Preventing domestic terrorism : LUSENET : Beyond the Sidewalks : One Thread

Swiped this off another forum.Agree or disagree,it is thought provoking.I have nothing to add.....

What now? Five suggestions to prevent the next Timothy McVeigh

WASHINGTON, DC -- Now that Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh has been executed, there are specific actions the government should immediately take to prevent such a horrific act of domestic terrorism from ever happening again, Libertarians say.

"Of course, no one can guarantee that another Timothy McVeigh-style psychopath won't try to murder scores of innocent people," said Steve Dasbach, Libertarian Party national director. "However, Libertarians have five concrete suggestions for the government, each of which would reduce the chance of such a crime being repeated."

On Monday morning, McVeigh was executed by lethal injection at a federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana, for his role in the 1995 bombing that killed 168 people in a federal building in Oklahoma City.

Now, the government should act quickly to try to change the political climate that helped spawn a Timothy McVeigh, said Dasbach. Such reforms could include:

(1) Prosecute government officials who commit crimes.

"McVeigh said he blew up the building in Oklahoma City to protest the federal government's actions in Waco -- and he was quickly apprehended, tried, and punished for his crime," noted Dasbach. "That was proper, even if you might disagree with the morality of the death sentence.

"However, not a single FBI or BATF agent was arrested for their role in the fiery deaths of 86 people at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. There should not be one standard of justice for ordinary Americans, and another for government officials. Until that injustice is eliminated, many Americans will continue to view their government with suspicion, fear, and bitterness."

(2) Embrace an open, vibrant political system.

"People tend to turn to violence only when they feel they have no other way to be heard," said Dasbach. "It is the government's responsibility, then, to make sure that political discussion is not restricted, regulated, or suppressed.

"When Americans feel they have a role in the political system, they will work through the political system to make productive changes. When that avenue is blocked -- either by restrictive ballot access laws, legal curbs on political speech, exclusion from debates, or by attempting to discredit unpopular political speech -- the Timothy McVeighs of the world turn to violence.

"That's why robust political debate -- especially about the abuse of government power -- is a healthy way to change the system. And that's why stifling such debate is downright dangerous."

(3) Reject violence on principle.

"Over the past 20 years, the United States government has intervened militarily in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Haiti, Panama, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and other nations," said Dasbach. "In each case, these military actions resulted in innocent civilians being killed, and were done without the benefit of a formal declaration of war.

"The message of these actions is simple: It's proper to use violence to achieve political goals. That's a message the government should not send. Instead, a commitment to nonviolence should start at the top.

"Unless the security of the United States is directly threatened, the U.S. government should not bomb, invade, or drop missiles on people in other nations. Violence breeds violence, and it's time for our government to lead by example and stop the bloodshed."

(4) Repeal the Omnibus Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996.

"This legislation, rushed through Congress after the Oklahoma City bombing, grants the president arbitrary power to declare individuals 'terrorists,' authorizes the use of secret evidence, and reverses the presumption of innocence for suspects," said Dasbach. "Repealing this law would expand freedom without hindering the ability to catch real criminals.

"The freedoms recognized under the Bill of Rights are our strongest bulwark against terrorism. Security measures that infringe on those freedoms will inevitably lead to abuse, ultimately making us less secure in our lives and property."

(5) Reduce the size and power of the federal government.

"No, we're not saying that the growing power of the federal government justifies what Timothy McVeigh did," said Dasbach. "But the fact is, millions of Americans view their own government with suspicion and distrust.

"Americans see a government that can recklessly seize our property under asset forfeiture, eminent domain, or environmental laws; that can detain us at roadblocks for not wearing a seatbelt; that forces banks to spy on their own customers; that shoots innocent people dead in the name of the War on Drugs; that can secretly read our e-mail; that allows the IRS to seize our bank accounts; and that can violate our civil liberties in a thousand different ways.

