what we
see today, Americans have no desire to restrict the current government from
doing much of anything.

> Then expect me to try to pick it
> apart like Larry. Maybe I'll throw in a few sick fucks and exclamation
> points & insults and alternate lower- and upper-case passages to make it
> hard to read for substance. Then maybe I'll wait a few months & respond
> again to a post in the thread, and expect you to remember what you'd
> written. I may quote, but only after I top post, so it'll be hard to
> figure out what points I'm responding to.

Well, go for it then. But rather silly really, because I have wrote all such
things many times before here over the last decade or so -- so, there isn't
anything really "brand new" here that I have said many times before. As any
human is, however, I probably have not always been entirely consistent
several times with what I had previously written. And, "picking it apart" is
anything new for you, Robert -- even when it goes into the absurd.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: your turn
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 17:39:14 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com> wrote in part:

> Bill Denman begins his argument for human liberty on the basis of the
one
> thing that we know for sure. "We live, therefore we have life". Kind
of
> reminds me of Rene Descartes' declaration, "I think, therefore I am."
So,
> you asked me for my definition of liberty. Well, that's a great start.

I'm not sure it is. You saying life is a 1st approximation of liberty?

> So, we all know we have life. So, how does this form the basis for all
other
> such inalienable rights, such as property?

I'm not looking for a basis.

> Denman continues along the line, that if we have life, then we have
the
> natural, individual right to sustain and defend that right. We cannot
live
> unless we control the necessary factors to sustain that life, such as
food,
> a home or dwelling. Without property, human life would not be
sustainable.
> We need property, and need control over that property to defend our
life and
> ensure its' survival. Private property here, and the individual right
to
> such ownership becomes indispensable to life itself. Admittedly,
Denman does
> much better along these lines than I do. It goes further than that
however.
> If we have an individual right to life, then it follows that everyone
else
> around us also has the same essential right to life and private
property, as
> David Berglund also argues.

I wasn't looking for a proof of anything, just a definition of
"liberty".

> This argument, in my opinion, forms the geneses, or essence, for the
> argument for individual liberty.

I wasn't looking for an argument for it, just its meaning.

I snipped all the rest in which you said why liberty is a good thing (at
least I guess that's what you were saying) because that wasn't what was
being asked about. I wasn't looking for an evaluation or a
justification, just a definition. Somebody here asked me for a
definition of liberty, and I admitted some difficulty there, some
allowance for play in the definition or different meanings in different
contexts (freedom of an individual vs. a society of liberty), and the
poster who asked me those questions apparently thought I flunked the
course because I couldn't give an adequate enough definition. So I
said, you think it's so easy, and asked anyone else who criticized my
discussion on the subject to come up with one of their own. I basically
meant it for Larry, but I'm not even reading his posts any more, so if
you want to take it up, fine.

So far I've seen a lot about it, but nothing about what it is.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LIBNW archives... how to get 'em...
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:14:06 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again everyone!

Larry Fullmer was just previously asking about how to get into the archives,
that is, the previous messages written on Liberty Northwest.

I know the "archive" thing isn't as easy as it used to be under Yahoogroups,
but I've tried the next best thing, making them accessible as best I can
using browser support. If anyone has any better suggestions, please let me
know in private email at moderator@liberty-northwest.org.

In the meantime, you might want to take a look at the following link, and if
it is helpful to you, bookmark it as a future tool for working with the
archives under our current system.

Here's the best I can do, for now:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org/manager.htm#archives

Yes, it works. I've tried it myself, which is how I could date and
catalogue the messages the way they are chronicled.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [idaho_libs] Re: We really need to define libertarianism
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:21:29 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>,
<FSP-state-discussion@yahoogroups.com>
CC: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Ben!

Ben Irvin wrote to everyone...

QUOTE:
I hope that all will be able to attend the Great Western Conference to see
the case for WY, ID, and MT (and other Western states) being promoted, and
to listen to presentations by Jason, Claire Wolfe, Vin Suprynowicz, J. J.
Johnson and Mike Fellows. The GWC is in Missoula, Montana on May 24th and
25th. The total cost for porcupines will be about $25.00 (that
will include a banquet). Greater details and venue will be announced soon.

UNQUOTE.

Thanks Ben. Now that I know what the dates are, it might be possible for me
to attend after all. Hopefully I will be arriving back around the first
week or so of May. Please keep me on a short leash, and updated as this
draws closer.

Kindest regards,
Frank

_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Norton Systemsworks Practically Priceless Only $39.99
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 03 22:12:35 GMT
From: "" <brandyvmenon@lycos.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

All computer users!

You must upgrade and protect your system today.
The Latest Anti Virus suite.
Bonus software included.

http://antivirusnews.com/nsw38.htm?ANTIvirus=Nortn

Thank you

The Anti Virus Team
bwsusgnwuhs gc z osy

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: libnw Digest of: get.1801_1900
Date: 22 Mar 2003 10:23:13 -0000
From: libnw-help@immosys.com
To: admin@liberty-northwest.org

libnw Digest of: get.1801_1900

Topics (messages 1801 through 1900):

LOWELL IS A BUTT-HOLE, THE EVEICENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM IS IN - Re: BEN -
Re: WORLD HISTORY 101 MID-TERM EXAM
1801 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

the "Sounds of Silence" - Re: your turn
1802 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

your turn
1803 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
1807 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>

the numbers......
1804 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

Elizabeth Smart.......
1805 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1806 by: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>

a horse is not a chair........
1808 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1810 by: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
1811 by: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
1813 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
1814 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
1818 by: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
1819 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
1821 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
1822 by: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
1823 by: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
1825 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
1826 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
1833 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
1834 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>

Your Views.....
1809 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1832 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>

Work part time from home
1812 by: Dawn <upnutrition@ainet.us>

Robert -Re: a horse is not a chair........
1815 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

WTF Bill - Re: a horse is not a chair........
1816 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

I'LL BE DAMNED!! -bill & Robert both climb out of the sewer on the same
day.....
1817 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

Iraqi bomb crater
1820 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>

Financial Intelligence Reports as Promised
1824 by: "Financial Web" <subscriptions@financialweb.org>

Please remove me from this list
1827 by: Ken <happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com>
1828 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
1835 by: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
1839 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>

The Next Boon On The Internet- Keyword Ownership
1829 by: words@islandweb.net

Fw: On-line Petition for Ephedra Availability - URGENT
1830 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>

FBI Spy Planes Helping in Terror War
1831 by: Paul Freedom <nepal@teleport.com>

On-line Petition for Ephedra Availability - URGENT
1836 by: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>

Robert's suckers - Re: a horse is not a chair........
1837 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
1838 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1840 by: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
1841 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
1842 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
1843 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
1845 by: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
1846 by: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
1847 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
1848 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
1849 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
1850 by: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
1851 by: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
1855 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
1857 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
1858 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
1859 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
1860 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
1861 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
1863 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
1864 by: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
1865 by: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
1866 by: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
1867 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
1868 by: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
1869 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
1870 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1871 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1872 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1874 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1877 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
1882 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
1883 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
1888 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1898 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

Weekly subscriber update
1844 by: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>

no more steve symm's wine for me.....
1852 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

die for your country
1853 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

to those of you who can't tell murder from self-defense....
1854 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

Countdown to war... 48 hours
1856 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
1875 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1886 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>

Your email lists can make you Rich!
1862 by: mchartrand1@isp9.net
1878 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
1885 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>

Michelle, with her BS....
1873 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

billy's BS!! - Re: and Robby's - " a horse is not a chair"........
1876 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

War! 24-hours and counting...
1879 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>

How do YOU play the game?
1880 by: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
1884 by: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>

Reflections on the past...
1881 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>

S-R news alert -- War has begun in Iraq
1887 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>

It's a done deal - Re: Countdown to war... 48 hours
1889 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1891 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
1893 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1894 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
1895 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1899 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>

HOT New Body Kits and Other Products for your BMW!
1890 by: "GaugeCo Automotive Products"<promotions@gaugeco.com>

A small piece of good news.
1892 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>

the best of **all** peace signs.....
1896 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
1897 by: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>

billy wrote, quoting david nolan.....
1900 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

Administrivia:

--- Administrative commands for the libnw list ---

I can handle administrative requests automatically. Please
do not send them to the list address! Instead, send
your message to the correct command address:

To subscribe to the list, send a message to:
<libnw-subscribe@immosys.com>

To remove your address from the list, send a message to:
<libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com>

Send mail to the following for info and FAQ for this list:
<libnw-info@immosys.com>
<libnw-faq@immosys.com>

To get messages 123 through 145 (a maximum of 100 per request), mail:
<libnw-get.123_145@immosys.com>

To get an index with subject and author for messages 123-456 , mail:
<libnw-index.123_456@immosys.com>

They are always returned as sets of 100, max 2000 per request,
so you'll actually get 100-499.

To receive all messages with the same subject as message 12345,
send an empty message to:
<libnw-thread.12345@immosys.com>

The messages do not really need to be empty, but I will ignore
their content. Only the ADDRESS you send to is important.

You can start a subscription for an alternate address,
for example "john@host.domain", just add a hyphen and your
address (with '=' instead of '@') after the command word:
<libnw-subscribe-john=host.domain@immosys.com>

To stop subscription for this address, mail:
<libnw-unsubscribe-john=host.domain@immosys.com>

In both cases, I'll send a confirmation message to that address. When
you receive it, simply reply to it to complete your subscription.

If despite following these instructions, you do not get the
desired results, please contact my owner at
libnw-owner@immosys.com. Please be patient, my owner is a
lot slower than I am ;-)

--- Enclosed is a copy of the request I received.

Return-Path: <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
Received: (qmail 23650 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2003 10:22:56 -0000
Received: from cmsrelay02.mx.net (165.212.11.111)
by ucntcme224.dsl.micron.net with SMTP; 22 Mar 2003 10:22:56 -0000
Received: from cmsapps02.cms.usa.net (HELO localhost) (165.212.11.138)
by cmsoutbound.mx.net with SMTP; 22 Mar 2003 10:22:30 -0000
Received: from liberty-northwest.org [203.148.66.242] by
cmsapps02.cms.usa.net
(ASMTP/libnw@usa.net) via mtad (C8.MAIN.2.05)
with ESMTP id 675HcVkV70253M38; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 10:22:24 GMT
Return-Path: <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
Message-ID: <3E7C38C5.E746B290@liberty-northwest.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:19:49 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
Organization: Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup
http://www.liberty-northwest.org
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en,en-GB
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: libnw-get.101_200@immosys.com, libnw-get.201_300@immosys.com,
libnw-get.301_400@immosys.com, libnw-get.401_500@immosys.com,
libnw-get.501_600@immosys.com, libnw-get.601_700@immosys.com,
libnw-get.701_800@immosys.com, libnw-get.801_900@immosys.com,
libnw-get.901_1000@immosys.com, libnw-get.1001_1100@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1101_1200@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1201_1300@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1301_1400@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1401_1500@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1501_1600@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1601_1700@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1701_1800@immosys.com, libnw-get.1801_1900@immosys.com
Subject: (no subject)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

--
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe or unsubscribe: http://www.liberty-northwest.org/

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

----------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LOWELL IS A BUTT-HOLE, THE EVEICENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM IS IN -
Re: BEN - Re: WORLD HISTORY 101 MID-TERM EXAM
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 17:49:03 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Lowell, Others,

I've not seen Ben's response appear in libsnw. Let me try again, since Ben
& I claim it is you who is mistaken, not me.

on 3/12/03 6:47 PM, Lowell C. Savage at savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Ben,
>
> You mistakenly assumed that Larry was smart enough to realize that the
> original message had been talking about "bombing" that had occurred "since
> the end of WWII".

Hey, I realized that!! And native americans have been "f'd" with since the
end of WWII, over and over again. Ever hear about Wounded Knee II? The
chinnook salmon in the Lemhi River in Idaho didn't start going to extinction
until the late Sixties, after the US Army built their
BS government, boondoggle dams on the lower Snake. That, while the
Shoshone-Bannock tribes have a treaty right, TREATY RIGHT, and common law
right to fish for salmon in the Lemhi in perputity!!

> Of course, there were a few reasonable posts for a while
> there so I suppose I can understand what lulled you into that silly
> assumption.

You're such a butt-hole, Lowell. What was unreasonable about my post about
US bombings since WWII, or my post to Ben??

READ BEN'S REPLY, BELOW!!!!!!!!!!!

> Maybe he'll go back on his medication again or do whatever it
> is that gets him to act almost normal.

And folks, even you, LOWELL, claim I'm unfair with my name-calling. Well,
Lowell, read youself above, and read Ben. Then evidence is in. When there
is evidence, it ain't name-calling. You're a butthole, Lowell!!

NOW, READ BEN, EH?!!!
>
> Lowell C. Savage

FROM BEN:

Larry,

I don't have enough computer space to list all Governmental attacks on
American Indians
since WWII. The Lakota and urban Indians at Wounded Knee II got a lot of
press because
they were Sioux and knew how to get mega media attention. Less known are
the attacks made
against my own Crow Tribe in the past twenty years.

In the early 1980's the U.S. Supreme Court took "for as long as the grass
grows, and
rivers run" (From the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie) to mean (7-2) that the
state of Montana
owned the Big Horn River on the reservation...not the crow tribe. The
Montana Eastern
Director of the MT Fish & Game quickly proceeded to lead 40 F&G officers and
250+
non-Crow fishermen to forcefully open the Big Horn River to non-Crow. My
eldest son
(then 20) grabbed my old 30/30 and joined hundred of other young Crow at Two
Leggin's
bridge and erected at large barrier across the road. The MT F&G actually
fired a few
shots at the Crow. It would have been a real blood bath except that the
Montana Governor
ordered the MT Highway Patrol to arrest and disarm the MT F&G Director
(lol).

In 2000 a federal judge in Utah directed 60+ U.S. Marshals and FBI agents to
raid the Crow
Tribal Gambling Casino at Crow Agency. The Gestapo arrested four Crow
managers and stole
over $2,000,000 worth of gambling machines. The machines (or $) have never
been returned.
When the MT press printed what had happened, the federal judge said he did
this because
Montana wanted him to because the Crow had never signed a gambling agreement
with the
state of MT. Governor Marc Racicott instantly got on state-wide TV and
called the federal
judge a liar...that neither he or any agency of MT had authorized the
raid/theft or were told
that it was going to happen. In any case the feds still have the machines
and gave the four managers
six months in jail.

Yellow Tail Dam and the Big Horn Reservoir are another long, long, story
(stole in the early
1960's).

For the record, the media only generally covers the TV and movie tribes:
Sioux (Lakota),
Cheyenne, Apache, and Comanche. If you are not one of those four tribes,
you are ignored.
Because of this media bias, even friendly non-Indians get confused. An
example: I wonder
how many non-Indians are aware that the Battle of the Little Big Horn
(Custer's Last Stand),
fought by the Lakota (Sioux) and a few Cheyennes and Arapahos, was not on
Sioux, Cheyenne, or
Arapaho land. The land no more belonged to those tribes than Iceland
belongs to Iran. Indeed
the battle was fought in the middle of the Crow Reservation on land (by
right of occupation, and the
treaties of 1825, 1851, and 1868) we had lived on for over 500 years (when
the Sioux and
Cheyenne were still in Minnesota).

Ben

>
> At 22:17 03/11/03 -0800, larry fullmer wrote:
>> BEN,
>>
>> YOU "F'ING" INDIAN, OF COURSE I REMEMBER WACO, AND RANDY WEAVER (SICK AS
>> HE WAS, HE HAD A RIGHT TO BE).
>>
>> NOW, YOU, BEN, REMIND ME OF WACO. WHAT I WANT TO 'F'ING' KNOW IS WHY
YOU
>> DID NOT REMIND ME OF WOUNDED
>> KNEE?? WHAT'S UP, BEN???
>>
>> ARE YOU JUST A WANNABE WHITE GUY??!!
>>
>> LF
>>
>> on 3/11/03 8:54 PM, Ben Irvin at birvin@allidaho.com wrote:
>> Larry,
>>
>> You forgot Texas in 1993...remember Waco!
>>
>> Ben
>> ===============================
>>
>>> Subject: WORLD HISTORY 101 MID-TERM EXAM
>>
>>> Here's a list of the countries that the U.S. has bombed since the end
>>> of
>>> World War II, compiled by historian William Blum:
>>> China: 1945-46
>>> Korea: 1950-53
>>> China: 1950-53
>>> Guatemala: 1954
>>> Indonesia: 1958
>>> Cuba: 1959-60
>>> Guatemala: 1960
>>> Congo: 1964
>>> Peru: 1965
>>> Laos: 1964-73
>>> Vietnam: 1961-73
>>> Cambodia: 1969-70
>>> Guatemala: 1967-69
>>> Grenada: 1983
>>> Libya: 1986
>>> El Salvador: 1980s
>>> Nicaragua: 1980s
>>> Panama: 1989
>>> Iraq: 1991-99
>>> Sudan: 1998
>>> Afghanistan: 1998
>>> Yugoslavia: 1999
>>>
>>> QUESTION: In how many of these instances did a democratic government,
>>> respectful of human rights, occur as a direct result? Choose one of the
>>>
>>> following:
>>> (a) 0
>>> (b) zero
>>> (c) none
>>>
>>> You Pass.
>>
>>
>>
>> Larry F.
>>
>> thanks, Allan.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>> ADVERTISEMENT
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>> idaholibertarians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>> idaholibertarians-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
>> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: the "Sounds of Silence" - Re: your turn
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 18:11:58 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank, Robert, Others,

Robert asked for a definition from you Frank. I understand why you went on
to provide justification, but, truly, I could not find you defintion amoung
the justification.

Here's the history. Robert, backed up by Bill, claim a woman defending
herself from rape is constraning the liberty of the rapist.

Further, Robert wrote that apprehending Ted Bundy was a violation of his
liberty - "What's so hard about understanding that a prison cell limits
liberty", he wrote.

Robert defines liberty as "do what you want to do", but don't get caught.

I define liberty as do what you want to do, but don't "F" with any other
humans, who have an equal claim.

I'm a libertarian. Robert is a nihlist.

Robert says he ain't reading me anymore. Well, I'm gonna keep reading him,
and pointing out his sick bull-shit.

BTW, Bill Ansersen promised to take me by the hand and show me how rights
and liberty could be derived without moral argument. Since saying that,
he's disappeared, just like Robert ('till today).

So, Bill, when are you going to "take me by the hand"? And you, too,
Robert. How the hell can either one of you use the terms liberty, and
rights, with your defense of the "liberty" of rapists??!!

Silence means something, in relation to my questions. So, folks, have you
noticed the "sounds of silence" from Bill??!!

sincerely,

Larry


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: your turn
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:14:49 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...

Frank Reichert, originally writing in response to Robert Goodman, wrote:
> > Bill Denman begins his argument for human liberty on the basis of the
> one
> > thing that we know for sure. "We live, therefore we have life". Kind
> of
> > reminds me of Rene Descartes' declaration, "I think, therefore I am."
> So,
> > you asked me for my definition of liberty. Well, that's a great start.

