Re: The burn-off of Tom Veil
Tyler Durden wrote on February 21, 2003 at 09:47:01 -0500: What part of my above paragraph did you not understand? The rancor part. Let's take your line of reasoning another step. Imagine you get robbed at gunpoint by some masked caucasian. He steals your Ventura watch as well as all your $$$. As you cry and bawl like a little bitch you see the guy take off and in the process toss the watch to some black dude walking up the street. Will you now yell: Die you scumyou stole my watch! (Well, YOU probably would.) Why are you mad at the black dude for being tossed a freebie? Mentally retarded analogy. That black dude, along with a whole lot of other black dudes, black ho's and white liberal fuckbags voted to allow the masked caucasian to rob me at gunpoint. Perhaps all of them should be killed. The Wall Street firm you work for ought to fire you for stupidity. -- Tom Veil
Re: The burn-off of Tom Veil
-- On 23 Feb 2003 at 15:55, Tyler Durden wrote: With respect to the Cambodia issue, Chomsky is pointing out how US agit-prop and media take advantage of our lack of certainty with respect to the real numbers. Originally Chomsky lied about Cambodia, to deny the crimes of the Khmer Rouge. He changed his tune after the Soviet Union changed their tune. Chomsky estimates that only 800,000 are verifiable via publically accessible documentation. Chomsky originally claimed thousands, not tens of thousands, a statement he attributed to highly qualified specialists although the people he cited were too cautious to make the claim he attributed to them. As for the Cambodia issue, I think the US government's complicity in 'inadvertently' bringing the KR into power is a good precedent for what we're doing in the Middle East. Originally, Chomsky claimed that the Khmer Rouge were rebuilding Cambodia, that they were comparable to the french resistance, that the stories of massacres had been repeatedly discovered to be false, and so on and so forth. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG TF+XPgep9hB6HF8pL+yRUVdu6a9ckBKBghjWDY6S 4fZOVskt09IN81+t/M242V4VkWHdcJA35Af5Em3ET
Re: The burn-off of Tom Veil
On Sat, Feb 22, 2003 at 01:56:48PM -0800, James A. Donald wrote: Secondly in high welfare state countries, by definition, wealth is politally distributed, leading to correspondingly high levels of organized group violence, as frequently illustrated in France. Yes. And because wealth is politically distributed in such nations, you already have the mechanisms in place (lobbyists, demonstration organizers, pressure groups) who seek to keep it that way. Otherwise they'd lose their jobs and political influence (getting called over to the White House for tea). Amply explained by Buchanan's public choice theory, but with no end in sight. -Declan
Re: The burn-off of Tom Veil
Tom Veil wrote... Did you read my full paragraph? Quoting zmag was not the only criteria I mentioned. Sorry, sir. Next time I'll try harder to decypher your dogmatic rantings. Noam Chomsky is no true anarchist. Chomsky is a commie pinko totalitarian. Well, since you put it that way, it's GOT to be true. Chomsky denied the Cambodian holocaust, and is on record as having praised North Vietnam as some sort of democratic worker's paradise. He has defended, rationalized, and denied acts of terror, mass-murder and slavery. No, and this is probably worth the attempt at rational discussion. First of all, however, it's important to realize that Chomsky is not merely a 'commie' version of yourself. He's not arguing the yes to your no. With respect to the Cambodia issue, Chomsky is pointing out how US agit-prop and media take advantage of our lack of certainty with respect to the real numbers. Chomsky estimates that only 800,000 are verifiable via publically accessible documentation. This is a very different thing from saying only 800,000 died. Here's Chomsky on the issue: Whether these estimates are right or wrong, no one knows, and no one cares. There is a doctrine to be established: we must focus solely on the (horrendous) crimes of Pol Pot, thus providing a retrospective justification for (mostly unstudied) US crimes, and an ideological basis for further humanitarian intervention in the future -- the Pol Pot atrocities were explicitly used to justify US intervention in Central America in the '80s, leaving hundreds of thousands of corpses and endless destruction. In the interests of ideological reconstruction and laying the basis for future crimes, facts are simply irrelevant, and anyone who tries to suggest otherwise is targeted by a virulent stream of abuse. That runs pretty much across the spectrum, an instructive phenomenon. But one consequence is that no one can give a serious answer to the question you raise, because it is about US crimes. As for the Cambodia issue, I think the US government's complicity in 'inadvertently' bringing the KR into power is a good precedent for what we're doing in the Middle East. (What I still can't understand is how the CIA could not have known that Lon Nol could not have held back the KR, while Sihuanouk understood the issue. The only possible explanation is that the CIA was blinded by knee-jerk anticommunism and would not tolerate Sihoanouk's interaction with them, even though they were are force that should not have been ignored, particularly when armed by the Chinese.) More importantly, however, is the fact that Chomsky often develops some very strong counter-arguments to US agit-spew. So does Kevin Alfred Strom. Yes, but the difference is that Chomsky is not an idiot (though zmag doesn't have as many nice big jpegs as Strom's site, so maybe they are just a bunch of silly commies). In the end, Chomsky is more important then wrong or right. Even if every position Chomsky takes is somehow wrong in the grand sceme of things, if you're going to disagree you should study Chomsky carefully, study the sources he quotes, then open your yap. (I would suggest that Osama bin Laden is another such source.) As for being blacklisted, that's OK, I'm not looking for a job in a trailer park right now (I'll keep my job on Wall Street, thank you). -TD _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: The burn-off of Tom Veil