"A government that was limited to its Constitutionally defined role would be smaller, less intrusive, and less threatening. It would be a government that honors fundamental American liberties, instead of undermining them. And it would be a government that gives Americans little reason to view it with apprehension."

Those five suggestions have something in common, said Dasbach: They would all change the political climate in a positive way -- and make future Timothy McVeighs less likely.

"We can never bring back the men, women, and children who were killed in Oklahoma City," he said. "But by using this tragedy to honor and reaffirm our nation's fundamental liberties, we can help make sure that the 168 people who died in Oklahoma City did not die in vain. It would be America's way of standing up and saying: 'Never again.' "

NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 Washington DC 20037 World Wide Web: =============================== For release: June 12, 2001 =============================== For additional information: George Getz, Press Secretary Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222 E-Mail: -----

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2001


Sharon you old pot-stirrer! ;-)

(1) Prosecute government officials who commit crimes.


(2) Embrace an open, vibrant political system.


(3) Reject violence on principle.


(4) Repeal the Omnibus Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996.


There's really nothing to disagree with in this article, IMO. Thanks for posting it.

Now if the Libs could just convince enough people to go along with this we just might get someplace...

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2001

Ooops! I forgot #5...

(5) Reduce the size and power of the federal government.


-- Anonymous, June 14, 2001

Can't argue with what you said,Jim;oD

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2001

"Now if the Libs could just convince enough people to go along with this we just might get someplace..."

I'm wearing my cynical hat tonight. How many people, and WHICH people, would have to be convinced? This is where the cynicism comes in -- even if a majority of the voting public were convinced (and that's highly unlikely), would the politicos/moguls coalition REALLY change? Or would they just find another way (or ways) to keep people distracted?

On a different slant to it, I sometimes speculate whether the USA wouldn't be better off divided into several smaller countries . . . that the whole thing has gotten just TOO BIG to be workable.

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2001

Okay if I may make a point here about the Waco debachle. Some things seem so simple like picking up David K at the grocery store or some where in town. But no they had to rush the compound for Gods sake! Then if you make a mistake why not say so! The goverment endlessly defends itself! Intelligent and humble government may help give the McVeighs less of an excuse. Say, Is Bush an intelligent and humble guy? Just an after thought.......Kirk

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2001

Joy, don't you think if we just went back to States Rights it would put us back to what worked??? I know it was hard for a lot of different people groups, but it was when the Federal Gov. took over all the things that states used to decide and administer that, IMHO, things really fell apart.

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2001

Kirk-gungho swat team mentality prevailed.Which is why Nick never liked swat teams.

Yes-made sense to wait.But what was the prioblem in the first place? Those people got along in the community just fine.Til they were "brought to the attention of the FBI"

By a right wing christian group that didn't like "cults" So what's new?

Want more people to support libertarians? Get rid of the pothead image and off the extreme militia boys that go around,at the very least,hacking innocent people,bc they seem to have nothing better to do with their time..and have way too much aggression.

Our PERENNIAL CANDIDATE in KY is a pot head.That's how people look at him.You have to win the hearts and minds of the people.You can't even win mine and I have sympathies and leanings.Esp not after my hacking experience.That was a royal cluster F*ck. Doesn't inspire much confidence.

How you going to win over the tobacco farmer in E KY?

Time for honesty.Long overdue.

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2001

Oh Jim

I do disagree with one point made.McVeigh was not a psychopath. Just another good soldier.Acting exactly like he was trained to the government.

That's why I was so upset.

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2001

"Joy, don't you think if we just went back to States Rights it would put us back to what worked???" [diane] ************************************* Say Diane,

Wasn't there a little "tiff" about 140 years ago about States Rights? Some kind of civil disturbance, as I recall.


-- Anonymous, June 15, 2001

Getting the Goverment to change the Government sounds like a real challenge! My defeatist approach is to live in the boonies as far away from bureaucracy and regulation as I can. Living close to the land in harmony with nature is the best way to keep me sane in the knowledge that, like McVeigh, there is nothing I can do within the law to make a more rational world.

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2001

funny Craig, I was not talking about quite that far back!!! I am old enough to remember when each state actually controlled their own education etc. etc. etc. It has slowly eroded to the point that the states have very little to say about anything. Big government begots more big government....kind of like hate begots hate.

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2001


I'm wearing my cynical hat tonight. How many people, and WHICH people, would have to be convinced? This is where the cynicism comes in -- even if a majority of the voting public were convinced (and that's highly unlikely), would the politicos/moguls coalition REALLY change? Or would they just find another way (or ways) to keep people distracted?

Hey, I don't think this forum is big enough for more than one cynic, Joy - I thought that was *my* job! I was in a pretty good mood last night when I responded to Sharon's post but I did qualify my response with the word 'might'. But - during my blacker moods - I find myself more in agreement with what you said.

And no, the powers-that-be will NEVER change, IMO. Lord Acton was right when he said that power corrupts - and I have to think that those who want these jobs have to be a little bent to begin with - the process of actually running warps them further seeing as they'll say or do anything to get elected.

On a different slant to it, I sometimes speculate whether the USA wouldn't be better off divided into several smaller countries . . . that the whole thing has gotten just TOO BIG to be workable.

It's interesting that you make that point as I've thought about that, too. You might be able to make the case that we're perhaps in the early stages of something like that now. Look at this last presidential election/fiasco and how divided the country was on Bush and Gore. And look at the large Mexican population in southern California and the large Cuban population in Florida. If those two groups ever decide that secession is better than what we have now then it might get pretty interesting. This country doesn't seem to have much unity now that the evil empire (Soviet Union) is dead. But if China becomes our new boogy-man then things may change back toward more unity. Maybe that's why the powers-that-be are agitating over China - we need a new boogy-man to focus on instead of dwelling on our own problems here at home.

BTW, your talking about smaller countries within the U.S. reminded me of a book that was recommended to me a few years ago: On Re-Making the World: Cut Nations Down to Size by Harry D. Schultz. If I remember correctly, Schultz talks about this subject in detail.

I never got around to reading the book at the time but I may have to see if I can get my hands on a copy now...

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2001

Lots of answers to ponder here . . . how to fix the unfixable . . . how to govern the ungovernable. . . sounds easy.

I'm not sure that we're EVER gonna solve our problems with our government. We hear everyday how bureacracy (sp?) is intruding more and more. Heard Rush bitching about a city health code ordinance prohibiting eggs served over easy or sunny side up. Too much threat of salmonella poisoning. One restaurant owner opined that he would continue to serve eggs as the customer demanded, just same customer would receive notice of restaurant liability being canceled. FOR EGGS OVER EASY! Oooooh Plllleeeeeeeze!

All thoughts above are definitely doable. Thing is, too many people in way to many government jobs have too much at stake for making the above changes. John Silveira over at Back Woods Homes magazine is in the process of writing and GREAT series on government red tape. Look at the site, * Next Dictatorship thread(s). Good stuff. Bureacracy just begets more bureacracy. Need lawyers too damn much to get simple things done. . . crazy. Leaves too many possibilities for taking advantage of our justice system. Here's a crazy thought:

I'm Hispanic-American (or is it Chicano? Mexican-American? Texican? Anyway, one of those - Americans). Can I sue the company which manufactures SPIC AND SPAN for defamation of character? Can you just see me in front of the court " your honor your honor, my agony and shame just cannot be comprehended by the cruel, unfeeling non- Hispanic members of our society, the shame the SHAME, I say, how can I go on (sob choke giggle sob). I hang my head in shame, can't eat, can't sleep, can't make love, can't live. But I'd settle for . . um . . 30 million give or take?

It just ain't right is all I'm saying.

Oops gotta go . . . nurse Ratchet is coming with the meds and shots and I want to get first in line!