Robert Goodman replied:
> I'm not sure it is. You saying life is a 1st approximation of liberty?

In the construction of Denman's model, it is, and it is also a condition
largely recognized by Berglund and others. As Rene Descartes pointed out on
"first principles", e.g.: "I think, therefore I am", we have to arrive at a
beginning in which most individuals are likely in total agreement. If human
life exists, then what is required for that life's existence? What is
needed, and what is necessary for human life to exist (in terms of reason)?
Certainly personal ownership becomes a leading factor, but it also leads to
a lot of other things, including the necessity for private property
ownership. Another way to put it is to suggest that when the greater human
liberty is recognized (including government), the more progress that can be
made in terms of human civilization development.

> I'm not looking for a basis.

Then I don't know why you are so interested in, or asking for my definition.
A definition by nature must be based upon some basis or it becomes
meaningless. If I simply through out to you some definition of what liberty
entails, your next question (knowing your propensity for endless nitpicking)
would be, "Why?" Then I would have to go through the exercise of showing my
basis for such a definition. So rather than do that later, I decided to
layout the ground work out for you initially.

"Human life exists." You can't answer "Why", because you already know that
human life exists. You might ask, "How." But that is irrelevant and doesn't
matter. So the basis therefore of all inalienable human rights is the "right
to life" itself. Berglund's construction defining liberty in terms of taking
personal ownership flows largely from this premise.

> I wasn't looking for a proof of anything, just a definition of
> "liberty".

Again, any definition I could give would therefore be meaningless to you, or
anyone outside of myself. You can't tolerate any basis for defining liberty.
For you it is entirely subjective and nothing more. If there is no proof, or
basis for liberty, why is important, or more directly, how can liberty be
achieved if it is only defined by YOU! A simple definition of liberty,
without any proof or basis at all, is as meaningless as talking about what
my definition might be for a "knock out babe"! My subjective perception of a
beautiful babe certainly would differ greatly from another individual who
may have different subjective thoughts and criteria.

If a definition of liberty is reduced to such a level, then any discussion
of liberty is useless, largely because it doesn't matter. The next guy isn't
going to buy into your definition, or mine. We would be reduced to mindless
word games and semantic juggling that defines nothing definitive for anyone
outside of yourself.

> I wasn't looking for an argument for it, just its meaning.

Doesn't have any meaning at all outside of proof and basis.

> I snipped all the rest in which you said why liberty is a good thing (at
> least I guess that's what you were saying) because that wasn't what was
> being asked about.

Then you missed what I was saying, that individual rights and liberty are
indispensable to the survival and progress of human civilizations.

> I wasn't looking for an evaluation or a
> justification, just a definition.

Again. Why on earth would you even care about any definition I might have,
that is, without a basis or evidence for such?

> Somebody here asked me for a
> definition of liberty, and I admitted some difficulty there, some
> allowance for play in the definition or different meanings in different
> contexts (freedom of an individual vs. a society of liberty), and the
> poster who asked me those questions apparently thought I flunked the
> course because I couldn't give an adequate enough definition. So I
> said, you think it's so easy, and asked anyone else who criticized my
> discussion on the subject to come up with one of their own. I basically
> meant it for Larry, but I'm not even reading his posts any more, so if
> you want to take it up, fine.

It's very difficult for me to continue any viable discussion with someone
who wants to throw out proof, or basis, in such definitions. You're left
entirely with an empty shell, a subjective definition that has no basis,
other than my own opinion on what "liberty" means. Which, in a nutshell,
means nothing to anyone else. So it's useless to even discuss individual or
human liberty. It means objectively nothing at all to talk about words with
no meaning.

1. You won't entertain anything in which comes under the context of proof.

2. You refuse to acknowledge definitions couched in terms of any objective
basis.

3. You only want subjective definitions that have no meaning outside of the
individual forming such a definition as his own opinion.

4. You have a giant problem defining "liberty" because the only bass for
such a definition is your own opinion.

5. You believe liberty is largely a play on words in discourse amongst
individuals, even throwing out what they justify as a definitive basis for
such definitions.

So, I've just taken up a few of the problems of discussing such things with
you.

If the Libertarian Party existed under YOUR understanding of individual
liberty, it would be an organization that has no merit for existence, since
every individual only defines "liberty" as his own opinion, based upon
nothing, with no proofs to offer concerning any merit upon why such an
opinion ought to have any basis at all for forming policy.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: your turn
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 00:13:05 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com> asked about 3 times:

> Again. Why on earth would you even care about any definition I might
have [of liberty],
> that is, without a basis or evidence for such?

And the answer, already given, was quoted just below that asking:

> > Somebody here asked me for a
> > definition of liberty, and I admitted some difficulty there, some
> > allowance for play in the definition or different meanings in
different
> > contexts (freedom of an individual vs. a society of liberty), and
the
> > poster who asked me those questions apparently thought I flunked the
> > course because I couldn't give an adequate enough definition. So I
> > said, you think it's so easy, and asked anyone else who criticized
my
> > discussion on the subject to come up with one of their own. I
basically
> > meant it for Larry, but I'm not even reading his posts any more, so
if
> > you want to take it up, fine.

That's all. I'd just as soon get along here assuming we all have a
general idea of what the word means when we use it, without arguing the
fine points of it. Larry apparently thought me deficient in that
regard, and I just wanted to point out that the semantics of an abstract
term like that aren't easy for anybody.

> It's very difficult for me to continue any viable discussion with
someone
> who wants to throw out proof, or basis, in such definitions. You're
left
> entirely with an empty shell, a subjective definition that has no
basis,
> other than my own opinion on what "liberty" means. Which, in a
nutshell,
> means nothing to anyone else. So it's useless to even discuss
individual or
> human liberty. It means objectively nothing at all to talk about words
with
> no meaning.

Try defining something simpler like "chair". That's an example my
friend Peter Wizenberg pointed out to me years ago as commonly given by
philosophers to show how a word can be very useful while being
practically impossible to define.

Something you sit on? But there are other things we sit on that we
don't call chairs.

Something you sit on with 4 legs? How about a horse -- that's not a
chair.

Something you sit on with 4 legs that's stationary -- how about rolling
chairs?

It's not that hard to define "chair" if you'll accept a definition which
is either not comprehensive or which takes in things in addition to
chairs, but if you insist on a definition that covers the ground
exactly -- no more, no less -- you probably can't do it. Yet that
doesn't stop us from using the word and being understood.

So I'm happy enough for most purposes to simply assume we know what
"liberty" means and asking for clarification only in contexts where it's
necessary. Larry wanted to play word games so he could equivocate, and
then deprecate. When somebody equivocates, either deliberately or
accidentally, then the meanings of words need to be made clear. If it
turns out that 2 people are using a word 2 different ways, then they
should just recognize it and get on with things.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: the numbers......
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:37:49 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <wes@logicallearning.net>,
<libnw@immosys.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>

Lawrence, Others,

I ran the numbers, today.

The per pupil, taxpayer cost of "educating" a child in
the local government's monoploy is $7,350.00.

Yup. $7,350.00, in this school year.

Remember, the average cost of a private education in Idaho
is $3,200. And the local Grace Lutheran school has recieved
a blue-ribbon award from the Feds, as the best of the best!!

Go figure (I know you don't need to).

LF




---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Elizabeth Smart.......
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:55:45 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<wes@logicallearning.net>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>

Folks,

Ahhhh, a new Patty Hearst.

Elizabeth Smart was brainwashed by Mormons. That set her up for
"Emanuelle".

She had been taught to be an obedient and dutiful child, in relation to God,
in relation to Mormonism, and in relation to the State.

Her brain was kidnapped by Mormonism and the State, long before Emanuelle
showed up. Christ, he was in jail in San Deigo for six days, and she
couldn't get away??!! And they all went to a halloween party, lots of folks
around, and she didn't say squat. Why??!!

Because at 15 her brain had already been destroyed by religion and
government "education". Faith and force.

Sick Crap,

Larry

Ain't no damned mystery where Hitler came from. He just took the BS
seriously, as did Immanuel (translated, it means God).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Elizabeth Smart.......
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:52:13 PST
From: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
To: larry fullmer <libnw@immosys.com>

On 13-Mar-03, larry fullmer wrote:

lf> ... Immanuel (translated, it means God).

In Hebrew it means "God with us"

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 23:58:00 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Robert, Frank, Others,

Robert wrote:

> Something you sit on with 4 legs? How about a horse -- that's not a
> chair.

Really!! I'll be damned, you're smarter than you let on. A horse is not
a chair, eh. What wisdom you present, in defense of your definition of
liberty.

Ted Bundy was just exercising his liberty, you wrote, and he got deprived of
his liberty when he got locked up, and worse.

With a definition of liberty like that, I'm damned surpsised you can tell a
horse from a chair!!

Obviously you can't tell you butt from a hole in the ground.

> Larry wanted to play word games so he could equivocate, and
> then deprecate.

Hey, Bud, I've not been equivocating - do what you want with your own life,
just don't "F" with any other human who has an equal right.

And you? You use liberty to mean freedom from initiated violence by
government, when it suits you, and you use it to mean "F" whoever you want,
whenever, just don't get caught, when it suits you.

Maybe "equivocate" is another one of those words you have a hard time
understanding, eh?

Well, Robert, equivocate ain't a horse. It ain't a chair, either. And Ted
Bundy cancelled all claim to liberty - all claim - when he killed his first
victim. Can't figure what there is about that you can't understand!!

Your typical definition of liberty obliterates the distinction initiated
violence and self defense, even in relation to government. With that
distinction obliterated, all of the cards are wild - which is *exactly* what
you want, eh?

Sincerely & Depreciateingly,

Larry

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:11:54 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

A libertarian society is not one where your freedoms cannot be constrained
or taken from you legally.
Rather it is one where the presumption of personal sovereignty is absolute;
however as in whenever any sovereignty violates the sovereignty of another
entity, that first entity risks legal recognition of its own sovereignty,
i.e., he may just choose to relinquish his own.

Ted Bundy violated the freedoms of other, thus he voluntarily relinquished
his right to his own freedoms. That is true in this society, as well as it
would be true in a lib'n society.

----- Original Message -----
From: "larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 2:58 AM
Subject: a horse is not a chair........

> Robert, Frank, Others,
>
> Robert wrote:
>
> > Something you sit on with 4 legs? How about a horse -- that's not a
> > chair.
>
> Really!! I'll be damned, you're smarter than you let on. A horse is not
> a chair, eh. What wisdom you present, in defense of your definition of
> liberty.
>
> Ted Bundy was just exercising his liberty, you wrote, and he got deprived
of
> his liberty when he got locked up, and worse.
>
> With a definition of liberty like that, I'm damned surpsised you can tell
a
> horse from a chair!!
>
> Obviously you can't tell you butt from a hole in the ground.
>
> > Larry wanted to play word games so he could equivocate, and
> > then deprecate.
>
> Hey, Bud, I've not been equivocating - do what you want with your own
life,
> just don't "F" with any other human who has an equal right.
>
> And you? You use liberty to mean freedom from initiated violence by
> government, when it suits you, and you use it to mean "F" whoever you
want,
> whenever, just don't get caught, when it suits you.
>
> Maybe "equivocate" is another one of those words you have a hard time
> understanding, eh?
>
> Well, Robert, equivocate ain't a horse. It ain't a chair, either. And
Ted
> Bundy cancelled all claim to liberty - all claim - when he killed his
first
> victim. Can't figure what there is about that you can't understand!!
>
> Your typical definition of liberty obliterates the distinction initiated
> violence and self defense, even in relation to government. With that
> distinction obliterated, all of the cards are wild - which is *exactly*
what
> you want, eh?
>
> Sincerely & Depreciateingly,
>
> Larry
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:39:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Excellent post, Gary! You are exactly right.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

--- G Triest <garyonthenet@yahoo.com> wrote:
> A libertarian society is not one where your freedoms
> cannot be constrained
> or taken from you legally.
> Rather it is one where the presumption of personal
> sovereignty is absolute;
> however as in whenever any sovereignty violates the
> sovereignty of another
> entity, that first entity risks legal recognition of
> its own sovereignty,
> i.e., he may just choose to relinquish his own.
>
> Ted Bundy violated the freedoms of other, thus he
> voluntarily relinquished
> his right to his own freedoms. That is true in this
> society, as well as it
> would be true in a lib'n society.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
> To: <libnw@immosys.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 2:58 AM
> Subject: a horse is not a chair........
>
>
> > Robert, Frank, Others,
> >
> > Robert wrote:
> >
> > > Something you sit on with 4 legs? How about a
> horse -- that's not a
> > > chair.
> >
> > Really!! I'll be damned, you're smarter than you
> let on. A horse is not
> > a chair, eh. What wisdom you present, in defense
> of your definition of
> > liberty.
> >
> > Ted Bundy was just exercising his liberty, you
> wrote, and he got deprived
> of
> > his liberty when he got locked up, and worse.
> >
> > With a definition of liberty like that, I'm damned
> surpsised you can tell
> a
> > horse from a chair!!
> >
> > Obviously you can't tell you butt from a hole in
> the ground.
> >
> > > Larry wanted to play word games so he could
> equivocate, and
> > > then deprecate.
> >
> > Hey, Bud, I've not been equivocating - do what you
> want with your own
> life,
> > just don't "F" with any other human who has an
> equal right.
> >
> > And you? You use liberty to mean freedom from
> initiated violence by
> > government, when it suits you, and you use it to
> mean "F" whoever you
> want,
> > whenever, just don't get caught, when it suits
> you.
> >
> > Maybe "equivocate" is another one of those words
> you have a hard time
> > understanding, eh?
> >
> > Well, Robert, equivocate ain't a horse. It ain't
> a chair, either. And
> Ted
> > Bundy cancelled all claim to liberty - all claim -
> when he killed his
> first
> > victim. Can't figure what there is about that you
> can't understand!!
> >
> > Your typical definition of liberty obliterates the
> distinction initiated
> > violence and self defense, even in relation to
> government. With that
> > distinction obliterated, all of the cards are wild
> - which is *exactly*
> what
> > you want, eh?
> >
> > Sincerely & Depreciateingly,
> >
> > Larry
> >
> >
> >
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
> >
> > To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> > To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> > Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> > Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
> >
> > URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> > Archives and Polls:
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> > Liberty Northwest Main Page:
> http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> >
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls:
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page:
> http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:48:36 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

I see from some quoted material in this thread that Larry is still going
on about this. I'm sure I'm going by common usage here, and certainly
legal terminology, by saying that having Ted Bundy or anybody else
locked in jail is a deprivation of that person's liberty. It's what's
meant by the phrase, "nor be deprived of...liberty..without due process
of law".

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: 14 Mar 2003 17:06:53 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 16:48, Robert Goodman wrote:
> I see from some quoted material in this thread that Larry is still going
> on about this. I'm sure I'm going by common usage here, and certainly
> legal terminology, by saying that having Ted Bundy or anybody else
> locked in jail is a deprivation of that person's liberty. It's what's
> meant by the phrase, "nor be deprived of...liberty..without due process
> of law".

Typical. Yes, Robert, that is the usage I am familiar with.
Unfortunately some people, particularly many Libertarians, fail to
realize that. They get obsessed with a word, and ignore reality. I would
not be suprised to hear Larry is still going on about it (he's on my
blocked list to,so I don't have to deal with his rants, insults, and
moronic and childish behavior either.).

Cheers,

Bill

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 03:47:56 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Bill, Rob:

Yes, in common usage being locked up is being deprived of liberty, but . .
Well mebe I came in late on this thread, but Ted Bundy's being locked up WAS
in due process of law.
They had evidence that a crime probably had been committed by him, and that
was enough for an arrest and detention with bail.

(inter alia, you might want to know that being held w/o bail is not
considered a violation of the 8th amendment (obvious bulsht), and that
detention prior to conviction is not considered punishment (also bulsht))

What is that nonesense I read about women constraining the freedoms of
rapists?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: a horse is not a chair........

> On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 16:48, Robert Goodman wrote:
> > I see from some quoted material in this thread that Larry is still going
> > on about this. I'm sure I'm going by common usage here, and certainly
> > legal terminology, by saying that having Ted Bundy or anybody else
> > locked in jail is a deprivation of that person's liberty. It's what's
> > meant by the phrase, "nor be deprived of...liberty..without due process
> > of law".
>
> Typical. Yes, Robert, that is the usage I am familiar with.
> Unfortunately some people, particularly many Libertarians, fail to
> realize that. They get obsessed with a word, and ignore reality. I would
> not be suprised to hear Larry is still going on about it (he's on my
> blocked list to,so I don't have to deal with his rants, insults, and
> moronic and childish behavior either.).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: 15 Mar 2003 03:23:01 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sat, 2003-03-15 at 01:47, G Triest wrote:
> Bill, Rob:
>
> Yes, in common usage being locked up is being deprived of liberty, but . .
> Well mebe I came in late on this thread, but Ted Bundy's being locked up
WAS
> in due process of law.

And to my knowledge none here have claimed it was not. However, I
believe the salient point was the deprivation of liberty party. At one
point, Frank was amazed at the idea that locking someone up was a
violation of their liberty.

> They had evidence that a crime probably had been committed by him, and
that
> was enough for an arrest and detention with bail.
>
> (inter alia, you might want to know that being held w/o bail is not
> considered a violation of the 8th amendment (obvious bulsht), and that
> detention prior to conviction is not considered punishment (also bulsht))

While both of those *can* be violations, I am not inclined to agree that
they always are. A breach of an individual's liberty, yes. All
imprisonment is, by definition.

> What is that nonesense I read about women constraining the freedoms of
> rapists?

It results from a description of the boundaries of rights and someone
that has gone off the deep end, and twisted it into all sorts of crap.
Basically, it is an application of the limitation to your freedom to
swing your fist, or shoot your gun. Said limitation ends when they meet
with my body being in the path of those objects. Of course, said
individual hates to realize that his sacrosanct views are not perfect,
and that things are not as they seem. He, as many Libertarians do,
*claims* that all enforcement of morals on others is a violation of
liberty or freedom, yet lives in a perpetual state of denial that to
enforce rights is to do the same thing -- all while declaring that
morality is the cause and sole source of libertarian thinking. if you
are interested, I have my rational basis for rights on my website
(shameless plug) at http://www.noreboots.com/

http://www.noreboots.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3
and
http://www.noreboots.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=4

The problem with some people is that they are unwilling to admit that
they are wanting to impose *their* "morals" on others, and that yes
sometimes we do need to restrict a given person's liberties from time to
time. Unfortunately, some people are so clouded that they view anyone
pointing that out as fascists or some such. Glad to see you are notin
that boat. :)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:45:31 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Yes, in common usage being locked up is being deprived of liberty, but
. .
> Well mebe I came in late on this thread, but Ted Bundy's being locked
up WAS
> in due process of law.

But that doesn't change the fact of its being a deprivation of liberty.
The 5th amendment did not purport to set forth a definition of liberty
or its deprivation, only to state that the US Const. forbade it except
on that condition.