-- On 21 Feb 2003 at 11:13, Tyler Durden wrote: However, one way to see the situation is more of a buy-off. Arguably, the government plunders in order to pay off welfare society, because if they didn't the masses would rise up and kill off the system But among reasonably capitalist societies, those with least welfare, for example Hong Kong, are in the least danger of political disturbance from the poor, whereas those with the highest welfare, in particular france, are frequently on the edge of revolution. High welfare state countries tend to have high permanent unemployment, so there are lots of able people who cannot get jobs, who therefore become revolutionaries, lots of able people who have jobs they hate but cannot change -- which is why in America going postal has come to mean an explosion of destructive rage -- post office employees are well paid, but of such low competence they cannot get well paid jobs elsewhere, so they are trapped. Secondly in high welfare state countries, by definition, wealth is politally distributed, leading to correspondingly high levels of organized group violence, as frequently illustrated in France. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG U48sX6NjfrRrL9phB4/+EDmv+60I2TdKVSEEAb4a 4+X/X9IOWyzrFjI3Sd2AdJhWeQ1dYpT72RgMVDgm4
Re: The burn-off of Tom Veil
At 11:04 AM -0800 2/21/03, John Kelsey wrote: Social programs in general work this way. It was a goodie being handed out once, but now, it looks to the people involved like a necessity, and they'll fight hard to keep it. This is just as true of social security and farm subsidies as of welfare. Listen to a Republican-voting farmer justify farm subsidies some time. You ought to have to *pay* for that kind of entertainment. (Oh, wait, I *am* paying for it.) In fact, smarter and better educated people will tend to be a lot more effective at fighting for their benefits than less intelligent, poorly educated people. So welfare reform, for all its weirdness, seems to be working much better than the attempts to reform farm subsidies, say. And even with Republicans in control of everything, I'll bet we don't see any major cuts to NEA, say. And now that my mortgage is almost paid off, I can start railing against the mortgage interest deduction. Cheers - Bill - Bill Frantz | Due process for all| Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | American way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
Re: The burn-off of Tom Veil
Tyler Durden wrote on February 20, 2003 at 12:24:40 -0500: As for quoting zmag (which I do), it's silly that this indicates a necessarily leftie/pinko/commie slant. Did you read my full paragraph? Quoting zmag was not the only criteria I mentioned. Chomsky, a frequent contributor, has described himself as basically anarchic in his political leanings. Noam Chomsky is no true anarchist. Chomsky is a commie pinko totalitarian. Chomsky denied the Cambodian holocaust, and is on record as having praised North Vietnam as some sort of democratic worker's paradise. He has defended, rationalized, and denied acts of terror, mass-murder and slavery. More importantly, however, is the fact that Chomsky often develops some very strong counter-arguments to US agit-spew. So does Kevin Alfred Strom. -- Tom Veil
Re: The burn-off of Tom Veil
The reality is even more weird, I think. Suppose there's some struggling-to-make-it new family down the street, and I start helping out by bringing them dinner every night. If I do it for a few days, e.g., while the mom is in the hospital or something, it's a genuine act of kindness. If I do it every day for five years, then they are more-or-less going to become dependent on me. Humperhaps some truth there. Now whatr if the mom in the hospital actually dies while your helping that family? You've got a problem on your hands! In this case a few things can happen: 1)The kids grow dependent on you, and when you stop providing they can't cope and so get mad at you and fight to move in with you. 2)You can keep supporting them forever. 3) You start thinking, Oh crap. These kids are going to depend on me forever unless I equip them for reality. Of course, if Option 3 is considered, the objection might be Hey! These aren't my kids, why do I have to do this? But the reality is that things are what they are. The only way out is to hope for some kind of war or armageddon that wipes out the kids, or just realize is going to be like this forever unless you accept the reality of the situation and start equipping them. Like any analogy, this is probably over simplistic. But it does represent one axis of truth methinks. Oh, and there's probably a 4) I missed that should be mentioned: 4) Recognize that those orphan kids are never going to be offered a job and think about how to tear the whole system down. -TD _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: The burn-off of Tom Veil