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2001

Hey forgot to mention . . .

Want some far out ideas on how government should work? Look at a series of science fiction books the "Ashes" series by Johnstone (his last name). That is where the Tri-States government system theory was expounded on. The first book is named "Out of the Ashes". Kinda Edgar Burroughs he-man story, but the system of government the author writes about really made me think.

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2001

Diane wrote: Joy, don't you think if we just went back to States Rights it would put us back to what worked???

Actually, Diane, no, I don't. It was late and I didn't put down everything I was thinking, but I did consider that. I DO think that the various States should have more autonomy. But even if they did get that back, I still think there are too many States, too many people, and too much "area" for all one country. I was thinking along the lines of 3-5 new countries out of the contiguous states. Not sure what about Alaska, but Hawaii could go back to being it's own country, maybe. I haven't thought this out in detail, so I'm not actually proposing this as a viable solution. Just sort of mulling it over with you all.

As for YOU, Jim, too late! You invited me, now you'll just have to put up with having more than one cynic on the forum. Once, I read that a cynic is nothing more than a disappointed romantic. I think that probably applies to me, at least a LOT of the time.

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2001

Thank you Sharon, for bringing these Libertarian points up for discussion! As a card carrying Libertarian, yes!!! to all these points, and shame on the 51% of registered voters who DID NOT vote in the last presidential election, it is because of folks who DO NOT GIVE A SH** that we continue to have jokers like the current one in office now!!! WE had less than 49% voter turnout in OH last November, how can we effect a change back to States Rights and minimal Federal Government power if folks plain don't CARE?

It is past time for folks to wake up and smell the evil odor of Giant Federal Government Beaurocracy in non-action, and vote their dreams and desires, not their complacency to Big Lobbyist Controlled Government.

Ok, Libertarian Rant over, please vote for change next election folks, please?

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2001

For your consideration, I offer the following without comment.

The View from the Colonel's Saddle Every Friday @

Peaceful Separation or Violent Confrontation? by Colonel Dan - 06.15.01

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

A house divided against itself cannot stand” ~ Abraham Lincoln ~

I am more convinced than ever that it’s just about time to file for divorce citing irreconcilable differences, establish separate households and peacefully get on with our lives. America is indeed a house divided and by more than just the typical opposing political viewpoints. America’s division stems from clearly conflicting fundamental ideologies—irreconcilably so as I see it.

Last year I wrote several columns outlining my views on the potential break up of America and nothing has occurred since then that changes my mind. In fact, I’m convinced that we are so ideologically divergent that it makes no sense and is intellectually dishonest to maintain even the illusion of real unity. The wisdom therefore of peacefully separating before things get to the point of violent confrontation as experienced in the 19th century, is profoundly obvious to me.

The division facing America today is much more severe than a simple geographical or physical divide—it’s an ideological division of a most fundamental nature.

America is virtually split down the middle regarding political philosophy and that split is becoming increasingly accentuated. We see clear evidence of it everyday in the news as the confrontations become progressively more heated and hateful.

As I’ve said in the past, we’re losing/have lost our sense of national harmony that was America’s unifying force or national glue that came from sharing a common culture. The glue that keeps any country unified boils down to a very few important ingredients; a common language, a shared set of traditional cultural values, a few unwavering fundamental principles upon which the country was originally based and a sense of identity with that culture which sets its people apart from the rest of the world. In order for any group of people to remain united, they must share a common set of values and fundamental principles they can accept and assimilate as their own, are willing to live by and pass along to their children. History shows that when those characteristics are lost, the country comes unglued.