(BTW, I oppose laws that attempt to redefine "marriage" away from its
traditional meaning. There are better ways to allow persons freedom to
associate than to try to change the meaning of a word.)

> What is that nonesense I read about women constraining the freedoms of
> rapists?

It's not nonsense. In order for there to be the greatest GENERAL
CONDITION OF liberty, certain freedom need to be constrained. Certainly
laws against rape constrain the freedom of those who wish to commit rape
w.r.t. rape. To achieve the greatest degree of liberty in a society, we
need to figure out which individual types of freedom need to be
permitted, and which not.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:02:31 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Well, unless you are proposing an anarchial form of govt, standard lib'n
govt'l precepts are premised on "You have the right to do anything you want
(i.e. participate in any liberty), UNLESS you constrain my liberty while
doing it."

So what that his liberties are being constrained by both the victim, and the
govt.

By definition of a lib'n govt, which I presumed we are all working to
advance here, when a rapist is infringing upon the liberty of the victim his
liberty is forfeited via some due process of law, more or less extensively
depending on the exigency of the circumstances.

In a libertarian society, his violation of another's sovereignty immediately
moves the presumption of his own into doubt, and gives the state/govt
jurisdiction over his person (and perhaps also gives the victim jurisdiction
over his person and liberties) and instant liberties until it can be
determined whether and what his
punishment/rehabilitation/deterrence/restitution will be.
The legislation of how much retribution is left to lawmakers, and the
retribution (upon proof of actual guilt) is left to the jailers; all within
due process of law as per the 5th and 14th amendments.

What's the controversy in that?

Much ado about nuthin.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: a horse is not a chair........

> "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, in common usage being locked up is being deprived of liberty, but
> . .
> > Well mebe I came in late on this thread, but Ted Bundy's being locked
> up WAS
> > in due process of law.
>
> But that doesn't change the fact of its being a deprivation of liberty.
> The 5th amendment did not purport to set forth a definition of liberty
> or its deprivation, only to state that the US Const. forbade it except
> on that condition.
>
> (BTW, I oppose laws that attempt to redefine "marriage" away from its
> traditional meaning. There are better ways to allow persons freedom to
> associate than to try to change the meaning of a word.)
>
> > What is that nonesense I read about women constraining the freedoms of
> > rapists?
>
> It's not nonsense. In order for there to be the greatest GENERAL
> CONDITION OF liberty, certain freedom need to be constrained. Certainly
> laws against rape constrain the freedom of those who wish to commit rape
> w.r.t. rape. To achieve the greatest degree of liberty in a society, we
> need to figure out which individual types of freedom need to be
> permitted, and which not.
>
> In Your Sly Tribe,
> Robert
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:11:16 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank was amazed that locking someone up was a deprivation of their liberty?
I am amazed that Frank would be amazed.

But these are non-issues, these are just axiomatic definitions, like
"causing someone not to live, is killing them". So what?

Whether the rules come from morals, or logical precept, if the populace
making up the society agree on a given set of governing rules, and those
rules are publicly posted, then it is not so much a imposition of morals at
that point which we impose upon others, but rather the consistency of law.

If we are talking about adavancing a libertarian government, then the
precepts are already understood by all here.
I have my own reasons for the derivation of libertarian precepts, but
whatever they may be in any other person, the axiomatic (interactive between
persons) precept is still agreed to.

So yeah, if they want to talk about more esoteric or hypo-precept ideas,
then there are no holds barred. It jus taint libertarianism.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 5:23 AM
Subject: Re: a horse is not a chair........

> On Sat, 2003-03-15 at 01:47, G Triest wrote:
> > Bill, Rob:
> >
> > Yes, in common usage being locked up is being deprived of liberty, but .
.
> > Well mebe I came in late on this thread, but Ted Bundy's being locked up
WAS
> > in due process of law.
>
> And to my knowledge none here have claimed it was not. However, I
> believe the salient point was the deprivation of liberty party. At one
> point, Frank was amazed at the idea that locking someone up was a
> violation of their liberty.
>
> > They had evidence that a crime probably had been committed by him, and
that
> > was enough for an arrest and detention with bail.
> >
> > (inter alia, you might want to know that being held w/o bail is not
> > considered a violation of the 8th amendment (obvious bulsht), and that
> > detention prior to conviction is not considered punishment (also
bulsht))
>
> While both of those *can* be violations, I am not inclined to agree that
> they always are. A breach of an individual's liberty, yes. All
> imprisonment is, by definition.
>
> > What is that nonesense I read about women constraining the freedoms of
> > rapists?
>
> It results from a description of the boundaries of rights and someone
> that has gone off the deep end, and twisted it into all sorts of crap.
> Basically, it is an application of the limitation to your freedom to
> swing your fist, or shoot your gun. Said limitation ends when they meet
> with my body being in the path of those objects. Of course, said
> individual hates to realize that his sacrosanct views are not perfect,
> and that things are not as they seem. He, as many Libertarians do,
> *claims* that all enforcement of morals on others is a violation of
> liberty or freedom, yet lives in a perpetual state of denial that to
> enforce rights is to do the same thing -- all while declaring that
> morality is the cause and sole source of libertarian thinking. if you
> are interested, I have my rational basis for rights on my website
> (shameless plug) at http://www.noreboots.com/
>
>
>
http://www.noreboots.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3
> and
>
http://www.noreboots.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=4
>
>
> The problem with some people is that they are unwilling to admit that
> they are wanting to impose *their* "morals" on others, and that yes
> sometimes we do need to restrict a given person's liberties from time to
> time. Unfortunately, some people are so clouded that they view anyone
> pointing that out as fascists or some such. Glad to see you are notin
> that boat. :)
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: 15 Mar 2003 13:17:15 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sat, 2003-03-15 at 10:02, G Triest wrote:
> Well, unless you are proposing an anarchial form of govt, standard lib'n
> govt'l precepts are premised on "You have the right to do anything you
want
> (i.e. participate in any liberty), UNLESS you constrain my liberty while
> doing it."
>
> So what that his liberties are being constrained by both the victim, and
the
> govt.
>
> By definition of a lib'n govt, which I presumed we are all working to
> advance here, when a rapist is infringing upon the liberty of the victim
his
> liberty is forfeited via some due process of law, more or less extensively
> depending on the exigency of the circumstances.
>
> In a libertarian society, his violation of another's sovereignty
immediately
> moves the presumption of his own into doubt, and gives the state/govt
> jurisdiction over his person (and perhaps also gives the victim
jurisdiction
> over his person and liberties) and instant liberties until it can be
> determined whether and what his
> punishment/rehabilitation/deterrence/restitution will be.
> The legislation of how much retribution is left to lawmakers, and the
> retribution (upon proof of actual guilt) is left to the jailers; all
within
> due process of law as per the 5th and 14th amendments.
>
> What's the controversy in that?

There isn't much, except for the person going off about it. As I recall
it was mentioned casually, and Larry fixated on it.

> Much ado about nuthin.

Basically.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: 15 Mar 2003 13:19:08 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sat, 2003-03-15 at 10:11, G Triest wrote:
> Frank was amazed that locking someone up was a deprivation of their
liberty?
> I am amazed that Frank would be amazed.

So was I.

>
> But these are non-issues, these are just axiomatic definitions, like
> "causing someone not to live, is killing them". So what?
>
> Whether the rules come from morals, or logical precept, if the populace
> making up the society agree on a given set of governing rules, and those
> rules are publicly posted, then it is not so much a imposition of morals
at
> that point which we impose upon others, but rather the consistency of law.
>
> If we are talking about adavancing a libertarian government, then the
> precepts are already understood by all here.

Normally, I'd agree with that. unfortunately, some here have shown that
they prefer to argue about it, rather than accept it and move on. Such
is life, eh?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:30:44 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Hello Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to everyone...

> (BTW, I oppose laws that attempt to redefine "marriage" away from its
> traditional meaning. There are better ways to allow persons freedom to
> associate than to try to change the meaning of a word.)

Maybe so. But I find this hard to believe that in your subjective mindset,
that matching queers with queers is really anything that could be
objectively stated as "right and/or wrong". Only your own opinion, correct?
So, why not just change the dictionary definitions? Words seem to change
meaning all the time, as they do seemingly all the time.

Do you here appeal to historical precedent and meaning? Or, simply YOUR own
personal preference for such change in definition? It appears here that YOU
want to lock in the historical definition. Why should, in that argument,
YOU have the right to do so in this case?

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 10:38:26 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com> wrote:

> > (BTW, I oppose laws that attempt to redefine "marriage" away from
its
> > traditional meaning. There are better ways to allow persons freedom
to
> > associate than to try to change the meaning of a word.)

> Maybe so. But I find this hard to believe that in your subjective
mindset,
> that matching queers with queers is really anything that could be
> objectively stated as "right and/or wrong". Only your own opinion,
correct?
> So, why not just change the dictionary definitions? Words seem to
change
> meaning all the time, as they do seemingly all the time.

But legislatures, other than for their own purposes (and even then only
for convenience and with due concern for lay readers; it would be better
in many cases to invent terms of art as neologisms than to use common
words differently), should not. In other words, legislatures should not
attempt to change what it means when persons outside the legislature use
a word.

> Do you here appeal to historical precedent and meaning? Or, simply
YOUR own
> personal preference for such change in definition? It appears here
that YOU
> want to lock in the historical definition.

I'm only arguing in favor of persons being allowed to use words as they
see fit -- which means acording to custom unless they specify
otherwise -- instead of having such things be changed by outside agency.
So, for instance, it would be wrenching were weights and measures
redefined by gov't in a substantive way.

> Why should, in that argument,
> YOU have the right to do so in this case?

I don't claim to HAVE any rights other than those others recognize. I'm
stating an opinion, LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Your Views.....
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 03:29:31 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <smiller@journalnet.com>,
<halli@oakstone1.com>,
<wes@logicallearning.net>,
<realtor@idahojoe.com>,
<azbengal@msn.com>,
<teddunlap@outdrs.net>,
<LHbeaty@prodigy.ne>,
<libnw@immosys.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>

Steve, Editor of the Idaho State Journal,

There is noooo libel, below. I have the evidence!!!! Wanna see it??!
Besides, it me who gets sued, not you.

lf

Your Views,

So folks, what does it cost to "educate" a pupil in District 25?

I added up the budget figures, today ($88,500,000.00), and divided by
the number of students (as of September, 11,715). The answer: $7,500.00 per
pupil, per 9-month year, in this school year.

No damn wonder Linda Powell needs a $102,000.00/year salary, plus
insurance, vechicles, gas, insurance, and retirement. She's gotta pay her
taxes, eh? Well, taxes are a burden, so she holds down two jobs. She is
also a commissioned sales person for Pearson Educational Technology. She
sells educational software on the side, taxes the burden they are.

How many of you know that after signing a 3-year contract with the
Scottsdale, Arizona School District she was fired 7-months into it? Yup.
She was fired, primarily, for buying (or selling?) Pearson's software to the
District. She claimed she was fired 'cause her enemies called her a
lesbian. Given the buying/selling, Scottsdale bought-out her three-year
contract with cash, and she dropped her $5,000,000.00 lawsuit over
lesbianism.

All of this was on the record, but John Merzlock hired her anyway.
Remember him? If you doubt the record, I have the newspaper articles from
the Arizona Republic. And it was confirmed, just a few days ago that, in
fact, she is an employee of Pearson Educational Technology. If you want the
evidence, give me a call (406-3591).

Put the above in in your libertarian pipe and somke it. You better
hurry, though. Another government agency, headed by John Ashcroft, claims
pipes are against the law, as if the prison wern't bursting already. It's
no wonder "we" need a war with Iraq, just to divert attention from what is
going on in Amerika!

larry fullmer
p.o. box 4106
83205

406-3591




Apples to apples, the average cost of a private education in Idaho is
$3,200.00.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Your Views.....
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:13:26 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>, <smiller@journalnet.com>,
<halli@oakstone1.com>, <wes@logicallearning.net>,
<realtor@idahojoe.com>, <azbengal@msn.com>, <teddunlap@outdrs.net>,
<LHbeaty@prodigy.ne>, <idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>

Greetings again Larry!

Larry Fullmer wrote to everyone...

> So folks, what does it cost to "educate" a pupil in District 25?

This was a most excellent article and story Larry! Great job. Hope it was
published.

Let us know if it was!

Kindest regards,
Frank

_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe or unsubscribe: http://www.liberty-northwest.org/

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Work part time from home
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16:26:45 -0500
From: Dawn <upnutrition@ainet.us>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Do you want me to show you how you can earn
$1,000 to $5,000 a month
working from home Part Time.

If the answer is YES, click on

NEXT


Abuse Policy: This e-mail is sent in compliance with our strict anti-abuse
regulations. You have received this e-mail because you or someone using your
computer has used an FFA List, Safe List, your email address was listed in
other optin listes posted on the Internet an/or you or someone using your
computer requested other information from other mailings that was sent to
your computer. If you do not wish to receive any mail from our servers you
may permanently block your e-mail address by clicking on the following link.

Remove


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Robert -Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:40:48 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Hey, Ya, Robert, Others,

I thought you refused to read me??!!

There were no quotes which justified this below response.

on 3/14/03 3:48 PM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

> I see from some quoted material in this thread that Larry is still going
> on about this. I'm sure I'm going by common usage here, and certainly
> legal terminology, by saying that having Ted Bundy or anybody else
> locked in jail is a deprivation of that person's liberty.

Ohh, you are **sooooo** worried about teddy bundy's "liberty"!!!!!!

Get you head outta you butt, if you can tell it from a hole in the ground.

Teddy gave up any claim to liberty when he slaughterd the first woman.

What the "F" is so hard about that, Robert???!!!

> It's what's
> meant by the phrase, "nor be deprived of...liberty..without due process
> of law".

Hey, Bud, you wrote that a woman definding herself from rape was
constraining the liberty of the rapist. That claim had **nothing** to do
with "due process of law", as generated by the state. But, you have written
before that **law** as generated by the state is the *only* source of
rights.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
>
> In Your Sly Tribe,
> Robert

YOU AIN'T IN **MY** SLY TRIBE, SICKOO!!

Sincerely depreciating,

larry f.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: WTF Bill - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:58:37 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Hey, Ya, Bill, Others,

I notice I'm on your "block-sender", Bill. No damned wonder about that,
with you defending the "liberty" of a rapist, as has done Robert, with you
backing him up.

Uhhh, Billy, a couple of weeks ago you told me you would walk me hand in
hand to your derivation of rights, with nooooo appeal to that sick shit
morality.

Then you were gone, only to surface today with BS.

I have my hand out, reaching for yours. Ain't found it.

What's up, Bill?!

Sincerely,

Larry

Umm, Bill, you claim liberty and rights needs no moral defense.

WTF?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lay you case out, or STFU!!!!!!!

My hand is out, Bill. Last I heard from you Ya had kids to feed. Still, I
see, you have time to write. WTF???!!, Bill??!!

on 3/14/03 4:06 PM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:

> On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 16:48, Robert Goodman wrote:
>> I see from some quoted material in this thread that Larry is still going
>> on about this. I'm sure I'm going by common usage here, and certainly
>> legal terminology, by saying that having Ted Bundy or anybody else
>> locked in jail is a deprivation of that person's liberty. It's what's
>> meant by the phrase, "nor be deprived of...liberty..without due process
>> of law".
>
> Typical. Yes, Robert, that is the usage I am familiar with.
> Unfortunately some people, particularly many Libertarians, fail to
> realize that. They get obsessed with a word, and ignore reality. I would
> not be suprised to hear Larry is still going on about it (he's on my
> blocked list to,so I don't have to deal with his rants, insults, and
> moronic and childish behavior either.).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: I'LL BE DAMNED!! -bill & Robert both climb out of the sewer on
the same day.....
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 21:27:34 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

FOLKS,

Robert and Bill both claim to have blocked me, BEFORE ANSWERING MY
QUESTIONS.

Well, I ain't blocked them.

Hell, Bill, you promised to "take me by the hand and lead me to your wisdom"
- rights and liberty not based on moral claims. You said you had to feed
your kids first, Bill. Is that still your excuse?!

And then you blocked me, as Robert claims he has.

Well, with that BS, with no reason to offer, just "blocking", best keep your
head in the foxhole. I'm no damned pascifist when it comes to ideas, and
the lack of 'em!

I've my hand out, Bill, Robert, but if you ain't gonna take it, and walk me
to your wisdom, deciding to block me instead - well, keep your "f" heads in
the foxhole!!

If either damned one of you write this group, with no answers to the
questions I've asked, well, keep you heads down!!

sincerely, and depreciateingly,

LARRY F.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Iraqi bomb crater
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 19:57:03 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
CC: "VICTORIA WILLIAMS" <bbee97@hotmail.com>

Greetings friends!

This seems to be the message today. My daughter just sent this to me
momentarily ago.

I'm wondering if any one else sees a problem with this kind of
sensationalism? Does "might make it right".

This may be coming home to roost in the not too distant future, although I
can't draw a map of Manhattan with the same graphical images imposed.
Although, looking back, we did see something like that a couple of years
back.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Iraq_bomb_crater.jpg
Iraq_bomb_crater.jpg Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg)
Encoding: base64

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Financial Intelligence Reports as Promised
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:00:33 -0600
From: "Financial Web" <subscriptions@financialweb.org>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image] [Image]
Dear Network Member: [Image]
[Image] [Image]
Welcome to our exclusive network of informed Check your email address
investors who desire access to our team of below for accuracy and
veteran analysts, investment professionals, click submit to receive
and world-class advisors. our 2003 Forecast and to
[Image] be added to our network
As promised, below you will find several of informed investors.
examples of the unique commentary published [Image]
by FinancialWeb.org and our
affiliates. These in-depth perspectives [Image]
include current economic conditions, [btn]
financial trends, and investment strategies [Image]
you can use to build and protect your [Image]
wealth.
[Image]
[Image]
If you feel this mailing was in error and do not wish to receive any
financial intelligence from FinancialWeb.org or our affiliates even
though it's FREE and comes with no obligation, you can unsubscribe
immediately. However, we encourage you to take advantage of this unique
opportunity to arm yourself with the information and knowledge you'll
need for the rough markets ahead. Enough said. Click Here to
unsubscribe.
[Image]
[Image] [Image] [Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
How, more than a few readers ask, can the economy continue to Muddle
Through if I am right about the market eventually dropping another 40%
before we get to the end of the secular bear market cycle? Won't such a
massive destruction of wealth mean a depression? We look at that
question, some thoughts on earnings, the world and a whole lot more this
week.

What Are They Drinking?