At 11:13 AM 2/21/03 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: ... However, one way to see the situation is more of a buy-off. Arguably, the government plunders in order to pay off welfare society, because if they didn't the masses would rise up and kill off the system that does not really do much to equip them for the opportunities that immigrant kids come in and sweep up. (The term Brain drain comes to mind.) The reality is even more weird, I think. Suppose there's some struggling-to-make-it new family down the street, and I start helping out by bringing them dinner every night. If I do it for a few days, e.g., while the mom is in the hospital or something, it's a genuine act of kindness. If I do it every day for five years, then they are more-or-less going to become dependent on me. The day I decide I have better uses for my time than bringing them dinner, they're almost certainly going to be mad and bitter at me. (If you don't believe this, observe the interaction between a parent and newly-independent kid asking for money, or between a rich uncle and his hoping-to-inherit nephews.) Social programs in general work this way. It was a goodie being handed out once, but now, it looks to the people involved like a necessity, and they'll fight hard to keep it. This is just as true of social security and farm subsidies as of welfare. Listen to a Republican-voting farmer justify farm subsidies some time. You ought to have to *pay* for that kind of entertainment. (Oh, wait, I *am* paying for it.) In fact, smarter and better educated people will tend to be a lot more effective at fighting for their benefits than less intelligent, poorly educated people. So welfare reform, for all its weirdness, seems to be working much better than the attempts to reform farm subsidies, say. And even with Republicans in control of everything, I'll bet we don't see any major cuts to NEA, say. -TD --John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The burn-off of Tom Veil
- Original Message - From: Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 9:47 AM Subject: Re: The burn-off of Tom Veil What part of my above paragraph did you not understand? The rancor part. Let's take your line of reasoning another step. Imagine you get robbed at gunpoint by some masked caucasian. He steals your Ventura watch as well as all your $$$. As you cry and bawl like a little bitch you see the guy take off and in the process toss the watch to some black dude walking up the street. Will you now yell: Die you scumyou stole my watch! (Well, YOU probably would.) Why are you mad at the black dude for being tossed a freebie? Thats a pretty poor analogy. Perhaps a better one is where the robber was first *asked* to steal my watch, (as I could obviously afford another one) and then gave it to someone else. And in fact, if this recipient kept the watch, knowing full well that it had been taken from me by force, he has stolen it from me. Contracting with someone else to steal from me is no different (in fact, its possibly even worse) than stealing it from me yourself. -p
Re: The burn-off of Tom Veil
Peter Capelli wrote... Thats a pretty poor analogy. Perhaps a better one is where the robber was first *asked* to steal my watch, (as I could obviously afford another one) and then gave it to someone else. And in fact, if this recipient kept the watch, knowing full well that it had been taken from me by force, he has stolen it from me. Well, let's just say I didn't spend a lot of time polishing that analogy! However, one way to see the situation is more of a buy-off. Arguably, the government plunders in order to pay off welfare society, because if they didn't the masses would rise up and kill off the system that does not really do much to equip them for the opportunities that immigrant kids come in and sweep up. (The term Brain drain comes to mind.) -TD _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: The burn-off of Tom Veil
Maybe they were working together. - Original Message - From: Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 9:47 AM Subject: Re: The burn-off of Tom Veil What part of my above paragraph did you not understand? The rancor part. Let's take your line of reasoning another step. Imagine you get robbed at gunpoint by some masked caucasian. He steals your Ventura watch as well as all your $$$. As you cry and bawl like a little bitch you see the guy take off and in the process toss the watch to some black dude walking up the street. Will you now yell: Die you scumyou stole my watch! (Well, YOU probably would.) Why are you mad at the black dude for being tossed a freebie? -- Tim Veil Fucking with quoted text is _not_ cool. -- Tom Veil Guess you better learn how to use a hash function dude! (I guess you're not really Tim May after all!) -TD _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: The burn-off of Tom Veil
zmag.org and commiedreams.org gets you blacklisted, as it indicates that one is of the so-called progressive, leftist commie totalitarian persuasion. Blacklisted! Sniff sniff...I'm hurt! Does this mean I'm kicked out from the yearbook committee too? And do I have to tear up my Cypherpunks membership card? The only important point to make here, is that it doesn't really matter what the political persuasion is of someone who contributes to anything nominally Cypherpunkish. If they are promoting/using/developing/suggesting strong crypto apps, certain types of thought-control will eventually be thrown off as a result of such apps. (Of course, there are those who believe that something like an anarchic/libertarian society must arise as a result, but one's BELIEFS are largely irrelevant.) As for quoting zmag (which I do), it's silly that this indicates a necessarily leftie/pinko/commie slant. Chomsky, a frequent contributor, has described himself as basically anarchic in his political leanings. More importantly, however, is the fact that Chomsky often develops some very strong counter-arguments to US agit-spew. However, if quoting zmag means I'm a commie pinko faggot, sobeit. -TD _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