We are now polarized into at least two major camps whose philosophies will never reach consensus because the guiding fundamentals I spoke of are mutually exclusive. As the regular readers of this column know, I refer to these philosophies as colonial traditionalism and modern liberalism. The most basic differences are that traditionalists believe in small unobtrusive government, self- reliance, self-determination, private property, states rights, national sovereignty, private enterprise, the Constitution as fundamental and pure, [translation: it means what it says and says what it means] and personal freedom based on the same values and principles that inspired our founders. Modern liberals on the other hand believe in reliance on large and powerful government, public property, world government, the Constitution as a “living document”, [translation: the Constitution is meaningless if it stands in the way of their agenda] strong federal control in every aspect of life and are willing to surrender personal freedom and responsibility in exchange for the illusion of government provided security.

I see no way that the two philosophies can co-exist in a single nation. You either have a life based on self-determination or you have a life based on government-determination; you either have pre- eminence of the individual or pre-eminence of the state—you can’t have both within a single philosophy or form of government. You just cannot reconcile the two.

If two such divergent philosophies as colonial traditionalism and modern liberalism cannot coexist in one country, under one government, can we still refer to ourselves as a unified nation? Clearly, the answer is no.

This country is and has become so divided in basic values and polarized in ideology that as things stand today, I see no path to a reconciliation of these two diametrically opposed viewpoints. As Charley Reese, a nationally respected columnist and close friend, wrote:

“When there is nothing to agree upon, then we're in big trouble. I have read a couple of scholarly articles that speculate that it is becoming increasingly possible that the United States will break up. The general theme is that the United States has been held together by a consensus on major issues and that this consensus is breaking down. Although two sides can always compromise if the basic premise of both sides is the same, two sides can never compromise when their respective basic premises are mutually exclusive.”

I agree with Charley.

Continued coexistence would require not compromise but submission of one side to the other because this confrontation involves basic and diametrically opposed principles—and I’m no fan of compromising fundamental principles. I agree with Jefferson who said “… in matters of principle, stand like a rock." As I’ve said before, compromise of principle is no compromise—it is surrender and right now, neither side is willing to surrender their principles.

Compromise of fundamental principle, in my view, would go against the very foundation upon which we have built and live out our lives—on both sides. I therefore see dark clouds on America’s horizon regarding continued unification vs. eventual separation and it should not surprise anyone. We faced similar trouble in the 18th and 19th centuries, so why should the 21st be different.

In cases where irreconcilable differences exist then, the best course for both parties is peaceful separation. Even governments recognize irreconcilable differences as a just cause for separation. And as Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another…they should declare the causes which impel them to Separation.”

I believe Jefferson was right then and I believe he’s right today. I also believe that peaceful separation sooner makes much more sense than continued strife and violent confrontation later.

I strongly suspect the socialist left will however oppose any discussion of peaceful separation. Knowing their welfare state beliefs have proven time and again to be nothing short of bankrupt, they will always need hard working traditionalists around to pay the bills and keep America’s engine running.

Just the view from my saddle…

The Colonel

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Close this Browser After Printing Articles & Editorials:

We receive numerous requests to forward Sierra Times articles and editorials to other news outlets, or to publish them on websites.

Permission granted, as long as you include the name of our site, the author, and our URL. All Sierra Times news reports, and all editorials are © 2001 (unless otherwise noted)™ A Subsidiary of J.J. Johnson Enterprises, Inc. 1195 U.S. Rte 50 Suite 202 Lake Tahoe, NV 89449 Office: 888.779.3347 Fax: 413.481.5806 A Registered Nevada Corporation

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2001

Annie-you said a mouthful there. I agree.

How do we split things up? Wendy actually just posted some of my recent thoughts.


Let's see this is going to involve splitting up families,bc not all families agree. Well,now it gets complicated.Does everyone who doesn't believe a certain way have to move out? Hmmm...that's starting to sound like something we've seen before,somewhere....recently in fact.I think that's what Serbia was supposee to be doing. We bombed them for that.Right?

D.A. again. I see problems, but not solutions except for winning the people over,what else will work? How 'bout I think my way is better,so I'm going to take over forcebly and we'll do it my way? Isn't that what we have now? We trade despots? Better, bc maybe I like it, now? And after all,I know what is best for this country.