First, let's look at the prospect for earnings growth this year. Global
analysts are projecting earnings growth of more than 20% in the coming
year, with unbelievable growth of 30%...
[Image]
Click Here to read the full report >>
[Image]
[Image] [Image] [Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
As I have written often in my Forecasts & Trends E-Letter and monthly
printed newsletters, I am a strong advocate of “market timing”
investment strategies, especially in the difficult market environment we
have experienced over the past few years… and which may continue for
some time into the future.
[Image]
For many years, most of the so-called experts on Wall Street and
elsewhere argued that market timing strategies do not work, and that a
“buy-and-hold” approach was the only way to invest successfully for the
long-term. However, after three consecutive down years in the equity
markets, more and more investment advisors are now recommending
market-timing strategies.
[Image]
In this Special Report, I examine various market timing strategies and
systems and how to evaluate them. Let me warn you up front that there
are good market timing strategies and systems, and there are bad ones.
Some of these approaches you can...
[Image]
Click Here to read the full report >>
[Image]
[Image] [Image] [Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
With the stock markets down for the third consecutive year, with CD and
other 'safe' investment yields at or near all-time lows, and with
certain other investment options struggling as well, investment scams
are on the increase. Unfortunately, many people continue to fall for
these schemes. In this issue, we'll look at some of the more common
investment scams and give you the information you need to avoid them.

Generally speaking, American consumers are a savvy bunch...
[Image]
Click Here to read the full report >>
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
ABOUT OUR EMAIL POLICY
[Image]
You are receiving this special announcement because you choose not to
limit your access to our exclusive network of investment advisors and
financial publishers and have accepted an invitation to receive our FREE
weekly intelligence reports.
[Image]
However, If you feel that you have been mailed in error and do not wish
to receive any of our financial newsletters, our 2003 Forecast, or any
of our Special Investment Reports, please Click Here to unsubscribe.
[Image]
[Image]
Regards,
[Image]
The Editors
FinancialWeb.org and Affiliates
[Image]
[Image] [Image] [Image]
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
This private announcement is sent only to new members of
FinancialWeb.org and our affiliates' network. Any republication or
transmission of this e-mail or any of the contents herein is expressly
prohibited.
[Image]
[Image] [Image] [Image]
[Image]
All material presented herein is believed to be reliable but we cannot
attest to its accuracy. Investment recommendations may change and
readers are urged to check with their personal investment counselors
before making any investment decisions.
[Image]
Opinions expressed in these reports may change without prior notice.
Staff members and affiliates of FinancialWeb.org may or may not have
investment in any funds, stocks, or programs cited above. We therefore
should not be considered independent.
[Image]
Communications from FinancialWeb.org or our affiliates are intended
solely for informational purposes. Statements made by various authors,
advertisers, sponsors, and other contributors do not necessarily reflect
the opinions of FinancialWeb.org and should not be construed as an
endorsement by FinancialWeb.org either expressed or implied.
FinancialWeb.org is not responsible for typographical errors or other
inaccuracies in the content. We believe the information contained herein
to be accurate and reliable. However, errors may occasionally occur.
Therefore, all information and materials are provided 'AS IS' without
any warranty of any kind. Past performance is not indicative of future
results.
[Image]
We encourage readers to review our legal and privacy statements on our
home page. Your agreement to receive our publications constitutes
implicit acceptance of all of these terms and conditions.
[Image]
Copyright 2003 FinancialWeb.org. All rights reserved.
[Image]
FinancialWeb.org 502 N. Haskell PO Box 710117 Dallas, Texas 75371
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Please remove me from this list
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 14:22:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Ken <happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Frank,

Please remove me from this list. I know every week I
get a letter telling me how to unsubscribe, but I
don't really feel like waiting for it.

I joined this list three years ago as I was just
starting college and entering an idealistic phase.
There were a lot of new ideas and views thrown around,
and I thought it was very exciting. However, either
because I have grown out of that phase or because this
list has gone downhill, I find myself looking at this
as filler in my mailbox. I don't want to hear people
swearing at each other, debating the meanings of
words, or using the same responses to the same issues
ad nauseam. I have a lot of work to do getting my
degree in animation, which is a competitive field that
requires a great degree of talent. I have better
things to do with my time than worry about whether
certain words apply to a rapist or whether using that
word in that particular context makes me a fascist
according to some ranbling asshole. Even to the extent
that I am a libertarian, which I'm not sure of
anymore, I would rather discuss practical ideas that
affect real life. This has basically ceased
altogether.

My address is happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com if anyone is
interested in e-mailing me privately.

Ken Butler

=====
Yes I know my enemies
They're the teachers who taught me to fight me
Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission
Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite
All of which are American dreams

-Rage Against the Machine, "Know Your Enemy"

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Please remove me from this list
Date: 15 Mar 2003 16:10:54 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sat, 2003-03-15 at 15:22, Ken wrote:
> Frank,
>
> Please remove me from this list. I know every week I
> get a letter telling me how to unsubscribe, but I
> don't really feel like waiting for it.

So look at the bottom of every email that comes through the list. :)

> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Please remove me from this list
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:35:35 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Ken:

Yeah, the cussing's getting me down too. I believe a little cussin, in the
appropriate places, spices up a conversation/discussion.
Something like if a classical oil painter carefully put in some day glo
paint, in the right places.
But putting it everywhere, is like underlining, capitalizing, and bolding
every word. It loses its meaning/impact when used like that, and it puts the
speaker's stability in question. I, fortunately, have a lot of tolerence for
shit like that [see how well that worked!], and can filter it out to see
whether there really is something going on behind all the noize. (Usually
there isn't, but sometimes there is. In these posts I have seen something
useful usually, when the speaker doesn't get too frothy.)

Whether you are libertarian or not is irrespective of how you see others
misbehave. Even if the others purport themselves to be Libertarian.
We are all human, and have our strengths and foibles.
If you simply believe that people should be permitted to do what they wish,
as long as it doesn't infringe on another's freedom, then basically you are
a libertarian.
If you believe that in a society, the government should not be able to
impose direct obligations upon its people, and likewise the people cannot
demand that govt provide services (as a matter of right), then you probably
are a Libertarian.

But wuteva, if you gotta go, you gotta go.

Been interesting cross-posting w/you.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken" <happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 5:22 PM
Subject: Please remove me from this list

>
> Frank,
>
> Please remove me from this list. I know every week I
> get a letter telling me how to unsubscribe, but I
> don't really feel like waiting for it.
>
> I joined this list three years ago as I was just
> starting college and entering an idealistic phase.
> There were a lot of new ideas and views thrown around,
> and I thought it was very exciting. However, either
> because I have grown out of that phase or because this
> list has gone downhill, I find myself looking at this
> as filler in my mailbox. I don't want to hear people
> swearing at each other, debating the meanings of
> words, or using the same responses to the same issues
> ad nauseam. I have a lot of work to do getting my
> degree in animation, which is a competitive field that
> requires a great degree of talent. I have better
> things to do with my time than worry about whether
> certain words apply to a rapist or whether using that
> word in that particular context makes me a fascist
> according to some ranbling asshole. Even to the extent
> that I am a libertarian, which I'm not sure of
> anymore, I would rather discuss practical ideas that
> affect real life. This has basically ceased
> altogether.
>
> My address is happynoodleboy2k@yahoo.com if anyone is
> interested in e-mailing me privately.
>
> Ken Butler
>
>
>
>
>
> =====
> Yes I know my enemies
> They're the teachers who taught me to fight me
> Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission
> Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite
> All of which are American dreams
>
> -Rage Against the Machine, "Know Your Enemy"
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
> http://webhosting.yahoo.com
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Please remove me from this list
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:57:18 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings Bill!

Bill Anderson, writing to Ken Butler, wrote...

Ken Butler originally wrote:
> > Please remove me from this list. I know every week I
> > get a letter telling me how to unsubscribe, but I
> > don't really feel like waiting for it.

You replied:
> So look at the bottom of every email that comes through the list. :)

There's another way to do it as well. The Liberty Northwest website now as a
"Subscriber Operations Center" that enables all subscribers to manager their
own subscription, insofar as I've been able to get the system responsive in
certain areas such as:

1. Subscribe and Unsubscribe functions
2. Automating retrieval and accessing archived messages

It isn't exactly as smooth as Yahoogroups was, but it does provide a way for
better management in access to the archives and subscriber "hands on"
management of subscriptions.

To get to the Operations Center (OPS), go to:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org/manager.htm

In fact, I would encourage you all to "bookmark" that site for any future
use as you may need it from time to time. There is a directory at the top of
the site that will quickly get you to the areas you need to see. Anyone
wishing to suggest other areas that should be added, please let me know.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: The Next Boon On The Internet- Keyword Ownership
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:18:10 -0800
From: words@islandweb.net
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello, After some searching, I found your web site on the Internet.

I used Google and typed in keywords related to your website. A very long
list of sites came up.

Did you know that if I type in keywords related to your website using the
Netscape, or Internet Explorer browser I could be immediately sent to YOUR
WEBSITE!

I would not get a long list of companies to choose from, I would be
connected directly to your website! Our technology can do this for you.

Type in pizza on your browser and you'll get the Pizza Hut Web Site. Type
in the word, “car” and you’ll get the Lexus web site. This is our technology
at work!

If you would you like to explore the possibilities for your web site & to
better serve you, please respond with your contact name, telephone and best
time to reach.

Thank You- God Bless

For More Info...

Click Here For More Information






Click Here For Permanent Removal

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fw: On-line Petition for Ephedra Availability - URGENT
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 18:40:13 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: +ACI-Robert Goodman+ACI- +ADw-robgood+AEA-bestweb.net+AD4-
To: +ADw-drctalk+AEA-drcnet.org+AD4-
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 7:53 PM
Subject: Fw: On-line Petition for Ephedra Availability - URGENT

+AD4-
+AD4- ----- Original Message -----
+AD4- From: +ACI-Ralph Fucetola+ACI- +ADw-ralph.fucetola+AEA-usa.net+AD4-
+AD4- To: +ACI-Ralph Fucetola+ACI- +ADw-ralph.fucetola+AEA-usa.net+AD4-
+AD4- Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 1:22 PM
+AD4- Subject: On-line Petition for Ephedra Availability - URGENT
+AD4-
+AD4-
+AD4- This request is going out to many people in the health freedom
movement,
+AD4- requesting that you all forward it to your lists.
+AD4-
+AD4- AN APPEAL TO THE FDA FOR EPHEDRA
+AD4-
+AD4- Dated: March 13, 2003
+AD4- To: All Persons Interested in Ephedra Justice
+AD4- From: Ralph Fucetola JD
+AD4-
+AD4- If you want to support the availability of ephedra based weight
control
+AD4- products, please consider the following.
+AD4-
+AD4- The RAND Corporation report, issued Febraury 28, 2003, supports the
safe
+AD4- and
+AD4- effective use of ephedra as a nutrient to support achieving and
+AD4- maintaining a
+AD4- normal weight, but the media, not caring for the cautious language of
+AD4- science,
+AD4- has twisted the report and created a media frenzy.
+AD4-
+AD4- As a result, the FDA has reopened the comment period for the ephedra
+AD4- rule it
+AD4- was considering back in 1997. It delayed rule-making then since there
+AD4- was no
+AD4- significant scientific agreement about ephedra at that time. The new
+AD4- comment
+AD4- period is to address the following three issues:
+AD4-
+AD4- 1. New Evidence (the RAND Corporation Report)
+AD4-
+AD4- 2. Proposed Warning Statement
+AD4-
+AD4- 3. Whether, in light of current information, the FDA should determine
+AD4- that
+AD4- dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids present a
+AD4- +IBg-significant or
+AD4- unreasonable risk of illness or injury under conditions of use
+AD4- recommended or
+AD4- suggested in labeling, or if no conditions of use are suggested or
+AD4- recommended
+AD4- in the labeling, under ordinary conditions of use.+IB0-
+AD4-
+AD4- There are several things we can do about this:
+AD4-
+AD4- 1. Submit comments directly to the FDA (see below)
+AD4- 2. Sign the on-line Ephedra Petition, www.petition.trimspa.com
+AD4- 3. Email your Congressperson (see below)
+AD4-
+AD4- Electronic comments may be submitted at
+AD4- http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments.
+AD4-
+AD4- Go to the +IBw-Select Docket for Comment+IB0- window in the middle of
the page
+AD4- and
+AD4- scroll in it all the way down to the bottom, where you will find -
+AD4-
+AD4- 95N-0304 - Dietary Supplements Containing Ephedrine Alkaloids.
+AD4-
+AD4- Click on it and then click on the Continue button below, and follow
+AD4- directions. Comments must be submitted by April 7, 2003. If you
prefer
+AD4- to
+AD4- use +IBw-snail-mail+IB0- you can mail comments to: Dockets Management
Branch,
+AD4- Food
+AD4- and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061, HFA-305,
+AD4- Rockville, MD
+AD4- 20852., but make sure you include Docket No. 95N-0304.
+AD4-
+AD4- The risk we face here is that FDA is not just considering making the
+AD4- industry
+AD4- voluntary warning label (that we use) stricter, but they are also
+AD4- talking
+AD4- about banning the combination of ephedra and any stimulant (but, not
+AD4- banning
+AD4- ephedra itself, if you read the announcement carefully). We know that
+AD4- there
+AD4- is a valuable synergistic effect from combining ephedra and caffeine
so
+AD4- such a
+AD4- requirement could force us to change our TrimSpa formula.
+AD4-
+AD4- We have only 30 days to flood the FDA with comments. That+IBk-s where
you
+AD4- and
+AD4- your team members can help. We need lots of consumer emails to the
FDA
+AD4- (ideally, not from goengroup.com email addresses+ACE-) telling the FDA
that
+AD4- consumers want to have ephedra products available.
+AD4-
+AD4- This is what the RAND Corporation report actually said,
+AD4-
+AD4- +IBw-Main Results. Weight Loss. Short-term use of ephedrine, ephedrine
plus
+AD4- caffeine, or dietary supplements containing ephedra with or without
+AD4- herbs
+AD4- containing caffeine is associated with a statistically significant
+AD4- increase in
+AD4- short-term weight loss (compared to placebo). The addition of caffeine
+AD4- to
+AD4- ephedrine is associated with a statistically significant modest
increase
+AD4- in
+AD4- short-term weight loss. The observed effects on weight loss of
ephedrine
+AD4- plus
+AD4- caffeine and ephedra containing dietary supplements with or without
+AD4- herbs
+AD4- containing caffeine are approximately equivalent: a weight loss
+AD4- approximately
+AD4- two pounds per month greater than that with placebo, for up to four to
+AD4- six
+AD4- months. No studies have assessed the long-term effects of ephedrine or
+AD4- ephedra
+AD4- containing dietary supplements on weight loss+ADs- the longest
published
+AD4- treatment
+AD4- duration was six months.+IB0-
+AD4-
+AD4- Here is a sample of some things you might want to tell the FDA --
+AD4-
+AD4- ----------------------------------------------------------------
+AD4-
+AD4- These comments are submitted in reference to FDA Docket 95N-0304 -
+AD4- Dietary
+AD4- Supplements Containing Ephedrine Alkaloids.
+AD4-
+AD4- I am a consumer of dietary supplements and I am concerned with the way
+AD4- the
+AD4- media seems to be distorting the truth about ephedra products.
+AD4-
+AD4- I know many people who needed to lose weight and who were helped by
+AD4- ephedra
+AD4- products. While there have been a very few adverse reactions, as
there
+AD4- will
+AD4- be to any food, ephedra products are much safer than many other
consumer
+AD4- health care products, for example, aspirin-type products that kill
+AD4- thousands
+AD4- of people each year.
+AD4-
+AD4- Of course, there should be a strong warning label on these products,
+AD4- but,
+AD4- there does not appear to be any significant or unreasonable risk of
+AD4- harm,
+AD4- especially when we consider how much harm obesity causes.
+AD4-
+AD4- The combination of ephedra and caffeine has helped millions of people
+AD4- over the
+AD4- past decade, while the record shows that a handful of people, probably
+AD4- abusing
+AD4- the products, may have been harmed. Therefore, please do not ban
+AD4- ephedra.
+AD4-
+AD4- ----------------------------------------------------------------
+AD4-
+AD4- Please provide me with a copy of your comments, so we can use the best
+AD4- to
+AD4- generate more messages.
+AD4-
+AD4- You may want to +IBw-copy+IB0- (highlight them and use Ctrl-C to place
them in
+AD4- temporary storage) your comments and then go to
+AD4- http://www.house.gov/writerep
+AD4- and find your congressperson and +IBw-paste+IB0- the comments (Ctrl-V)
into an
+AD4- email to your representative -- this issue may be won - or lost - in
+AD4- Congress
+AD4- and lots of congresspeople are not known for standing up to media
+AD4- frenzy.
+AD4-
+AD4- We know that the needs of consumers are on our side and we know that
the
+AD4- science is on our side. The media and certain politicians are not.
+AD4- That is
+AD4- why we need a flood of friendly letters to the FDA.
+AD4-
+AD4- Please forward this message to as many people as you can.
+AD4-
+AD4-
+AD4- Ralph Fucetola, JD
+AD4- http://www.vitaminlawyer.com
+AD4- All Rights Reserved
+AD4-
+AD4-

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: FBI Spy Planes Helping in Terror War
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 17:37:47 -0800
From: Paul Freedom <nepal@teleport.com>
To: APFN <apfn-1@yahoogroups.com>,
Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition <cp3@yahoogroups.com>,
libnw <libnw@immosys.com>,
"militia@montana.com" <militia@montana.com>,
News-Editorials-christiancommonlaw
<News-Editorials@christiancommonlaw-gov.org>,
PIML <piml@yahoogroups.com>

FBI Spy Planes Helping in Terror War

By CURT ANDERSON The Associated Press Saturday, March 15, 2003; 4:57 PM

The FBI has a fleet of aircraft, some equipped with night surveillance
and eavesdropping equipment, flying America's skies to track and collect
intelligence on suspected terrorists and other criminals.

The FBI will not provide exact figures on the planes and helicopters,
but more than 80 are in the skies. There are several planes, known as
"Nightstalkers," equipped with infrared devices that allow agents to
track people and vehicles in the dark.

Other aircraft are outfitted with electronic surveillance equipment so
agents can pursue listening devices placed in cars, in buildings and
even along streets, or listen to cell phone calls. Still others fly
photography missions, although officials would not describe precise
capabilities.

The FBI, which has made counterterror its top priority since Sept. 11,
2001, has sharply increased its use of aircraft.

"You want to watch activity, and you want to do it discreetly. You
don't want to be sitting around in cars," said Weldon Kennedy, a former
FBI deputy director who retired in 1997 after 33 years with the bureau.
"Aviation is one way to do that. You don't need to get close to that
person at all."

Some critics say the surveillance technology further blurs the
boundaries on domestic spying. They point to a 2001 case in which the
Supreme Court found police had engaged in an unreasonable search by
using thermal imaging equipment to detect heat lamps used to grow
marijuana plants indoors.

"The cop on the beat now has Superman's X-ray eyes," said Barry
Steinhardt, director of the technology and liberty program at the
American Civil Liberties Union. "We need to fundamentally rethink what
is a reasonable expectation of privacy."

All 56 FBI field offices have access to aircraft, piloted by FBI agents
who have other investigative duties as well. Most aircraft are
propeller-driven civilian models, favored for their relatively slow
speed and unobtrusive appearance.

Legally, no warrants are necessary for the FBI to track cars or people
from the air. Law enforcement officials need warrants to search homes
or to plant listening devices or monitor cell phone calls - and that
includes when the listener is flying in an airplane.

A senior FBI official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the FBI
does not do flyovers to listen to telephone calls and gather electronic
data from random citizens in hopes the data will provide leads. Rather,
the planes are used to follow specific individuals, some of whom may
already have been bugged or for whom the FBI has a warrant to listen to
cell phone calls.

Still, the idea of an FBI air force gives at least some people pause.

The FBI will not disclose where the planes are being used. This month,
however, in the college town of Bloomington, Ind., residents spotted a
Cessna aircraft flying overhead at roughly the same times every day for
more than a week. After first issuing denials, local FBI agents
admitted it was their plane, involved in a terrorism investigation.

FBI officials also were quick to say it was not doing electronic
eavesdropping.

"There should be no concern that the aircraft is doing anything other
than assisting with physical surveillance," said FBI agent James Davis.

The FBI has been using airplanes since 1938, when an agent in a Stinson
monoplane helped stop an extortion attempt that involved a payoff
package thrown from a moving passenger train. The first major
deployment happened in 1975 during the investigation of the killings of
two FBI agents at the sprawling Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South
Dakota.

The program has been particularly useful in investigations of organized
crime and drug trafficking. Mobsters who suspected their homes and
telephones were bugged frequently held meetings in moving cars, not
realizing that bugs also were placed there and were being monitored from
the air.

Aircraft are now seen as ideal in the FBI's domestic war on terror. FBI
Director Robert Mueller said last year there was a 60 percent increase
in field office requests for airplanes in the year after the Sept. 11
attacks, with almost 90 percent of air missions now dedicated to
surveillance.

"You don't have a criminal case. You don't necessarily have a terrorism
case. You want to know what they are doing, who their associates are,
who they are meeting with," retired agent Kennedy said. "Surveillance
is going to have a pretty big role in that."

Congress approved this year a $20 million increase in the FBI's aviation
budget but denied a request for two new Black Hawk helicopters. It also
ordered the bureau to develop a master plan for its aviation program.

The FBI also can request aviation help from the Defense Department.
That can involve a great deal of bureaucracy and care, however, to
ensure the military does not violate laws preventing them from doing law
enforcement work within the United States.

---

On the Net: FBI: http://www.fbi.gov

© 2003 The Associated Press

--
"I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty
land will never be purged away, but with blood..."

" John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in
the grave, His soul goes marching on."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: On-line Petition for Ephedra Availability - URGENT
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:52:27 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
CC: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>

Commentor Miss Suzanne Cayley Date/Time 2003-03-16 12:38:10
Organization Miss Suzanne Cayley
Category Health Professional

Comments for FDA General
Questions
1. General Comments I do not believe that ephedrine containing
products should be constrained anymore than they are now. Ephedra is a safe
herb that has been used for thousands of years in China, and even by the
Mormons as a tea substitute for coffee. I believe that it is as safe as
caffeine, and just as dangerous as caffeine if overused. Its risk to benefit
ratio is far greater than many over the counter remedies like naproxen,
dextromethorphan, or diphenhydramine (used for other purposes, but
comparably dangerous in overdose). The number of people who have sustained
numerous health benefits from weight loss far outweigh the very few are far
in between incidences of complications due to misuse or pre-existing
conditions. Furthermore, other persons may have found less documented or
commonly accepted benefits from its use as well. A blanket ban or regulation
would not address any of these helpful functions the compounds provide for
our populace in general. I urge the FDA not put any further restrictions on
ephedra or ephedrine alkaloid containing preparations.

----- Original Message -----
From: +ACI-Robert Goodman+ACI- +ADw-robgood+AEA-bestweb.net+AD4-
To: +ADw-libnw+AEA-immosys.com+AD4-
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 6:40 PM
Subject: Fw: On-line Petition for Ephedra Availability - URGENT

+AD4-
+AD4- ----- Original Message -----
+AD4- From: +ACI-Robert Goodman+ACI- +ADw-t+AD4-
+AD4- To: +ADw-drctalk+AEA-drcnet.org+AD4-
+AD4- Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 7:53 PM
+AD4- Subject: Fw: On-line Petition for Ephedra Availability - URGENT
+AD4-
+AD4-
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- ----- Original Message -----
+AD4- +AD4- From: +ACI-Ralph Fucetola+ACI-
+ADw-ralph.fucetola+AEA-usa.net+AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- To: +ACI-Ralph Fucetola+ACI-
+ADw-ralph.fucetola+AEA-usa.net+AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 1:22 PM
+AD4- +AD4- Subject: On-line Petition for Ephedra Availability - URGENT
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- This request is going out to many people in the health freedom
+AD4- movement,
+AD4- +AD4- requesting that you all forward it to your lists.
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- AN APPEAL TO THE FDA FOR EPHEDRA
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- Dated: March 13, 2003
+AD4- +AD4- To: All Persons Interested in Ephedra Justice
+AD4- +AD4- From: Ralph Fucetola JD
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- If you want to support the availability of ephedra based weight
+AD4- control
+AD4- +AD4- products, please consider the following.
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- The RAND Corporation report, issued Febraury 28, 2003, supports
the
+AD4- safe
+AD4- +AD4- and
+AD4- +AD4- effective use of ephedra as a nutrient to support achieving and
+AD4- +AD4- maintaining a
+AD4- +AD4- normal weight, but the media, not caring for the cautious
language of
+AD4- +AD4- science,
+AD4- +AD4- has twisted the report and created a media frenzy.
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- As a result, the FDA has reopened the comment period for the
ephedra
+AD4- +AD4- rule it
+AD4- +AD4- was considering back in 1997. It delayed rule-making then since
there
+AD4- +AD4- was no
+AD4- +AD4- significant scientific agreement about ephedra at that time.
The new
+AD4- +AD4- comment
+AD4- +AD4- period is to address the following three issues:
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- 1. New Evidence (the RAND Corporation Report)
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- 2. Proposed Warning Statement
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- 3. Whether, in light of current information, the FDA should
determine
+AD4- +AD4- that
+AD4- +AD4- dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids present a
+AD4- +AD4- +IBg-significant or
+AD4- +AD4- unreasonable risk of illness or injury under conditions of use
+AD4- +AD4- recommended or
+AD4- +AD4- suggested in labeling, or if no conditions of use are suggested
or
+AD4- +AD4- recommended
+AD4- +AD4- in the labeling, under ordinary conditions of use.+IB0-
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- There are several things we can do about this:
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- 1. Submit comments directly to the FDA (see below)
+AD4- +AD4- 2. Sign the on-line Ephedra Petition, www.petition.trimspa.com
+AD4- +AD4- 3. Email your Congressperson (see below)
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- Electronic comments may be submitted at
+AD4- +AD4- http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments.
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- Go to the +IBw-Select Docket for Comment+IB0- window in the
middle of the page
+AD4- +AD4- and
+AD4- +AD4- scroll in it all the way down to the bottom, where you will find
-
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- 95N-0304 - Dietary Supplements Containing Ephedrine Alkaloids.
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- Click on it and then click on the Continue button below, and
follow
+AD4- +AD4- directions. Comments must be submitted by April 7, 2003. If
you
+AD4- prefer
+AD4- +AD4- to
+AD4- +AD4- use +IBw-snail-mail+IB0- you can mail comments to: Dockets
Management Branch,
+AD4- +AD4- Food
+AD4- +AD4- and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061, HFA-305,
+AD4- +AD4- Rockville, MD
+AD4- +AD4- 20852., but make sure you include Docket No. 95N-0304.
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- The risk we face here is that FDA is not just considering making
the
+AD4- +AD4- industry
+AD4- +AD4- voluntary warning label (that we use) stricter, but they are
also
+AD4- +AD4- talking
+AD4- +AD4- about banning the combination of ephedra and any stimulant (but,
not
+AD4- +AD4- banning
+AD4- +AD4- ephedra itself, if you read the announcement carefully). We
know that
+AD4- +AD4- there
+AD4- +AD4- is a valuable synergistic effect from combining ephedra and
caffeine
+AD4- so
+AD4- +AD4- such a
+AD4- +AD4- requirement could force us to change our TrimSpa formula.
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- We have only 30 days to flood the FDA with comments. That+IBk-s
where you
+AD4- +AD4- and
+AD4- +AD4- your team members can help. We need lots of consumer emails to
the
+AD4- FDA
+AD4- +AD4- (ideally, not from goengroup.com email addresses+ACE-) telling
the FDA
+AD4- that
+AD4- +AD4- consumers want to have ephedra products available.
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- This is what the RAND Corporation report actually said,
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- +IBw-Main Results. Weight Loss. Short-term use of ephedrine,
ephedrine
+AD4- plus
+AD4- +AD4- caffeine, or dietary supplements containing ephedra with or
without
+AD4- +AD4- herbs
+AD4- +AD4- containing caffeine is associated with a statistically
significant
+AD4- +AD4- increase in
+AD4- +AD4- short-term weight loss (compared to placebo). The addition of
caffeine
+AD4- +AD4- to
+AD4- +AD4- ephedrine is associated with a statistically significant modest
+AD4- increase
+AD4- +AD4- in
+AD4- +AD4- short-term weight loss. The observed effects on weight loss of
+AD4- ephedrine
+AD4- +AD4- plus
+AD4- +AD4- caffeine and ephedra containing dietary supplements with or
without
+AD4- +AD4- herbs
+AD4- +AD4- containing caffeine are approximately equivalent: a weight loss
+AD4- +AD4- approximately
+AD4- +AD4- two pounds per month greater than that with placebo, for up to
four to
+AD4- +AD4- six
+AD4- +AD4- months. No studies have assessed the long-term effects of
ephedrine or
+AD4- +AD4- ephedra
+AD4- +AD4- containing dietary supplements on weight loss+ADs- the longest
published
+AD4- +AD4- treatment
+AD4- +AD4- duration was six months.+IB0-
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- Here is a sample of some things you might want to tell the FDA
--
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- ----------------------------------------------------------------
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- These comments are submitted in reference to FDA Docket 95N-0304
-
+AD4- +AD4- Dietary
+AD4- +AD4- Supplements Containing Ephedrine Alkaloids.
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- I am a consumer of dietary supplements and I am concerned with
the way
+AD4- +AD4- the
+AD4- +AD4- media seems to be distorting the truth about ephedra products.
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- I know many people who needed to lose weight and who were helped
by
+AD4- +AD4- ephedra
+AD4- +AD4- products. While there have been a very few adverse reactions,
as
+AD4- there
+AD4- +AD4- will
+AD4- +AD4- be to any food, ephedra products are much safer than many other
+AD4- consumer
+AD4- +AD4- health care products, for example, aspirin-type products that
kill
+AD4- +AD4- thousands
+AD4- +AD4- of people each year.
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- Of course, there should be a strong warning label on these
products,
+AD4- +AD4- but,
+AD4- +AD4- there does not appear to be any significant or unreasonable risk
of
+AD4- +AD4- harm,
+AD4- +AD4- especially when we consider how much harm obesity causes.
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- The combination of ephedra and caffeine has helped millions of
people
+AD4- +AD4- over the
+AD4- +AD4- past decade, while the record shows that a handful of people,
probably
+AD4- +AD4- abusing
+AD4- +AD4- the products, may have been harmed. Therefore, please do not
ban
+AD4- +AD4- ephedra.
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- ----------------------------------------------------------------
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- Please provide me with a copy of your comments, so we can use
the best
+AD4- +AD4- to
+AD4- +AD4- generate more messages.
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- You may want to +IBw-copy+IB0- (highlight them and use Ctrl-C to
place them in
+AD4- +AD4- temporary storage) your comments and then go to
+AD4- +AD4- http://www.house.gov/writerep
+AD4- +AD4- and find your congressperson and +IBw-paste+IB0- the comments
(Ctrl-V) into an
+AD4- +AD4- email to your representative -- this issue may be won - or lost
- in
+AD4- +AD4- Congress
+AD4- +AD4- and lots of congresspeople are not known for standing up to
media
+AD4- +AD4- frenzy.
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- We know that the needs of consumers are on our side and we know
that
+AD4- the
+AD4- +AD4- science is on our side. The media and certain politicians are
not.
+AD4- +AD4- That is
+AD4- +AD4- why we need a flood of friendly letters to the FDA.
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- Please forward this message to as many people as you can.
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- Ralph Fucetola, JD
+AD4- +AD4- http://www.vitaminlawyer.com
+AD4- +AD4- All Rights Reserved
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4-
+AD4-
+AD4- -------------------------------------------------------------------
+AD4- LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
+AD4-
+AD4- To subscribe: libnw-subscribe+AEA-immosys.com
+AD4- To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe+AEA-immosys.com
+AD4- Other commands: libnw-info+AEA-immosys.com
+AD4- Admin matters: moderator+AEA-liberty-northwest.org
+AD4-
+AD4- URLs for Liberty Northwest:
+AD4- Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
+AD4- Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
+AD4- -------------------------------------------------------------------
+AD4-

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Robert's suckers - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 21:30:52 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<quicksilver810@yahoo.com>

Frank, Others,

Gawd damn-it, Frank. The last time Robert was called on to defend his BS
definition of liberty, he diverted things from his responsibility to a
discussion of the masochism of cats. Michelle took his bait, and now we are
no longer friends.

And today, failing to defend his definition, he diverted your attention with
a discussion of "marriage", who can and who can't, and what does the word
mean. And he equivocates about the meaning of liberty nearly every damned
day!!

Robert is a **master** dillentante, Frank, with one damned goal, to prove
how smart he is and win arguments, any damned way he can.

Quit it with rising to his hook, Frank, as Michelle did.

I don't want to lose two friends. This discussion of "queer" marriages came
out of no where, as a diversion. A DIVERSION FRANK, AND YOU TOOK THE HOOK.

As I see it, Frank, that makes you Robert's sucker, as Michelle once was.

Sincerely,

Larry

How the "F" did we get from Robert and Bill's definition of liberty, to a
"horse is not a chair", to "queer" marriages. I'll tell ya how. Because
Robert has become used to leading the discussion any damned where he wants,
to avoid defending his own BS.

So, Robert, I don't want to offend Gary with my cussing, but you are up to
nothing but bullshit!! The helluva it is, you are such a master
dillintante, I figure, taking heat from Gary, today, with Ken gone - You're
gonna win this dillintante war. Well, Robert, who the "f" are you going to
win wars with when everyone is gone? - with me the next, following in Ken's
footsteps.


on 3/16/03 4:30 AM, Frank M. Reichert at frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com
wrote:

> Hello Robert!
>
> Robert Goodman wrote to everyone...
>
>> (BTW, I oppose laws that attempt to redefine "marriage" away from its
>> traditional meaning. There are better ways to allow persons freedom to
>> associate than to try to change the meaning of a word.)
>
> Maybe so. But I find this hard to believe that in your subjective mindset,
> that matching queers with queers is really anything that could be
> objectively stated as "right and/or wrong". Only your own opinion,
correct?
> So, why not just change the dictionary definitions? Words seem to change
> meaning all the time, as they do seemingly all the time.
>
> Do you here appeal to historical precedent and meaning? Or, simply YOUR
own
> personal preference for such change in definition? It appears here that
YOU
> want to lock in the historical definition. Why should, in that argument,
> YOU have the right to do so in this case?
>
> Kindest regards,
> Frank
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:52:03 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<quicksilver810@yahoo.com>,
<tami@noreboots.com>

Bill, Others,

I just spent two damned hours replying to your BS, and my system dived.

Tell ya how damned sick i think your horse shit is, I'm gonna try to
reconstruct.

You wrote:

"He, (Larry) as many Libertarians do,
*claims* that all enforcement of morals on others is a violation of
liberty or freedom, yet lives in a perpetual state of denial that to
enforce rights is to do the same thing -- all while declaring that
morality is the cause and sole source of libertarian thinking".

HEY, BUD, SELF-DEFENSE, IN RELATION TO RAPE OR BUGGERY, AIN'T EXACTLY THE
SAME THING AS THE INITAION OF FORCE BY TED BUNDY, OR ANY OTHER RAPISTS!!

SORRY YOUR SUCH A DUMB SHIT, NOT BEING ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE 'TWEEN
RAPE AND CONSENT!!

Bill, read yourself!! Enforcing self-defense, liberty, and rights, is no
damed different than Ted Bundy's goals, so you say. It's just a question of
who has the most power. Well, Bill, that makes you a dillentante, or a
siccko. Either way, I wish you'd get outta of my face.

As I see it, Bill, you're a sick "F", equating self-defense with agression,
with no moral standard by which to distinguish.

Like I wrote, Bill, I responded at lenght, not that you were worth it.

I'm tired now. Only damned thing I got to do now is do my best to make sure
Tami has read you!!

So, Tami, Michelle, in case you missed it, Bill, backing up Robert, has
again!!!! argued that the rapists and the rapee are equal, morally. It's
just a question of who has the most *might*!! Of course, so he says, after
months, "it was just a casual comment".

You're a sick fuck, Bill, as is Robert!!!!!!!

KIck me out Gary!!!!!! I wanna be gone!!, along with Ken.

sincerely,

larry

SO, 'CHELLE, WITH THIS ON MY MIND, IT WAS NOT A REAL GOOD TIME FOR YOU TO
TAKE ROBERT'S "CAT'S MASOCHISM" HOOK. I FIGURE YOU AIN'T GOT THE SLIGHTEST
IDEA WHAT I'M SAYING. OH, WELL, BEEN THERE, DONE THAT.

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 08:56:44 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Aw Larry, yu jus too hot headed!

I half think these guys just put that shit out there to see you blow your
top.
When they get that rediculous so as to equate using force to protect
yourself as the same as a wonton act of aggression, then you have to do two
things, questions whether they even understand the precepts by which they
are spouting off, and/or just take them as the comical buffoons they are
acting like.

Thats how I do it; when I see them back-peddling on their position, or
trying to obfuscate the conversation, then I know I have won my point, cause
that is usually the best y'gonna get out of someone who absolutely refuses
to admit they were wrong.
At that point I don't try beating a dead horse, cause I know, and I know
others who witnesses it know, that they are just acting like babies who
couldn't get their own way.

----- Original Message -----
From: "larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>; <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>; <tami@noreboots.com>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 3:52 AM
Subject: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........

