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
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
--
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
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
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
--
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
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
--
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
--
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
- 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
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
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
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
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