Didn't know that,did you? :oD

These are genuine questions and not me jerking anyone's chain.So were my one's from the other day.Not trying to start trouble,I just have genuine curiosity.

No I don't. I'm really a spook for the government and am out to get you.How else could I afford my farm? Hard work certainly didn't have anything to do with it,I'm sure. That spy work sure pays good money.

Geez.What has this world come to? I really do want to go back to my bubble farm and just forget.

Am I starting trouble,Jim? Delete it if I am.I won't get in a huff over it.

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2001

Sorry, but I don't view the world, and surely not the people in it,as simplistically as this fella appears to. Oh it would nice and orderly and easily understood to put people in their little boxes, like he has 'us hard-working traditionalists' and 'those liberals with their bankrupt beliefs', but speaking for myself, that ain't reality, no sir.

I expect most of us here in this country, and surely on this forum, would fall into one or many categories not included in these two. I know I would. Mine would include those who did our best not to demonize those with whom we disagreed, who believe that government should play some role in protecting the environment,( mainly by offering INCENTIVES for doing the right thing rather than penalties for not), who would stay out of citizen's private lives (including any connection to marriage, parenting, compulsory 'education', medicine/personal health issues, contraception/sexual issues, religion, private property that does not directly affect my neighbors, etc, etc.), and would demand accountability of its representatives.

In other words, I feel strongly about certain issues viewed as conservative, and equally strongly about many issues viewed as liberal. I fit in neither box, and refuse to be labelled as such, and to consider those who hold opposite views to be evil, stupid, or ignorant.

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2001

Oh, and on cynics..Jim and Joy..JOJ and I are challenging you to a duel. I've thrown down the gauntlet. JOJ doesn't know I've volunteered him yet, but I'm sure I can sweet talk him into it.

I'm taking Polly too.She has a great tongue on her you get her mad.

You can have, of course, julie.

If John H will come over here,I want him.I'll give you Sheepish.

Hmmm... Sam and David which to choose,which to choose..oh you go ahead and pick this time.Pretty even up there.

Earthmamma,looks like we are going to have to split you! HAHAHA

I'll be taking the earth part and they can have the mamma won't mind will you? It won't hurt a bit.Trust me.I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.

Let the games begin!

We'll duel til the death,or rather till we get bored and everyone else gets sick and tired of us. What? Has that already happened?

What say you? When and where?

Good points Aunty E.M.,BTW

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2001


I can agree with some of what the guy said in your post but I really take issue with his describing this as a "socialist left" problem.

I see it more as a fight between freedom lovers and statists not right-wingers and left-wingers. There are PLENTY of conservatives that want intrusive government too, not just lefties... Think of the War on Drugs.

I'll leave it at that for now...

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2001

Thank you earthmama and Jim for posting my views!!! How did you know??? I think that is one of the refreshing things about this forum is that we can all take a look at our left sides and right sides without being demonized. I have some "right" in me that I didn't know I had as well as some "left". The complexity of each of us as individuals is what makes it all so difficult to pinpoint. There are many different places where we "agree" but not even for the same reasons.

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2001

The beautiful weather is dragging me outside, so it is indeed fortunate that EM and Jim have pretty much said it all for me, too.

Sharon, I can't figure out what we'd be dueling about -- whether to be cynical or not? Too bad, today it is nice out, and despite being in the midst of reading The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight (enough to depress one considerably), I have decided to be POSITIVE today (cyclical cynic, I guess), and go plant something. Just a warning though, Julie is a deceptively mild opponent. You just see her big Leo pussycat face -- her moon is in Scorpio, and she's got that scorpion sting -- just when you least expect it! You've been warned! ;-)

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2001

Now Sharon, I know you're a right funny character and all, but looks to me like you're gonna be needin a little discipline from time to time.... And that's not what I mean.