>
> Bill, Others,
>
> I just spent two damned hours replying to your BS, and my system dived.
>
> Tell ya how damned sick i think your horse shit is, I'm gonna try to
> reconstruct.
>
> You wrote:
>
> "He, (Larry) as many Libertarians do,
> *claims* that all enforcement of morals on others is a violation of
> liberty or freedom, yet lives in a perpetual state of denial that to
> enforce rights is to do the same thing -- all while declaring that
> morality is the cause and sole source of libertarian thinking".
>
> HEY, BUD, SELF-DEFENSE, IN RELATION TO RAPE OR BUGGERY, AIN'T EXACTLY THE
> SAME THING AS THE INITAION OF FORCE BY TED BUNDY, OR ANY OTHER RAPISTS!!
>
> SORRY YOUR SUCH A DUMB SHIT, NOT BEING ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE 'TWEEN
> RAPE AND CONSENT!!
>
> Bill, read yourself!! Enforcing self-defense, liberty, and rights, is no
> damed different than Ted Bundy's goals, so you say. It's just a question
of
> who has the most power. Well, Bill, that makes you a dillentante, or a
> siccko. Either way, I wish you'd get outta of my face.
>
> As I see it, Bill, you're a sick "F", equating self-defense with
agression,
> with no moral standard by which to distinguish.
>
> Like I wrote, Bill, I responded at lenght, not that you were worth it.
>
> I'm tired now. Only damned thing I got to do now is do my best to make
sure
> Tami has read you!!
>
> So, Tami, Michelle, in case you missed it, Bill, backing up Robert, has
> again!!!! argued that the rapists and the rapee are equal, morally. It's
> just a question of who has the most *might*!! Of course, so he says,
after
> months, "it was just a casual comment".
>
> You're a sick fuck, Bill, as is Robert!!!!!!!
>
> KIck me out Gary!!!!!! I wanna be gone!!, along with Ken.
>
> sincerely,
>
> larry
>
> SO, 'CHELLE, WITH THIS ON MY MIND, IT WAS NOT A REAL GOOD TIME FOR YOU TO
> TAKE ROBERT'S "CAT'S MASOCHISM" HOOK. I FIGURE YOU AIN'T GOT THE
SLIGHTEST
> IDEA WHAT I'M SAYING. OH, WELL, BEEN THERE, DONE THAT.
>
>
>
>
>
> LF
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:12:56 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Aw Larry, yu jus too hot headed!

> I half think these guys just put that shit out there to see you blow
your
> top.

No, I don't think anybody here is trolling for Larries.

> When they get that rediculous so as to equate using force to protect
> yourself as the same as a wonton act of aggression,

Nobody's doing that. It's just Larry twisting things.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: 17 Mar 2003 08:37:08 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 06:56, G Triest wrote:
> Aw Larry, yu jus too hot headed!
>
> I half think these guys just put that shit out there to see you blow your
> top.
> When they get that rediculous so as to equate using force to protect
> yourself as the same as a wonton act of aggression, then you have to do
two
> things, questions whether they even understand the precepts by which they
> are spouting off, and/or just take them as the comical buffoons they are
> acting like.

Or option 3, consider the possibility that Larry is twisting things to
say things. Especially given his history of doing it. Larry simply
doesn't understand the basic concepts, and has severe difficulties
understanding anybody that disagrees with him, even if only in his mind.
If he's feeling good and you say something he likes, you are suddenly
"the smartest person he ever knew" and do on and so forth. say something
where he disagrees or even thinks he does, and you are a fascist
bastard. With friends like that, liberty doesn't need enemies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: 17 Mar 2003 08:37:51 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 08:12, Robert Goodman wrote:
> "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Aw Larry, yu jus too hot headed!
>
> > I half think these guys just put that shit out there to see you blow
> your
> > top.
>
> No, I don't think anybody here is trolling for Larries.

Nah, it's be to easy. Though he is very predictable.

>
> > When they get that rediculous so as to equate using force to protect
> > yourself as the same as a wonton act of aggression,
>
> Nobody's doing that. It's just Larry twisting things.

Bingo.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:59:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

> Thats how I do it; when I see them back-peddling on
> their position, or
> trying to obfuscate the conversation, then I know I
> have won my point, cause
> that is usually the best y'gonna get out of someone
> who absolutely refuses
> to admit they were wrong.
> At that point I don't try beating a dead horse,
> cause I know, and I know
> others who witnesses it know, that they are just
> acting like babies who
> couldn't get their own way.

You're absolutely right, Gary!

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:14:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

> > When they get that rediculous so as to equate
> using force to protect
> > yourself as the same as a wonton act of
> aggression,
>
> Nobody's doing that. It's just Larry twisting
> things.

Well, Larry enormously exaggerated the extent to which
anyone here is equating self-defense with aggression.
However, you did say some time ago that it was just as
much an imposition for a woman to prevent a man from
raping her as it was a man to try to rape a woman.
This sloppy use of the word "impose" certainly does
blur the line between self-defence and aggression and
is what set Larry of an his rampage that is continuing
through the present day.

And actually, I've seen quite a number of posts that
indicate the writer doesn't/can't distinguish between
self-defense and aggression. Not too long ago, Tim
Bedding wrote something to the effect of: You
shouldn't say all initiation of force is wrong because
what would do without police?

Larry twists people's statements and points of view
around with great frequency, but doesn't mean he's
*always* doing so. Occassionally he's actually right.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: 17 Mar 2003 14:16:06 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 14:14, Michelle wrote:
> > > When they get that rediculous so as to equate
> > using force to protect
> > > yourself as the same as a wonton act of
> > aggression,
> >
> > Nobody's doing that. It's just Larry twisting
> > things.
>
> Well, Larry enormously exaggerated the extent to which
> anyone here is equating self-defense with aggression.
> However, you did say some time ago that it was just as
> much an imposition for a woman to prevent a man from
> raping her as it was a man to try to rape a woman.
> This sloppy use of the word "impose" certainly does
> blur the line between self-defence and aggression and
> is what set Larry of an his rampage that is continuing
> through the present day.
>
> And actually, I've seen quite a number of posts that
> indicate the writer doesn't/can't distinguish between
> self-defense and aggression. Not too long ago, Tim
> Bedding wrote something to the effect of: You
> shouldn't say all initiation of force is wrong because
> what would do without police?
>
> Larry twists people's statements and points of view
> around with great frequency, but doesn't mean he's
> *always* doing so. Occassionally he's actually right.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. ;^)

Occasionally, Bush is right. As is -occasionally- most everyone, to
include fascists, statists, and socialists.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:00:29 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Well, Larry enormously exaggerated the extent to which
> anyone here is equating self-defense with aggression.
> However, you did say some time ago that it was just as
> much an imposition for a woman to prevent a man from
> raping her as it was a man to try to rape a woman.
> This sloppy use of the word "impose" certainly does
> blur the line between self-defence and aggression and
> is what set Larry of an his rampage that is continuing
> through the present day.

It's not a SLOPPY use of the word, just different from the one he may
have expected.

> And actually, I've seen quite a number of posts that
> indicate the writer doesn't/can't distinguish between
> self-defense and aggression. Not too long ago, Tim
> Bedding wrote something to the effect of: You
> shouldn't say all initiation of force is wrong because
> what would do without police?

Then apparently you don't realize that many libertarians have pointed
out the difficulty of the concept of "initiation" in this context. It's
not as easy as you may wish to think. Robert LeFevre, one of the
leading libertarian thinkers of the 20th Century, pointed this out and
concluded that any use of force is an initiation -- that there is no
meaningful, nonarbitrary distinction between use & initiation. While I
think he's wrong, his position was tenable.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: 17 Mar 2003 19:22:02 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 18:00, Robert Goodman wrote:
> "Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, Larry enormously exaggerated the extent to which
> > anyone here is equating self-defense with aggression.
> > However, you did say some time ago that it was just as
> > much an imposition for a woman to prevent a man from
> > raping her as it was a man to try to rape a woman.
> > This sloppy use of the word "impose" certainly does
> > blur the line between self-defence and aggression and
> > is what set Larry of an his rampage that is continuing
> > through the present day.
>
> It's not a SLOPPY use of the word, just different from the one he may
> have expected.

Yes, many people have emotional baggage attached to the word impose.

> > And actually, I've seen quite a number of posts that
> > indicate the writer doesn't/can't distinguish between
> > self-defense and aggression. Not too long ago, Tim
> > Bedding wrote something to the effect of: You
> > shouldn't say all initiation of force is wrong because
> > what would do without police?
>
> Then apparently you don't realize that many libertarians have pointed
> out the difficulty of the concept of "initiation" in this context. It's
> not as easy as you may wish to think. Robert LeFevre, one of the
> leading libertarian thinkers of the 20th Century, pointed this out and
> concluded that any use of force is an initiation -- that there is no
> meaningful, nonarbitrary distinction between use & initiation. While I
> think he's wrong, his position was tenable.

I must agree with you on this Robert. Many people's first reaction to
the pledge is that they can not be a cop and sign the pledge. Why? To
many (most?) people you are initiating force if you intervene to stop
one person from pummeling another. Why is that initiating? The attacker
did not attack you, so between you and he, it is an initiation of force.
Just because person a initiates force against person b, that does not
mean person a is now open to force being used against him by others and
it not be an initiation.

To the common person, when a Libertarian comes back in that scenario and
claims it is not an initiation of force by person c, they appear to be
arguing a special pleading. At that point we lose people that really are
libertarians. "Who started it" is not always so clear, as any parent of
multiple children will tell you.

I think it is an interesting note that David Nolan's "indispensable
five" "points of no compromise" are:
1. You Own Yourself
2. The right to self-defense
3. No "criminal possession" laws
4. No taxes on productivity
5. A sound money system

http://www.lp.org/lpn/9503-essence.html

Then again, David Nolan is not wrapped up in a morass of "My morality is
superior" over the NIF oath he wrote.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:55:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net> wrote:
> "Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, Larry enormously exaggerated the extent to
> which
> > anyone here is equating self-defense with
> aggression.
> > However, you did say some time ago that it was
> just as
> > much an imposition for a woman to prevent a man
> from
> > raping her as it was a man to try to rape a woman.
> > This sloppy use of the word "impose" certainly
> does
> > blur the line between self-defence and aggression
> and
> > is what set Larry of an his rampage that is
> continuing
> > through the present day.
>
> It's not a SLOPPY use of the word, just different
> from the one he may
> have expected.

It *is* sloppy, but the definition of "impose" is not
a word definition I consider to be worth arguing
about.

> > And actually, I've seen quite a number of posts
> that
> > indicate the writer doesn't/can't distinguish
> between
> > self-defense and aggression. Not too long ago,
> Tim
> > Bedding wrote something to the effect of: You
> > shouldn't say all initiation of force is wrong
> because
> > what would do without police?
>
> Then apparently you don't realize that many
> libertarians have pointed
> out the difficulty of the concept of "initiation" in
> this context. It's
> not as easy as you may wish to think. Robert
> LeFevre, one of the
> leading libertarian thinkers of the 20th Century,
> pointed this out and
> concluded that any use of force is an initiation --
> that there is no
> meaningful, nonarbitrary distinction between use &
> initiation. While I
> think he's wrong, his position was tenable.

I am well aware of the fact that there are "pacifist"
libertarians totally opposed to the initiation of
force. I am also well aware that it is not always
*easy* to determine whether some particular use of
force is an initiation of force or defensive. That
doesn't change the fact most libertarians accept the
idea that "self defense" is different from "initiating
force" and that the former is acceptable while the
latter is not.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:03:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

> Then again, David Nolan is not wrapped up in a
> morass of "My morality is
> superior" over the NIF oath he wrote.

Not surprising since Nolan couldn't have had much
involvement with the pledge's origin other than
possibly determining the exact arrangement of the
words. The concept of the oath and much of the
wording of the oath were around long before the LP was
formed. The pledge is hardly Nolan's creation.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:51:03 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote...

Michelle Eilers originally wrote:
> > Well, Larry enormously exaggerated the extent to which
> > anyone here is equating self-defense with aggression.
> > However, you did say some time ago that it was just as
> > much an imposition for a woman to prevent a man from
> > raping her as it was a man to try to rape a woman.
> > This sloppy use of the word "impose" certainly does
> > blur the line between self-defence and aggression and
> > is what set Larry of an his rampage that is continuing
> > through the present day.

To which you replied:
> It's not a SLOPPY use of the word, just different from the one he may
> have expected.

Michelle is correct, it does blur the distinction between self-defence, and
aggression. An aggressor has forfeited his rights against becoming the
recipient of force in order to end such aggression, although in many
instances the "law" doesn't see it that way. In some cases, certain states
have given aggressors (such as trespassers in a botched burglary attempt)
legal recourse for physical injury resulting when the homeowner uses violent
force to stop the aggression.

A lot of people seem to feel the very same way. Several years ago (around
1985 I believe), I parked my car along the street adjacent to the US Naval
Station in San Diego, and reported to work aboard ship. I had the night
shift. The next morning when I went back to my car, it had been forcibly
opened, and vandalized, rendering its value much less than it was
previously. Naturally, I was very angry. The next day while eating lunch
aboard ship, I discussed what had taken place the night before. I mentioned
that I would have "loved" to have been across the street in a concealed van,
and blown away with a 12-guage shotgun, the gang that forced open the car
doors and vandalized my property. Many were horrified that I could even say
such a thing! You just don't do such things in a civilized society I was
told!

Well, just how "civilized" were the thugs that willfully destroyed my
property? Obviously, we don't live in a civilized society. In my way of
thinking, once again, anyone who chooses and embarks upon such crimes, loses
their rights to life, liberty and property. I also made the remarks that if
more people did what I had advocated, such violent crime in San Diego would
be immediately reduced rapidly as gangs came under the righteous wrath of
property owners. Of course, most of the ones I was talking to believed that
was the police's job! Well, they didn't do a very good job in protecting my
property against vandalizm, nor did they ever apprehend whoever was
responsible for the vandalism. Again, I would opt for staking out the car
myself in a concealed van across the street armed with a 12-guage shotgun.
At least that segment of the "gang" wouldn't be around to vandalize anyone
else's property in the near future.

Question Robert: Would *I* be initiating force, or only self-defending my
own private property against aggression? You decide.

> Then apparently you don't realize that many libertarians have pointed
> out the difficulty of the concept of "initiation" in this context. It's
> not as easy as you may wish to think. Robert LeFevre, one of the
> leading libertarian thinkers of the 20th Century, pointed this out and
> concluded that any use of force is an initiation -- that there is no
> meaningful, nonarbitrary distinction between use & initiation. While I
> think he's wrong, his position was tenable.

So, *why* do you believe he was wrong?

Anyway, the pledge is very clear, and particularly restrictive. It's causal
definition of initiation of force is specifically targeted toward those who
wish to use such force to gain political or social goals. In reading the
pledge several times during the course of the last decade or so, it is clear
it doesn't address such things as parents spanking their children, or
aggressive business tactics, but rather is targeted toward a political
deminsion in terms of political and social goals that are achieved by
initiating force to attain such objectives.

I personally believe that the pledge has much more to do with people
promoting government force to achieve what they cannot do normally in the
course of their own lives. In other words, people can't really coerse their
neighbours to line their own pockets without breaking the law in some way.
But they can delegate that function to government to do it for
them in the form a income redistribution, and other schemes. In either
case, the Libertarian Party is certainly opposed to both individuals doing
that to each other, or in delegating that power to the government to
accomplish the same theft on their behalf.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:07:14 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org> wrote in part:

> > Then apparently you don't realize that many libertarians have
pointed
> > out the difficulty of the concept of "initiation" in this context.
It's
> > not as easy as you may wish to think. Robert LeFevre, one of the
> > leading libertarian thinkers of the 20th Century, pointed this out
and
> > concluded that any use of force is an initiation -- that there is no
> > meaningful, nonarbitrary distinction between use & initiation.
While I
> > think he's wrong, his position was tenable.

> I must agree with you on this Robert. Many people's first reaction to
> the pledge is that they can not be a cop and sign the pledge. Why? To
> many (most?) people you are initiating force if you intervene to stop
> one person from pummeling another. Why is that initiating? The
attacker
> did not attack you, so between you and he, it is an initiation of
force.

Not only that, but by his analysis of the common meaning of "initiate",
if at time < 0 you're not doing something and then at time 0 you start
doing it, then regardless of what anybody else was doing, you initiated
doing whatever it was. Initiate = start.

It'd be a little clearer if one foreswore being "the first" to use
force, but then of course you have a nice loophole in that once person A
starts beating up person B, you can beat up B too, because you weren't
the first.

Truly I So Briney,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:34:36 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I am well aware of the fact that there are "pacifist"
> libertarians totally opposed to the initiation of
> force. I am also well aware that it is not always
> *easy* to determine whether some particular use of
> force is an initiation of force or defensive. That
> doesn't change the fact most libertarians accept the
> idea that "self defense" is different from "initiating
> force" and that the former is acceptable while the
> latter is not.

Only self defense? How about defense of others? How about some forms
of retribution?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:49:57 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com> wrote in part:

> > > Well, Larry enormously exaggerated the extent to which
> > > anyone here is equating self-defense with aggression.
> > > However, you did say some time ago that it was just as
> > > much an imposition for a woman to prevent a man from
> > > raping her as it was a man to try to rape a woman.
> > > This sloppy use of the word "impose" certainly does
> > > blur the line between self-defence and aggression and
> > > is what set Larry of an his rampage that is continuing
> > > through the present day.

> > It's not a SLOPPY use of the word, just different from the one he
may
> > have expected.

> Michelle is correct, it does blur the distinction between
self-defence, and
> aggression.

I don't see how imposing a scheme of defense, and using the word
"impose" to describe such adoption, blurs the distinction between
defense and aggression.

> Several years ago (around
> 1985 I believe), I parked my car along the street adjacent to the US
Naval
> Station in San Diego, and reported to work aboard ship. I had the
night
> shift. The next morning when I went back to my car, it had been
forcibly
> opened, and vandalized, rendering its value much less than it was
> previously. Naturally, I was very angry. The next day while eating
lunch
> aboard ship, I discussed what had taken place the night before. I
mentioned
> that I would have "loved" to have been across the street in a
concealed van,
> and blown away with a 12-guage shotgun, the gang that forced open the
car
> doors and vandalized my property. Many were horrified that I could
even say
> such a thing! You just don't do such things in a civilized society I
was
> told!...

> Question Robert: Would *I* be initiating force, or only self-defending
my
> own private property against aggression? You decide.

How much damage to your car would change how much lead from a shotgun
from aggression to defense?

> > Then apparently you don't realize that many libertarians have
pointed
> > out the difficulty of the concept of "initiation" in this context.
It's
> > not as easy as you may wish to think. Robert LeFevre, one of the
> > leading libertarian thinkers of the 20th Century, pointed this out
and
> > concluded that any use of force is an initiation -- that there is no
> > meaningful, nonarbitrary distinction between use & initiation.
While I
> > think he's wrong, his position was tenable.

> So, *why* do you believe he was wrong?

