Speaking of Poll Numbers...

POSTED BY: Kwicko
UPDATED: Saturday, September 20, 2008 00:17
VIEWED: 6300
PAGE 5 of 5

Quote:

---

The Democrats uphold most freedoms, most of the time, but neglect the one that I believe secures the rest. It's very irritating.

---

Partial agreement, I wouldn't say most though, I would say they uphold more of them, but less important ones.

And it's very bloody irritating.

And when it comes to certain things, I ain't gonna be polite, I ain't gonna be nice, it's too goddamn late for nice - and look where it's fucking got us to ?

I intend to be as ruthless as need be to get it done and right now that's a damn lot of it.

Part of yon kool-aid chuggers problem is that I don't think his rusty, disused, black and white thought process is capable of wrapping itself around the concept of political sabotage in spite of the fact that it seems to be all his preferred party does even over and above their intended function.

I submit to you this text of concept from Bob Jackson.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/jackson/jackson1.html

EXCERPT.

Granted, there are ways to act defensively while damaging the system such as running away. But these are clearly more dangerous paths. Nor are all choices mutually exclusive. A slave could both choose an overseer and attempt to run away, thus increasing his odds of survival if he’s captured in the escape attempt, thus making an attempt equal in effectiveness – if successful -- to the slave who would only choose non-cooperation and running away as tactics. It is even arguable that the former is more effective at undermining the institution, as a "deceitful slave" might impose a greater economic cost in the form of risk than the predictable ethical "non-voting" type.

You can vote as an act of aggression. You can also vote in self-defense. If you are assaulted, you can flee the person. If cornered, you can choose to dodge the blow. If unable to dodge the blow, you might choose to block or deflect the attack. A proportional defensive counter-attack may even be of order. And while it’s perfectly laudable that a person can choose fleeing or dodging as their personal range of moral choices, the choice is exactly that -- personal instead of universal. Aggression requires intent. Self-defense is the strategic root. Voting is a tactic.

In short, if you got to *choose* who is going to attack you - wouldn't the course of wisdom be to choose the less aggressive, less competent foe ?

As a coda, there's no way in hell imma take pure malicious sophistry nicely from a shitheel that tried to shovel the concept that the rich pay so much tax and the poor almost none, on a day I was fucking starving cause I couldn't afford food in spite of working a fifty hour week due to the fact that an independant contractor in this job that both local (Engler) and national politicians have virtually destroyed which carries a tax bite of almost forty fucking percent of the total income BEFORE expenses...

And the hell if imma take it with the girl having been laid up and desperately ill recently and a ton of fucking bills her insurance company is trying to skip out of in spite of being contractually bound to cover.

Call me petty if you like, but when people who don't have to soak up their impact support policies that are gutting my ability to fucking survive, much less prosper, I take that as an act of violence against me personally.

Especially coming from a fucking hypocrite who might actually stand with me if they tried to confiscate my pistol, but doesn't seem to have any problem with them confiscating my money.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME