Thursday, November 12, 2009


Thanks for the dose of reality some of you have dealt out. I guess I needed to be reminded that the Right can be just as whacky and unAmerican as the Left.

I'm not going to hold debates here. I don't give a flying fuck what you think of me or my ideas and I most certainly won't accept addled "correction" from amateur fascists or hobby socialists. I'm not going to provide a forum for junior Mussolinis or junior Stalins. Either you support the Bill of Rights or you are opposed to the fundamental ideas of this country; there is no kinda-sorta to it, no footnotes or wink-wink secret codicils.

If you're not okay with the Bill of Rights, I am not your friend. I'm not your enemy, I'll save my enmity for murderous scum, but if you're not good with every word of all ten amendments, we're not on the same team, no matter how much you wish we were.

No bunch of ignorant goat-herders and tactical illiterates can destroy this country. I'm not sure why some people on the Right and Left think this nation is so weak, so decadent that unAmerican measures are necessary to prop up some horrible star-spangled shell of what we used to be but I am not playing along with it and I won't pretend it's okay. It's been gnawing at me for days now and the way I figure is, those of you who value your imagined safety so much you'll choose fascism or communism over freedom are the ones who need gnawed at, not me.

I don't like Billy Beck's manners but he's right way more often than he isn't. You can claim Libertarians are "batshit crazy," but it's still better than death-camp pragmatism.


Bob said...

Looks like Charles Johnson left his thermos of bug juice unattended and Roberta got ahold of it. Good thing we don't have to register to comment here, I think that R. is ready to break out the ban stick.

Drang said...

Apparently, I'm now a Fellow Traveler or something...

Anonymous said...

What did I miss?

Anonymous said...

I for one am quietly encouraged by the fact that you would get mad like that in reaction to whatever stimulus it was.


bgeek said...

What is this Bill of Rights you speak of? :)

Divemedic said...

The Bill of Rights is very important to me. The one thing that has always bugged me is how some will use the BOR to hide:

Child porn producers hide behind the 1A. IMO, the 1A should protect you from having child porn (not that I want any) but should prosecute those who make it (the act of molesting children should be illegal, but not possession of the film, or else should having a video of a murder shot on your security cam be illegal as well?)

Many terrorists hide behind a religion to legitimize what they do. There are Christian AND Islamic terrorists.

There are those who hide behind the other Amendments as well. Those of us who value liberty must always be on the lookout for those who would use those very liberties to destroy us.

Roberta X said...

Divemedic: 'splain me how they can do that without, you know, committing actual crimes? And explain how we can tinker with the Bill of Rights and still be us.

D. W.: Have you argued that some groups of U. S. citizens should have less rights than other groups -- not as individuals and not because of crimes in which they have participated but simply because of what they believe? H'mm, didn't see where you said that.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Roberta. Someone who actually understands, and gives a damn. And actually believes in treating other people like you'd expect to be treated yourself. It's why I put up with the signal to noise ratio.

If it's any consolation, the yahoos who would fight each other to man the guard towers of the Gulag here have ZERO say in how the world runs. Their frothing at the mouth opinions means ZERO in the grand scheme of things.

Just because folks own and enjoy guns doesn't mean they're worth the oxygen they breathe.

Sad part is, these clowns are why we have so damn much government, that I've got to deal with it everyday, here in Byzantium-on-the-Potomac.

If the majority of people that vote had Roberta's understanding, we could have Jefferson's - and Franklin's - limited government.

Stranger said...

Well said, Madame, well said. In the nearly eight decades I have been on this Earth, I have seen the American people's political wheel go from revulsion at all forms of socialism to acceptance of it. But I think that wheel has reached its apex. The road down to restoring our democratic republic will be a rough one. But it must be done - or the wheel shatters

Discounting the 19th century version of "history," Laura Wilder Lane's "The Discovery of Freedom" makes an excellent primer for those who need such.


Chuckle. The captcha is synce. By all means let us sync-e.

Anonymous said...

I have seen the utter evil that a soft, fat, completely tridley and useless person who blogs from their mother's basement can wreak upon their neighbor.

I have no fear of demons, vampires, or brain eating zombies. We don't need them, we have Suzy soccer-mom, who knows how her neighbors are supposed to think, and act. From HER, good Lord deliver us.

B said...

You miss the point of the discussion, dear lady....The point was not that we should place all the Muslims in a Gulag, but rather that we should not assume that they are ok, and give them special treatment just because they are Muslim.