Because I think it possible to come up with SOME ways to distinguish
between force & aggression even if, as shown by your shotgun example,
it's not easy in many cases to draw such a line. In any case, simply
referring to the phrase "initiation of force" doesn't cut it (it settles
no arguments) but LeFevre, although he "bristled" at being called a
pacifist (or an anarchist, preferring to be called "autarchist"), fit
the definition of some radical forms of pacifist. In other words,
although he criticized Rand's (and LP's) formulation by that phrase, it
didn't stop there; rather he considered it futile and/or undesirable to
distinguish aggression from force in general.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: 18 Mar 2003 10:13:17 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 07:49, Robert Goodman wrote:
> "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com> wrote in part:
>
> > > > Well, Larry enormously exaggerated the extent to which
> > > > anyone here is equating self-defense with aggression.
> > > > However, you did say some time ago that it was just as
> > > > much an imposition for a woman to prevent a man from
> > > > raping her as it was a man to try to rape a woman.
> > > > This sloppy use of the word "impose" certainly does
> > > > blur the line between self-defence and aggression and
> > > > is what set Larry of an his rampage that is continuing
> > > > through the present day.
>
> > > It's not a SLOPPY use of the word, just different from the one he
> may
> > > have expected.
>
> > Michelle is correct, it does blur the distinction between
> self-defence, and
> > aggression.
>
> I don't see how imposing a scheme of defense, and using the word
> "impose" to describe such adoption, blurs the distinction between
> defense and aggression.

Let me help you out Robert: Attache a boatload of emotional baggage to
the word "impose", and choose to bristle at any use of the word that
fits the definition but interferes with your emotional baggage.

> > Several years ago (around
> > 1985 I believe), I parked my car along the street adjacent to the US
> Naval
> > Station in San Diego, and reported to work aboard ship. I had the
> night
> > shift. The next morning when I went back to my car, it had been
> forcibly
> > opened, and vandalized, rendering its value much less than it was
> > previously. Naturally, I was very angry. The next day while eating
> lunch
> > aboard ship, I discussed what had taken place the night before. I
> mentioned
> > that I would have "loved" to have been across the street in a
> concealed van,
> > and blown away with a 12-guage shotgun, the gang that forced open the
> car
> > doors and vandalized my property. Many were horrified that I could
> even say
> > such a thing! You just don't do such things in a civilized society I
> was
> > told!...
>
> > Question Robert: Would *I* be initiating force, or only self-defending
> my
> > own private property against aggression? You decide.
>
> How much damage to your car would change how much lead from a shotgun
> from aggression to defense?

It took me a second to figure out what you said here. But, yes, the
amount of damage and the threat applied do matter. If Frank just sat
over there and killed them for starting to damage his "booby trapped"
car, he'd better hope I wasn't on the jury. I'd call it murder. Anybody
seen Minority Report?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: 18 Mar 2003 10:14:47 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 07:07, Robert Goodman wrote:
> "Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org> wrote in part:
>
> > > Then apparently you don't realize that many libertarians have
> pointed
> > > out the difficulty of the concept of "initiation" in this context.
> It's
> > > not as easy as you may wish to think. Robert LeFevre, one of the
> > > leading libertarian thinkers of the 20th Century, pointed this out
> and
> > > concluded that any use of force is an initiation -- that there is no
> > > meaningful, nonarbitrary distinction between use & initiation.
> While I
> > > think he's wrong, his position was tenable.
>
> > I must agree with you on this Robert. Many people's first reaction to
> > the pledge is that they can not be a cop and sign the pledge. Why? To
> > many (most?) people you are initiating force if you intervene to stop
> > one person from pummeling another. Why is that initiating? The
> attacker
> > did not attack you, so between you and he, it is an initiation of
> force.
>
> Not only that, but by his analysis of the common meaning of "initiate",
> if at time < 0 you're not doing something and then at time 0 you start
> doing it, then regardless of what anybody else was doing, you initiated
> doing whatever it was. Initiate = start.
>
> It'd be a little clearer if one foreswore being "the first" to use
> force, but then of course you have a nice loophole in that once person A
> starts beating up person B, you can beat up B too, because you weren't
> the first.

Libertarians already have that loophole. Of course, most only apply it
to people.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:37:18 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org> wrote in part:

> It took me a second to figure out what you said here. But, yes, the
> amount of damage and the threat applied do matter. If Frank just sat
> over there and killed them for starting to damage his "booby trapped"
> car, he'd better hope I wasn't on the jury. I'd call it murder.
Anybody
> seen Minority Report?

I did, but I can't figure out the reference.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:31:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net> wrote:
> "Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I am well aware of the fact that there are
> "pacifist"
> > libertarians totally opposed to the initiation of
> > force. I am also well aware that it is not always
> > *easy* to determine whether some particular use of
> > force is an initiation of force or defensive.
> That
> > doesn't change the fact most libertarians accept
> the
> > idea that "self defense" is different from
> "initiating
> > force" and that the former is acceptable while the
> > latter is not.
>
> Only self defense? How about defense of others?
> How about some forms
> of retribution?

Read what I wrote again. I meant exactly what I said.
Libertarians most assuredly believe lots of things
besides self defense are acceptable (buying CDs,
watching R-rated movies, engaging in premarital sex),
but what I was talking about was self-defense and aggression.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:24:45 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Bawb:

Am I the little kid who sees no clothes on the emperor?

"Inititation" of anything, means the first act of something.
Retaliation means a response to an initiation.

A rapist is the initiator of an unwanted infringement of the rapee's
freedoms.

The rapee who shoots him dead is using a retaliating (or prophylactic) force
in response to the rapist's initiation of force.
How can you conceptually complicate that to make it unmeaningful in
distinction?

Police (when doint their job) also don't initiate force, they too respond to
an existing (or immediately obvious) infringement of someone else liberties.

Many libertarians believe in ghosts. Doesn't make it true. Hold your own
argument, and stop trying to put some amorphous authority on 'many
libertarians', or even a few famous ones.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........

> "Michelle" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, Larry enormously exaggerated the extent to which
> > anyone here is equating self-defense with aggression.
> > However, you did say some time ago that it was just as
> > much an imposition for a woman to prevent a man from
> > raping her as it was a man to try to rape a woman.
> > This sloppy use of the word "impose" certainly does
> > blur the line between self-defence and aggression and
> > is what set Larry of an his rampage that is continuing
> > through the present day.
>
> It's not a SLOPPY use of the word, just different from the one he may
> have expected.
>
> > And actually, I've seen quite a number of posts that
> > indicate the writer doesn't/can't distinguish between
> > self-defense and aggression. Not too long ago, Tim
> > Bedding wrote something to the effect of: You
> > shouldn't say all initiation of force is wrong because
> > what would do without police?
>
> Then apparently you don't realize that many libertarians have pointed
> out the difficulty of the concept of "initiation" in this context. It's
> not as easy as you may wish to think. Robert LeFevre, one of the
> leading libertarian thinkers of the 20th Century, pointed this out and
> concluded that any use of force is an initiation -- that there is no
> meaningful, nonarbitrary distinction between use & initiation. While I
> think he's wrong, his position was tenable.
>
> In Your Sly Tribe,
> Robert
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:33:31 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

A cop is not a private citizen, but has made a public proclaimation that he
will spontaneously enforce the laws of the land, and in fact after he makes
such a proclaimation he owes a legal duty to the public and person within it
to uphold it.

Given that this is his public contract, his intervention between an attacker
and victim is not initiation; rather like the victim who retaliates or
attacks back, the policeman is responding to the attacker's breach of law.
There are several ways to look at it, but perhaps the simplest would be that
the policeman is an agent of the victim. The victim responds by proxy
against his attacker via the policeman. If you would not fault the victim in
responding in force to his attacke then you cannot fault the policeman
either.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org>

>>Robert Goodman:
> >
> > . . . . apparently you don't realize that many libertarians have pointed
> > out the difficulty of the concept of "initiation" in this context. It's
> > not as easy as you may wish to think. Robert LeFevre, one of the
> > leading libertarian thinkers of the 20th Century, pointed this out and
> > concluded that any use of force is an initiation -- that there is no
> > meaningful, nonarbitrary distinction between use & initiation. While I
> > think he's wrong, his position was tenable.
>
> I must agree with you on this Robert. Many people's first reaction to
> the pledge is that they can not be a cop and sign the pledge. Why? To
> many (most?) people you are initiating force if you intervene to stop
> one person from pummeling another. Why is that initiating? The attacker
> did not attack you, so between you and he, it is an initiation of force.
> Just because person a initiates force against person b, that does not
> mean person a is now open to force being used against him by others and
> it not be an initiation.
>
> To the common person, when a Libertarian comes back in that scenario and
> claims it is not an initiation of force by person c, they appear to be
> arguing a special pleading. At that point we lose people that really are
> libertarians. "Who started it" is not always so clear, as any parent of
> multiple children will tell you.
>
> I think it is an interesting note that David Nolan's "indispensable
> five" "points of no compromise" are:
> 1. You Own Yourself
> 2. The right to self-defense
> 3. No "criminal possession" laws
> 4. No taxes on productivity
> 5. A sound money system
>
> http://www.lp.org/lpn/9503-essence.html
>
> Then again, David Nolan is not wrapped up in a morass of "My morality is
> superior" over the NIF oath he wrote.
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: 18 Mar 2003 23:27:20 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 23:33, G Triest wrote:
> A cop is not a private citizen, but has made a public proclaimation that
he
> will spontaneously enforce the laws of the land, and in fact after he
makes
> such a proclaimation he owes a legal duty to the public and person within
it
> to uphold it.

Gary, not all cops are government.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:43:04 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

I don't see how that makes a practical difference.
So, you have a privately chartered policeman. Same interactions. Perhaps
different venues.

I could even see vigiliante policemen. If they formally document there
public charter then again there is not difference.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:27 AM
Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........

> On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 23:33, G Triest wrote:
> > A cop is not a private citizen, but has made a public proclaimation that
he
> > will spontaneously enforce the laws of the land, and in fact after he
makes
> > such a proclaimation he owes a legal duty to the public and person
within it
> > to uphold it.
>
> Gary, not all cops are government.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: 19 Mar 2003 00:05:48 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 23:24, G Triest wrote:
> Bawb:
>
> Am I the little kid who sees no clothes on the emperor?
>
> "Inititation" of anything, means the first act of something.

Incomplete. Initiation applies to a specific scenario/situation. Your
definition is too broad. After all, the first act of aggression was done
millennia ago.

> Retaliation means a response to an initiation.

Not quite, retaliation means to return like for like. which means among
other things, that only the one who initially received the attack can
return it. Just as I can not refund the money someone else took from
you, neither can you retaliate if you are not the one attacked.

> A rapist is the initiator of an unwanted infringement of the rapee's
> freedoms.

> The rapee who shoots him dead is using a retaliating (or prophylactic)
force
> in response to the rapist's initiation of force.

What about the guy across the street. Really Gary, you are arguing a
strawman here. I specifically referred to third parties, and for a good
reason. That's what I was talking about.

> How can you conceptually complicate that to make it unmeaningful in
> distinction?

I didn't, you have built a man of straw.

> Police (when doint their job) also don't initiate force, they too respond
to
> an existing (or immediately obvious) infringement of someone else
liberties.

If you are not the one attacked, you are initiating force. One can not
retaliate until attacked. Now, before everybody gets their panties in a
wad, I am not saying it is wrong, just what it is. It *is* an initiation
of force, however one we generally accept as reasonable. Just as we
accept that self-defense is reasonable, and that locking a murderer away
and removing from him most of his liberties as an acceptable
infringement of rights. Frank may (has, IIRC) *claim* he/she "forfeited"
them, but that is no different an argument then saying those who do not
meet a given other set of requirements forfeit their rights. As Michelle
has pointed out, it is not always easy to tell who was the aggressor.

A simple case is: you see some guy beating up some other guy. So you
respond by initiating force against the "attacker" what you don't know
is that the "attacker" was doing exactly that. Just one of dozens, if
not hundreds or thousands of examples.

> Many libertarians believe in ghosts. Doesn't make it true. Hold your own
> argument, and stop trying to put some amorphous authority on 'many
> libertarians', or even a few famous ones.

Try reading beyond superficial prejudices. I pointed out the issues over
many ( many enough to have caused the Dallas Accords, a major rift in
the party, many enough to cause a split in the Arizona LP ) not to say
an argument was correct, merely that it *existed*. Even among
libertarians the NIF means different things. That was the point.

If it is true that many libertarians believe in ghosts then it is true
that many libertarians believe in ghosts. It would stand in opposition
to a claim that libertarians agree that ghosts do not exist, or that the
supernatural and libertarians are at odds.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:47:36 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Gary,

I was going to come home from work tonight, and before I read any of the
days posts, write one last communication to Bill and Robert, and then say
"If I read no *reason* in today's posts - if I see no life-preserver, as it
were, I'm gone. Well, out of habit, I pushed send/recieve, and there you
were at the top-of-the-list. Well, I've been impressed by you, the little
I've read (although it did put me off a bit that you, like Michelle (in
spades!!!!) has had more advice for me than for Bill and Robert).

Anyway, I clicked on your below post. There it was - Reason. No games,
no BS, just clear thinking and reason, in defense of liberty. Thank you -
from my heart and mind!!

Given you post, I scanned through those from Robert and Bill, and even
Michelle, and remembered why I wanted to be gone. But I read some more from
you, too. Finally, with someone besides me and Frank arguing with
Robert/Bill, I figure I'll hang around for a bit.

You were responding to posts from Robert/Bill. I'm going, now, to respond
to them myself. Keep in mind, Gary, I've been at this for nearly a year,
ever since Robert claimed that a woman defending herself from rape was
constraining the **liberty** of the rapist, and **imposing** her will on
him, and Bill immediately chimed in with agreement.

My style has changed with my patience, in relation to the BS.

Anyway, Thanks. Abandoning ship to Robert/Bill would have been depressing,
even if motivated by desire to have a little more sanity in my life.

Sincerely,

Larry

A little interspersing for you:

on 3/18/03 10:33 PM, G Triest at garyonthenet@yahoo.com wrote:

> A cop is not a private citizen, but has made a public proclaimation that
he
> will spontaneously enforce the laws of the land, and in fact after he
makes
> such a proclaimation he owes a legal duty to the public and person within
it
> to uphold it.

Yup, that's what he gets paid for, by the taxpayer. He/she took the job.
It's their job, generated by the consent of the governed, so I'm told. The
first job of a cop, and government, is to protect the life, liberty and
property of those who consented to government by giving it a monopoly on the
ultimate use of defensive force. Now, it's true, government has gone far
astray of the reasons it gave to those who consented, but that's a different
question (except for Robert, of course, who claims who claims, with BS, that
the only source of rights is government, however the various ones choose to
define them. To hell with consent, says Robert. With a definition of
rights like Roberts, government **can't** go astray!! What is *right*, and
what rights you have as a human is whatever government says is right, so
says Robert - denying *all* moral arguments to the contrary.
>
> Given that this is his public contract, his intervention between an
attacker
> and victim is not initiation; rather like the victim who retaliates or
> attacks back, the policeman is responding to the attacker's breach of law.
> There are several ways to look at it, but perhaps the simplest would be
that
> the policeman is an agent of the victim. The victim responds by proxy
> against his attacker via the policeman. If you would not fault the victim
in
> responding in force to his attack then you cannot fault the policeman
> either.

A *hired agent* of the victim, paid for with taxes, with the express job of
filling the fundamental purpose of government, so I hear - to protect the
life, liberty and property of humans who consent to be "governed".

The helluva it is, by claiming morality has no role in relation to rights or
liberty, Robert/Bill obliterate the distinction between victims and
victimizers - as with the rape victim. In their argument, the cops would
just be constraining the liberty of the rapist, and imposing his/her will on
the rapist.

It ought not to be any surpise, given that BS, that today I find them
quibbling about 'initiation of force'. The f------ truth is, they have both
claimed, in principle, that there is no way to tell the difference. The
rapist and the rapee are both fighting for liberty, and may the best "man"
win - meaning whoever is the strongest, with morality having no relevance,
so the BS goes.

That's how damned sick!! it's been, Gary, of and on, for nearly a year.

Dunno why you were so late getting to this, but I'm damned glad you're here.

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:05:02 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Gary,

Billy is prone to one-liners, just like Robert.

Billy wrote:
> Gary, not all cops are government.

Ohh, really, Billy. Are you writing about private security guards,
or what the hell??!!. And just what is the point of you one-liner??!!

Larry

one comment, below, Gary:

on 3/18/03 10:43 PM, G Triest at garyonthenet@yahoo.com wrote:

> I don't see how that makes a practical difference.
> So, you have a privately chartered policeman. Same interactions. Perhaps
> different venues.
>
> I could even see vigiliante policemen. If they formally document there
> public charter then again there is not difference.

Uhh, Gar, as I see it, in certain contexts, screw the public charter. My
favorite convience store clerk was taken into the store cooler and raped at
four in the morning. A customer came in, and checked into the screams. He
"violated the liberty of the rapist and imposed his will on him" holding
him 'till the cops got there. Vigilantism, with no charter, eh? More than
that, if the rapist had been armed and pointed a gun at the customer, I
figure the customer - vigilante - would have been perfectly justified in
ending his life and his "liberty" - and existing law would have been fully
behind the "vigilanty". Of couse, reading Billy/Robert, today, the
vigalanty would have been initiating violence against the rapist, even
though they claim "initiating violence is very hard to define". Hard?
Given there BS arguments, there's no way to define it!!!

Sincerely,

Larry

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 02:14:21 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Billy/Robert,

on 3/18/03 11:05 PM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:

> On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 23:24, G Triest wrote:
>> Bawb:
>>
>> Am I the little kid who sees no clothes on the emperor?
>>
>> "Inititation" of anything, means the first act of something.
>
> Incomplete. Initiation applies to a specific scenario/situation. Your
> definition is too broad. After all, the first act of aggression was done
> millennia ago.

What the "F" does that mean, Billy? At least this time you gave us a two
sentence argument.

Gary, you'll notice soon Billy/Robert have a hard time with consulting a
dictionary.

Why the "f" don't you give us your difinition of "initate" Billy, since all
others fall short in your/Robert's eyes???!!!

Millenia or not, some say the first murder was when Cain killed Able. So
what the "F" does that have to done with ***anything***??!! Does that
justify rape??!!

Sorry for the question, Billy, but two sentences don't count for squat!!, in
relation to the question at hand.

"THE FIRST ACT OF AGRESSION WAS DONE MILLENNIA AGO", you write. Well, yeah,
so what the "F"??!! WHAT'S YOUR GAWD DAMNED POINT??!!

>
>> Retaliation means a response to an initiation.
>
> Not quite, retaliation means to return like for like. which means among
> other things, that only the one who initially received the attack can
> return it. Just as I can not refund the money someone else took from
> you, neither can you retaliate if you are not the one attacked.

YOU ARE SOOOOO FULL OF BS, BILLY! I'D DIE FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE
CONFRONTED WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCE UNDER WHICH SOME ONE WAS AN IMMEDIATE AND
OBVIOUS THREAT TO YOUR LIFE. I'D LOVE TO HEAR YOU TELL ME, "SORRY LARRY,
YOU CAN'T HELP ME. THAT WOULD BE INITATING VIOLENCE, WHAT WITH YOU A THIRD
PARTY".

By the bye, Billy, as a third party, why is it you favor "retaliating"
against Saddam, as a third party, with morality beside the point, as you
argue with your BS??!!

>> A rapist is the initiator of an unwanted infringement of the rapee's
>> freedoms.
>
>> The rapee who shoots him dead is using a retaliating (or prophylactic)
force
>> in response to the rapist's initiation of force.
>
> What about the guy across the street. Really Gary, you are arguing a
> strawman here. I specifically referred to third parties, and for a good
> reason. That's what I was talking about.