I really don't mind if you wanna chop me up into little sections for our entertainment or political convolutions, but I hafta draw the line at any attempt to divide up our little family here. I REFUSE TO SERVE; you'd hafta have more teams and I'd hafta be on every one! (not good at making decisions anyway).......on account of I have spent my whole adult life learnin how NOT to fight, argue, convince, be right , etc, and I fall into old patterns real easy. So don't tempt me no more. It can be too much fun....

Hell, we could do that over at you-know-where without even trying, and now here you are making noises sounding verrrry familiar........

Occurs to me you could be one of them instigators I hear about, maybe screwin up your own computer and suchlike.

Behave yourself now......

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2001

Oh, btw Sharon ( I have a reaallly bad case of multiple thread drift personality disorder), I agree with all the points in your original article too!! Oh how wonderful it will be when all this comes to pass! [unlike most of you slackers, I still have HOPE!!]

And to good people like Jimmy and Annie and others who are, I think self-described libertarians: I agree with most of the stuff that I read in the party's literature (although its been awhile), but the people I have known in the past personally (and on the radio even now........there's one out of the Twin Cities....Jason Lewis....fancies himself some sort of libertarian guru....but comes across to me as a very disturbed, mean, arrogant, judgemental fact I know someone who dated him ONCE.......she said I was right on the money!

..........whoops , there I go again, reverting to my old ways..see how easy it is to get me going??

~~~ Sorry, Jason, I do not know you personally,nor have I walked in your shoes, so cannot be the one to judge how you got to be so gweeping o b n n o x i o u s...........I'm feeling your pain as we speak.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.......................~

Where the blazes was I anyway??

OH yeah....."libertarianism" (maybe it sounds too much like ***shudder*** "vegetarianism" for me........ HAHA..put your dukes down, JOJ, I suspect you're a sweet guy actually :)

So then, my point actually was that until I met some people here, I never met any NICE libertarians! So much for labels again, righto?

Blessings to all,

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2001

Oh my goodness, the thread drift gets so weird that I just spend several minutes going back and reading and trying for figure out who the heck Jason was.........hello diane....this is earth or was that earthmama. Good night???

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2001

Now I'm confused...and I started it.


It is great to talk abt some pretty heavy duty stuff and then laugh about it too. Quite an interesting bunch,I must admit.

Who knows? Might even win me over, if I can see that people are reasoned,over time, and not knee jerks. Never know. Good points again E.M.

And Earth-

I think Nick did it.He sent me a nasty email once,when I made him stay off CS during the Holidays 'cause I told him he was agitating and he should let it rest for Christmas. He did. This is true.He did delete it bf I saw it,but it was in the delete file,so I saw it anyway. You should meet him. He's definitely a sneak attack comedian.

Except that he knows less abt.the computer than I.Except for email and wood processing.

I don't even have to make things up about my life.For some reason,I've had a ,well,let's just call it "interesting" life and be done with it.Most would not want to have lived it ,to tell the truth.Kept me busy tho. Who else in the world would be two months on the computer at home and get hacked,I ask you? Who else?

But,digressing again...

Shoot,Earth-I can't even upload a photo yet,so I'm still working on hacking myself(snort)

Jim,you need to start a new thread on the war on drugs issue. That's another touchy topic.Sure enuff is.

Well,Jim...Double,double toil and trouble. Fire burn and caldron bubble....I see you can manage to stir it up a bit too.I'm shocked,I tell you.

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2001

If you are interested in alternative political parties, you might do some research on the Southern Party. It's growing rapidly. Far to rapidly to suite some Republicans and Democrats. And in case anyone here is getting ready to cry "Racist!", the man planning to run on it in Texas for the Senate seat now held by Phill Gramm is a black man who is also a high ranking member of the Sons of the Confederacy. To those who do not automatically assume that all Southerners are racists and as Randy Newman said in his song "just keepin' the niggers down", I apologize. Good day and blessed be.

-- Anonymous, June 17, 2001

Moderation questions? read the FAQ