To hide from the fact that the Koran promotes practices against nonbelievers that are evil and illegal, and that a "good Muslim" (one who follows the teachings) must have conflicts with the laws of the US is not bashing .

Face facts. Many Muslims are good decent people. But within Islam is a core of evil. Most muslims never let that affect them. Some do.

I do not think that we should embark on a Pogrom to remove muslims from the face of the earth. But we should not ignore the facts. We DO need to recognize what is possible , and in fact, more likely with a muslim than with those who follow other forms of God.

You show us, in your commentary, that you have not read the Koran, and know little about it. Until you have, and learn more, then you live in a fantasy world. You are my friend, and I greatly respect you, but you have a pollyana-ish outlook on this. I am sorry that you are disappointed in those of us that have seen the evil and recognize it. I am sorry that our disagreement hurts you.

og said...

Drop it, guys. Everyone has the freedom to choose willful ignorance. Concentrate your attentions on those willing to learn.

Anonymous said...

I have to laugh at these folk who say that they've "read the Koran," because otherwise I'd get annoyed. Then I remember - they have no say in domestic or foreign policy. None.

I have good and decent friends in the Muslim world who are fighting the same fight I am. We console each other, when we're occasionally wondering why we do what we do, so that these buffoons can spout their silliness, by translating their rants to people actually in the fight.

"Mr. Jim," said a Pakistani Muslim who's an acknowledged expert on what motivates people to be suicide bombers, "It's good to know your people are as stupid as mine."

If we didn't laugh, we'd cry.

Roberta X said...

Hair-splitting and spitballing begins!

Either you believe the Bill or Rights applies even to citizens you loathe, or you don't understand what it says.

I'm outta here. Kids, talk nice to one another or Mama will light up the No Commenting sign.

Fuzzy Curmudgeon said...

Good for you, Roberta. Illegitimi non carborundum!

B said...

"I have good and decent friends in the Muslim world who are fighting the same fight I am."

Have them explain to you (and if possible, to me) how they can exist in both worlds, and how they can be a good muslim, and follow the words of Mohammed, yet be a good citizen in the US.

One or the other has to fail.

I too have muslims which I had the honor to call friend. But they could never follow both paths. Some chose one way, others chose their religion. Either is acceptable.

IF you truly have read the Koran, and have friends who are muslim (not just Arabic) then you understand the cultural and religious dilemma that they face here in the US. You understand the different rules that they can apply to their relationship with an unbeliever vs with followers of Mohammed. Whereas in my culture, I treat all persons, of all religions, with the same set of rules.

I'm outa here. With respect to you all.

Roberta X said...

I can't resist:

Chick's take on a similar subject Enjoy!

Jim said...

Without proposing to put words in her mouth, it seems to me that Roberta's objection is to creating thought-crime statutes. Please count me as a member of her legions.

I am perfectly willing to jail and, in extremis, kill individual Muslims in retaliation for and in proportion to specific crimes, just as I am to willing to punish the similarly errant Methodist.

I am unwilling to establish a council to determine who needs to go to the dungeons for thinking thoughts I hate -- even if the council is composed of Me.

Hang tough Roberta.

The Duck said...

Roberta Nailed it, the BOR are those rights granted not by man but by a higher power.
If they are too hard to understand or you want to change them, perhaps you should drink the Kool-Aid

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

"This is Rome, Tacitus! The Greatest Power on the Planet! No illiterate nomadic barbarians will ever get to us here!"

Ok, ok, that's flip, and still no excuse to jettison any part of the BOR.

Fuzzy Curmudgeon said...

What Jim said.

BobG said...

Have to agree with you, lady. Either you are with the Bill of Rights or you aren't; cherry-picking isn't allowed, no matter how frustrating it may seem at times.

Ride Fast said...

Something easy to miss with all the mud pies being thrown here, is that this sort of fight is happening here and not on many other blogs where the some of the combatants dare not tread.

For better or worse, our right to disagree is happening on your turf, Bobbie, and thank you for hosting it.

Ed Skinner said...

Hear Here!

Anonymous said...

Now there's a lady after my own heart. Kudos madam.

Justthisguy said...

Billy Beck can't help his manners; he's provably insane. The proof? He seems to think that electric guitars are musical instruments. I wonder if he ever finished building the Fly Baby.

perlhaqr said...


elmo iscariot said...

"Have them explain to you (and if possible, to me) how they can exist in both worlds, and how they can be a good muslim, and follow the words of Mohammed, yet be a good citizen in the US.

"One or the other has to fail."