Yeah, Billy, so you say. The "goodest" reason I can determine is that
you've taken too much heat from me in relation to the Robby/Billy arguement
that a woman has no **right** to defend herself from rape - just a question
of who's strongest. AT LEAST YOU'VE RETREATED TO ARGUING AGAINST
THIRD-PARTIES!! MAYBE THERE'S HOPE FOR YOU YET, EH??!!
>
>> How can you conceptually complicate that to make it unmeaningful in
>> distinction?
>
> I didn't, you have built a man of straw.

Whenever Billy/Robby get backed into a corner by their own damned arguments,
they argue "strawman" and "emotional baggage", as a substitute for reason
and argument.

So, Billy, as a third-pary "strawman" I argue, in defense of liberty, that I
have a right to stop a rape if I see one occuring.

TELL ME WHY I DON'T, WITH REASON AND ARGUMENT, OR SHUT-THE-"F"-UP??

Tell me, Billy. I'm asking you to take me hand in hand and walk me through
your argument.
>
>> Police (when doint their job) also don't initiate force, they too respond
to
>> an existing (or immediately obvious) infringement of someone else
liberties.
>
> If you are not the one attacked, you are initiating force.

What bullshit!! Oh, really, Billy, then what is your argument for the U.S.
State attacking Saddam. You ain't been attacked by Saddam!!!!!!! Are you
hypocritically justifying the agression of a third-party? Uhh, long into
this, I'm gonna drop the abbreviations. You a sick fuck Billy/Robby!!!

> One can not
> retaliate until attacked.

OHHH, REALLY, YOU WRITE. AND YET YOU ARE A WAR-HAWK IN RELATION TO SADDAM.
LIKE I WROTE, "SICK FUCK".

> Now, before everybody gets their panties in a
> wad, I am not saying it is wrong, just what it is.

Hey, Billy, you claim morality is irrelevant. Of course you would not want
to claim that *anything* is right, or *wrong*. Those are moral terms!! And
you and Robby dismiss them as irrelevant. Of cousre, Billy, you would not
write about what is **right**, or **wrong**. It's just power for you and
Robby.

You're just writing about what *is*, eh, with not good or bad about it??!!.

That makes you irrelevant, Billy & Robby!!!! We Gawd Damned well know what
"is", and a few of us can tell right from wrong.

What the fuck do you think you are, an "objective reporter" for CNN. I can
watch the reports of "what is" every day.

> It *is* an initiation
> of force, however one we generally accept as reasonable.

OHH, really, why is that Billy??!! Why do 'we' genererally accept it as
reasonable, when billy/robby have no reason to support it.

Why is that, Billy. Is it just unsupported "common-sense", as Robert once
wrote??!!

> Just as we
> accept that self-defense is reasonable,

Ohh, really? That's a bigtime concession from the evil billy/robby axis, as
I see it.

Why is it "reasonable", Billy, with you/Robby claiming morality has no
role??!!

Gimme your **reasons**, Billy/Robby!!

I await your reasons, Billy. I'll agree to put my hand in yours.

As Sincerely As I can Be,

Larry

> and that locking a murderer away
> and removing from him most of his liberties as an acceptable
> infringement of rights.

Hey, Billy, your getting there. Keep it up!! But you are bullshitting!
The key is that you wrote, 'reasonable', with no contracdiction of your
original claims, along with Roberts. Why, Billy is it ***reasonable*** to
lock up Ted Bundy, and deprive him of his "rights and liberty", especially
since you and robby claim there is no moral definition for "rights" or
"liberty"??!!

LOCKING TED BUNDY UP WAS AN "ACCEPTABLE INFRINGEMENT OF HIS RIGHTS" YOU
WROTE. WELL, BILLY/ROBERT, I'M DAMN GLAD YOU FOUND LOCKING TEDDY BUNDY UP
WAS ACCEPTABLE. THE ONLY DAMN THING IS, THE BOBBSIE TWINS HAVE NOT GIVEN
A MORAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THEIR ARGUMENT!!!!!!!!

WHY THE HELL, GIVEN WHAT YOU SICCKOS HAVE WRITTEN, DO YOU CLAIM IT IS
REASONABLE TO LOCK TED BUNDY UP, AND WORSE??!!

ROBBY/BILLY, PUT MY HAND IN YOURS, AND WALK ME THROUGH THE BULLSHIT!!

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:06:41 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

So, Frank,

You wrote that Michelle is ***correct*** while in the message she claimed I
had "enourmously exagerated" Robby/Billy's bullshit!!

Good Gawd, has *anybody* read the latest from the sick "f"'s. I'm getting
damned tired of taking the heat for disputing with sick shit!!!!!
Especially with Ken gone, the saneist human in the group, 'cept for maybe
Gary (and yeah, I know, it was me who drove Gary away. Too bad. That was
the last thing I wanted to do). But, truly, it was Robby/Billy who did it,
with Ken not likeing the ""f"" word, which I have hardly used, until
tonight.

Sick fucks who claim liberty has no moral claim are sick fucks.

I wish I had time to quote Bergland to Billy, with him claiming Bergland
supports his "no moral claim" position.

Okay, there's time now, after sleep. I'm gonna fucking hammer you Billy,
with your own words!!

LIBERTY!!!!!!!

LF

on 3/18/03 2:51 AM, Frank M. Reichert at frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com
wrote:

> Greetings again Robert!
>
> Robert Goodman wrote...
>
> Michelle Eilers originally wrote:
>>> Well, Larry enormously exaggerated the extent to which
>>> anyone here is equating self-defense with aggression.
>>> However, you did say some time ago that it was just as
>>> much an imposition for a woman to prevent a man from
>>> raping her as it was a man to try to rape a woman.
>>> This sloppy use of the word "impose" certainly does
>>> blur the line between self-defence and aggression and
>>> is what set Larry of an his rampage that is continuing
>>> through the present day.
>
> To which you replied:
>> It's not a SLOPPY use of the word, just different from the one he may
>> have expected.
>
> Michelle is correct, it does blur the distinction between self-defence,
and
> aggression. An aggressor has forfeited his rights against becoming the
> recipient of force in order to end such aggression, although in many
> instances the "law" doesn't see it that way. In some cases, certain states
> have given aggressors (such as trespassers in a botched burglary attempt)
> legal recourse for physical injury resulting when the homeowner uses
violent
> force to stop the aggression.
>
> A lot of people seem to feel the very same way. Several years ago (around
> 1985 I believe), I parked my car along the street adjacent to the US Naval
> Station in San Diego, and reported to work aboard ship. I had the night
> shift. The next morning when I went back to my car, it had been forcibly
> opened, and vandalized, rendering its value much less than it was
> previously. Naturally, I was very angry. The next day while eating lunch
> aboard ship, I discussed what had taken place the night before. I
mentioned
> that I would have "loved" to have been across the street in a concealed
van,
> and blown away with a 12-guage shotgun, the gang that forced open the car
> doors and vandalized my property. Many were horrified that I could even
say
> such a thing! You just don't do such things in a civilized society I was
> told!
>
> Well, just how "civilized" were the thugs that willfully destroyed my
> property? Obviously, we don't live in a civilized society. In my way of
> thinking, once again, anyone who chooses and embarks upon such crimes,
loses
> their rights to life, liberty and property. I also made the remarks that
if
> more people did what I had advocated, such violent crime in San Diego
would
> be immediately reduced rapidly as gangs came under the righteous wrath of
> property owners. Of course, most of the ones I was talking to believed
that
> was the police's job! Well, they didn't do a very good job in protecting
my
> property against vandalizm, nor did they ever apprehend whoever was
> responsible for the vandalism. Again, I would opt for staking out the car
> myself in a concealed van across the street armed with a 12-guage shotgun.
> At least that segment of the "gang" wouldn't be around to vandalize anyone
> else's property in the near future.
>
> Question Robert: Would *I* be initiating force, or only self-defending my
> own private property against aggression? You decide.
>
>> Then apparently you don't realize that many libertarians have pointed
>> out the difficulty of the concept of "initiation" in this context. It's
>> not as easy as you may wish to think. Robert LeFevre, one of the
>> leading libertarian thinkers of the 20th Century, pointed this out and
>> concluded that any use of force is an initiation -- that there is no
>> meaningful, nonarbitrary distinction between use & initiation. While I
>> think he's wrong, his position was tenable.
>
> So, *why* do you believe he was wrong?
>
> Anyway, the pledge is very clear, and particularly restrictive. It's
causal
> definition of initiation of force is specifically targeted toward those
who
> wish to use such force to gain political or social goals. In reading the
> pledge several times during the course of the last decade or so, it is
clear
> it doesn't address such things as parents spanking their children, or
> aggressive business tactics, but rather is targeted toward a political
> deminsion in terms of political and social goals that are achieved by
> initiating force to attain such objectives.
>
> I personally believe that the pledge has much more to do with people
> promoting government force to achieve what they cannot do normally in the
> course of their own lives. In other words, people can't really coerse
their
> neighbours to line their own pockets without breaking the law in some way.
> But they can delegate that function to government to do it for
> them in the form a income redistribution, and other schemes. In either
> case, the Libertarian Party is certainly opposed to both individuals doing
> that to each other, or in delegating that power to the government to
> accomplish the same theft on their behalf.
>
> Kindest regards,
> Frank
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:38:03 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote wrote to Gary Triest...

> Gary, not all cops are government.

Unless you are referring to private security personnel, or security
forces in general, I can think of very few exceptions when "cops" are
paid employees of some government entity.

In Idaho at least, the Sheriff is directly elected to his position
within the county government structure. City police are hired by the
city government, and the State Police obviously get their authority,
and their salary by serving the State.

So, in what sense are cops not representing government, other than
private security arrangements that people and companies make to
further secure themselves and their property from outside aggression?

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:46:59 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Inititation" of anything, means the first act of something.

Right. The first time you use force is your initiation of force. Maybe
there were other people using force before, but you had yet to initiate
YOUR use of force.

> Retaliation means a response to an initiation.

No, it means a response to force, but doesn't specify who started it.
Once 2 people are fighting, every punch thrown between them is in
retaliation.

> A rapist is the initiator of an unwanted infringement of the rapee's
> freedoms.

> The rapee who shoots him dead is using a retaliating (or prophylactic)
force
> in response to the rapist's initiation of force.

> How can you conceptually complicate that to make it unmeaningful in
> distinction?

I didn't. The original words simply don't say what you just said. You
can try to convey things in fewer words than required, but it doesn't
always work. I know this from teaching. And remember, I didn't invent
this confusion -- it's something I and others have heard from enough
other people to know that the words "initiate force" are not understood
to mean what you think.

> Police (when doint their job) also don't initiate force, they too
respond to
> an existing (or immediately obvious) infringement of someone else
liberties.

> Many libertarians believe in ghosts. Doesn't make it true. Hold your
own
> argument, and stop trying to put some amorphous authority on 'many
> libertarians', or even a few famous ones.

This is something and others have heard from NON-libertarians to whom I
and others have tried to explain libertarianism. It's not just a matter
of libertarians arguing with each other.

It's like "to serve man" -- the ambiguity is real, not concocted. And
just because the speaker understands doesn't mean the listener
understands the same.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:49:22 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com> repsonded to me:

> A cop is not a private citizen, but has made a public proclaimation
that he
> will spontaneously enforce the laws of the land, and in fact after he
makes
> such a proclaimation he owes a legal duty to the public and person
within it
> to uphold it.

> Given that this is his public contract, his intervention between an
attacker
> and victim is not initiation; rather like the victim who retaliates or
> attacks back, the policeman is responding to the attacker's breach of
law.
> There are several ways to look at it, but perhaps the simplest would
be that
> the policeman is an agent of the victim. The victim responds by proxy
> against his attacker via the policeman. If you would not fault the
victim in
> responding in force to his attacke then you cannot fault the policeman
> either.

Funny, I don't remember saying anything about fault.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 02:30:31 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Folks,

Robert responded to Gary:

on 3/19/03 7:49 AM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

Gary wrote:

>> If you would not fault the victim in responding in force to his
>> attack then you cannot fault the policeman either.

Robert replied:

> Funny, I don't remember saying anything about fault.

Naw, you didn't Robbie. You're right!e Just as you didn't not
"fault" the rapist. You've just been wanting to point out that
the rapist and the rapee (defending herself) were both using violence
(and now you claim, both initiating it - as in going from doing nothing
to doing something). Both are doing nothing but excersiseing their
respective "liberty", and each is trying to impose their will on the
other. And now you/Billy add that any third party who got involved
would also being "initating force" - either as a gang rape, or in
conjunction with the rapee violating the "liberty" of the rapist, by
"imposing" their joint wills on the rapist.

You're right, Robbie/Billy, you don't "fault" ***ANYONE***!!!!.

To fault the rapist, or the rapee, or the third party, would amount to
applying moral principle. And *that*, with your amorality, is *exactly*
what you, Robby/Billy, claim has no rational argument to support it.

You, Robbie/Billy, claim there is no such thing as rights, except as defined
by governments, even dictatorships. You once wrote, in response to me,
that the "right" to own slaves, or gass Jews was a "right" defined by
government. "Doesn't mean I like it, you wrote". Hey, Bud, why don't you
like it, eh??!! Why not Robbie/Billy??!!

I know, Robbie, quoting you. "Because it is your opinion", but you claim
everyting is a matter of opinion. The rapist. The Rapee. The third party.
The cops. The all have their opinions, just like you. And you, you sick
fuck!!!!!, claim it's all just a matter of opinion, with all opinions being
equal. And nothing but the "force" of opinion to decide with - nothing
but undifferentiated force, with there being no such thing as natural law
rights, so you claim.

OF COURSE YOU DIDN'T ****FAULT*** ANYONE!!!!!!! THAT WOULD CONTRADICT YOU
SICK NIHLISM. AT LEAST YOU ARE CONSISTENT IN YOU SICKNESS.

GOTTA ASK YA, SICK FUCK, AND BILLY TO: WHY IS IT YOU SO DAMNED BAD WANT TO
GET AWAY FROM THE CONCEPT OF FAULT AND MORALITY?? WHY IS THAT??!! ARE YOU
SICCKOS ARGUING FOR **NO FAULT** INSURANCE.

Your bullshit, nihlist arguemnts tell me more about you than I figure you
wanted to expose.

Why is it, Billy/Robert, that the words right, wrong, and fault drives you
into an irrational frenzy??!! - arguing there is noooo answer, and to talk
about morality is *******************WRONG***************************.
Ain't you sickoos noticed that claim is a blatant CONTRADICTION??!!

Applying moral principle is **wrong** this groups axis of evil claims.

WELL, SICK FUCKERS, THAT IS A MORAL CLAIM!!!!!!!!!!!!

With you every words, in relation to truth, and morality, you claim it's all
just unproveable opinion. Claiming truth and morality is ***wrong*** you
sick fucks claim. But that is a claim to truth, and morality.

You and Billy blatantly contradict yourselves!!!!!!!

Nihilists who claim there is no truth, and no morality, to be consistent,
have one option and one option only. SHUT THE FUCK
UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WITH YOU EVERY WORD YOU CONTRADICT YOUSELF!!

DEPRECIATINGLY!!!!!!,

LARRY


A








---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: billy's BS!! - Re: a horse is not a chair........
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:39:27 -0800
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

BILLY/ROBBY (claiming not to read me), Hence Others,

reason interspersed below:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org>
>
>> Robert Goodman:
>>
>> . . . . apparently you don't realize that many libertarians have pointed
>> out the difficulty of the concept of "initiation" in this context.

Really, Robby. How ""many"" libs have done that, except for you, Billy, and
the pascifist, LeFevre?

>> It's
>> not as easy as you may wish to think. Robert LeFevre, one of the
>> leading libertarian thinkers of the 20th Century, pointed this out and
>> concluded that any use of force is an initiation -- that there is no
>> meaningful, nonarbitrary distinction between use & initiation. While I
>> think he's wrong, his position was tenable.

Why, Robby, do you think he is wrong??!! You've given no damned reason, and
neither has Billy. WHY DO YOU THINK HE IS WRONG?? The "F'ing" fact is, you
argue there is **NO** moral principle by which to distinguish the rapist
from the rapee. So, why do you think he is wrong Robert? Do you have any
reasons, or is that just an unsupported opinion of yours??!!

AND HERE'S BILLY, IN A LOVE-FEST WITH ROBBY:
>
> I must agree with you on this Robert. Many people's first reaction to
> the pledge is that they can not be a cop and sign the pledge.

"F", WHAT DO YOU MEAN "MANY PEOPLE"??!! I heard **one** former cop ask the
question of Harry Browne, at the convention. And he understood the answer
Harry gave him.

You, Billy, on the otherhand, claim "many" people are wanna be cops, and
thus won't sign the pledge, with them not being able to tell the difference
'tween **initated** violence and defense of liberty.

ROTFLMAO!! "..MANY PEOPLE'S FIRST REACTION TO THE PLEDGE IS THAT THEY CANNOT
BE A COP AND SIGN THE PLEDGE", YOU SAY. ROTFLMAO!!

> Why? To
> many (most?) people you are initiating force if you intervene to stop
> one person from pummeling another.

HEY, Billy, you and Robert are not "many" or "most"!!!! Nearly any damned
human understands why it is moral to save a woman from rape, or save you
from murder. Ain't no mystery for "many" or "most". You just have you head
up your dilettante ass, with nothing visible but your on colon.

Together, you and Robby fall short of being an "army of one". Ain't no
"many or most" about it.

> Why is that initiating? The attacker
> did not attack you, so between you and he, it is an initiation of force.
> Just because person a initiates force against person b, that does not
> mean person a is now open to force being used against him by others and
> it not be an initiation.

Person "a" violated the self-ownership principle, the non-agression
principle, and engaged in the "initation of violence". To the degree they
did that, they gave up claim to "self-ownership", liberty and rights. Any
human has a right to take action against them, morally. But viglantism has
its problems. We "consenting" humans hired government to promote justice.
But government is a third-party, right?

And third-parties, with no direct violence, initate violence and agression
when they respond to such. ROTFLMAO!!

So, government, as a third party, initiated violence against Ted Bundy, so
you and Robbert claim, depriving him of his liberty, and imposing it's will
on him - given that those he initated violence against were all dead.

Christ, this sewer you and Robby have built makes my skin crawl!!!
>
> To the common person, when a Libertarian comes back in that scenario and
> claims it is not an initiation of force by person c, they appear to be
> arguing a special pleading.

There ain't no "f'ing" human but you and Robby who are worried about the
violation of Ted Bundy's "rights" & "liberty". But you and he ain't a
"common person". Nope. You are far sicker than that.

> At that point we lose people that really are
> libertarians.

Yeah, like Ted Bundy and rapists. Better off without them, eh?

> "Who started it" is not always so clear, as any parent of
> multiple children will tell you.

Well, Billy, rape, murder and such, ain't exactly a fight 'tween kids.
S