Just as no Catholic can be loyal to the US, because his doctrine requires loyalty to the Pope. And how, I suppose, no Christian could truly be loyal to the non-religious (not to say antireligious) law of the United States while he professes loyalty to the laws of God.

It occurred to me this morning what exactly was bothering me about these anti-Muslim* statements: the people making them sound just like militant atheists. I know the tone and argments very well from _my_ angry-atheist days. "The Bible says you must not suffer a witch to live, so if you call yourself a Christian you're condoning the murder of pagans." "The Bible says a father can sell his daughter into slavery, so if you call yourself a Christian you're condoning child slavery." Repeat for less destructive but sillier things, like bothering yourself with others' sex lives or wearing clothes made with more than one fabric. The bottom line was that, because the religion's source material contains some intolerant, violent, and simply antiquated stuff incompatible with our western values, that fundamentally tainted anybody who professed to follow the religion. Sound familiar?

The problem with _all_ these arguments is that they don't take into account the real-world complexity of human beings, and how those people integrate very old traditions and values into their modern lives. In the end, _all_ religions with any time under their belts will have embarassing, outdated cultural mandates that believers either interpret in ways consistent with modern standards or simply downplay and ignore. In the real world, because of the amount of personalization and interpretation that _all_ people do, a person's religion is a very poor indicator of what kind of person he'll be.

[* - I'm speaking factually, not playing the bigotry card.]

Drang said...

D. W.: Have you argued that some groups of U. S. citizens should have less rights than other groups -- not as individuals and not because of crimes in which they have participated but simply because of what they believe? H'mm, didn't see where you said that.
No, I suggested that, if one is going to say that a religion is "inherently evil", pone should explain why, and the next thing I knew I was being lumped in with you as believing that we should allow Muslims more freedoms than others. Which I don't remember you saying, either...

Cond0011 said...

Islam's 'god' give them a mandate... a license... to kill Jews and Infidels.

Where there is Islam, there is war - anywhere on the globe. I too, know Muslims and they seem like nice people, but the guy who killed 13 people seemed like nice people too.

If Muslims are so peaceful, why weren't they protesting enmass the suicide bombers in 9-11?

In 1829, the British abolished the Hindu practice of having a Widow thrown alive onto the funeral pyre of her dead husband.

Islamic law contradicts the law of the United States on a variety of different fronts. Abolish many points in Sharia (with the appropriate punishments) and you abolish Islam.

Below is a list of so called 'hate' websites that catalogue the Muslim atrocities that occur world wide. Give it a try.

Please show me the vast amount of proof needed to offset what the above 'smear' websites accumulate that can show that Islam is a peaceful religion that wants nothing more than to co-exist with the other peoples and ideas of the world.

LabRat said...

I like that in response to "it is never justifiable to suspend rights based on group affiliation" we get "but some groups are demonstrably evil and you're saying they're just as awesome as us!"

No no. The point is NOT which tribe is awesome or the opposite of awesome. The point is somewhere in an entirely different ballpark than that.

Wayne Conrad said...

RobertaX, If you need to flip a big knife switch that goes "bzzzzzzzzzzt" on the blog options in order to keep the blog comments from driving you nuts, do it. I'd rather read what you write without (or with moderated) comments than to have you stop writing.

Oh, and what you said about the BoR? Yeah. Exactly.

charles said...

I agree that the Bill of Rights applies to all. Judge individuals by their words and actions; conviction by association is bound to lead to greater disaster than anything a truly guilty person could do. William Blackstone said it best.

Alan J. said...

OK, Roberta, I'm going to plead ignorance here. Who is Billy Beck and what has made you so angry? I understand your anger about people using the latest act of terrorism as a cover for wanting to institute their own brand of fascism and government run camps, but I didn't see anything about that in any comments on your previous posts. As for comments on this post I've only seen one below the belt shot.

Bob, for mentioning Charles Johnson and his bug juice cup, I think that you owe Roberta an apology.

If you're not man enough to come back here and offer it up, then you, sir, are an asshole. And please don't bother to waste Roberta's bandwidth with an insult back to me, because she is the innocent victim of your rudeness, and I will stand by my words personally. And no, don't even think I'm deriving false courage from the internet, because I'd be happy to tell you the same to your face.

You owe the lady an apology for your rudeness. If you can't see that then you need to grow up.

ravenshrike said...

Elmo, unfortunately for you, part of your angry atheist days were completely wrong. The bible doesn't actually say thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. What it actually says, when translated properly, is either 'thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live' or 'thou shalt not suffer a malconvoker to live' depending on who you ask. Both being in the plural feminine form, which probably means it applied to both sexes.

Roberta X said...

I missed the LGF reference. I believe I'll continue to.

As for succinct explanation of what made me angry, there might not be one. LabRat does a pretty good job of it.

Roberta X said...

And Billy Beck is this guy, famously or infamously outspoken, ill-tempered and unwilling to suffer fools.

Tam said...


"Elmo, unfortunately for you, part of your angry atheist days were completely wrong. The bible doesn't actually say thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. What it actually says, when translated properly..."

And how many friendless old ladies got barbecued before that bit of linguistic legerdemain was discovered, much to the relief the sensibilities of 20th Century readers?

Patrick Sperry said...

Chuckles... That is the absolute best that I can do.

There is only Wind, Steel,and Honor as Corwin of Tarnburg said. Little did I know that role-play would have such an impact on real life.

TJP said...

I have a hard time accepting that there is anything at all worthy of further argument in the Bill of Rights. It's a tautology; an explicit but emaciated enumeration of rights that the Anti-Federalists insisted be spelled out or we'd have a civil war right after the revolutionary one. Like every law conceived by man, it's a passive collection of words. When those fundamental rights are violated--the rights being a woefully inadequate basis for a life of liberty--you're supposed to toss the offending government and start anew. (Pinheads generally take this to mean "revolution". I apologize for the public school system.)

Arguing about the Bill of Rights is fighting over the table scraps of liberty. There is no longer a feast of freedom to feed us all, and there hasn't been for a long time.

skipelec said...

X, Have you you got a flame going or what?
I got your back on this lady.
The Bill of Rights is the rule in OUR country.

Anonymous said...

The problem with your bill of rights is that it isn't perfect. The comment that it protects and enables abusers rather than the abused is a valid one. The urge to meddle with it is going to become overwhelming as moslems step up their attacks on America.

The problem is that once YOU meddle with it - you open the door for somebody else to do the same down the road, and they may not have the morals, ethics and motivations you do. It happened up here in Canada and now our constitution is a joke. It has been reworded and revised at the behest of homos, atheists, feminists, natives and a host of other victim groups are still clawing at it.

From the outside looking in - I am worried about America. I think it is sheer folly to think you are invincible, that socialists can't possibly destroy your country, and that common sense will ultimately prevail. Every other country on the globe has suffered lapses, all empires and kingdoms rise and eventually fall...and I hope we are not seeing the beginning of the end of the finest nation on earth.

Good luck you guys.


The Freeholder said...

Somehow, I don't think this is some sort of "either-or" proposition. One can support the BoR, and also recognize that there are deadly enemies of our way of life. We can deal with those enemies within the framework of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Doing so will be more difficult, I grant, but less error prone.

Failing to recognize these enemies is the real sin. A willingness to close ones eyes to the fact that your enemies belong to some common group (be it a religion or the readership of a given web site) makes the job of recognizing the enemy just that much more difficult.

I would not advocated locking up all Muslims and throwing away the key, neither would I advocate their mass extinction. However, If I see two groups of people, one dressed in business suits and one dressed in in the robes and headgear of the traditional Muslim male, I know which group I'm going to be paying the most attention to, at least at first.

And how that violates the BoR is beyond me.

John B said...

All I ever needed to know about life I learned fron Star Trek.

It applies to the Kohms as well as the Yangs.

It applies for everyone or it means NOTHING!

Capt. Kirk addressing the Yang council in "The Omega Glory" regarding a document starting with "We The Pepole"

Billy Beck said...

J.E.G. said "Byzantium-on-the-Potomac". {howl!} I'll have to steal that. It's pretty good.

As for this: "...famously or infamously outspoken, ill-tempered..."

I am not, goddammit! I'm really a really nice guy. It's just that I hate people. Can you blame me?

"...and unwilling to suffer fools..."

I am, too, goddammit!

Life's too short for nonsense from any specimen of a rational species, and I won't have any nonsense about these facts.

Bob said...

AlanJ: I've not had much internet access for the last 3 days, so I didn't see your comment. Suffice to say that if Roberta wants or needs an apology, she's an adult and can ask for one herself; I didn't realize she appointed you her Champion.

As for the LGF comparison, I made it in an effort to get Roberta to see that she is going a bit overboard in alienating friends who mostly agree with her, and feel that being characterized as fascists and Stalinists is going to extremes, much as Charles Johnson's recent purge of LGF was going to extremes.

My blog and email address, AlanJ, is linked in my comments, unlike yours. Feel free to stop by anytime.