Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Good Riddance

Expand Messages
  • Jeff Olson
    Well, Jeffrey, on basic humanistic principles I would caution Jeo/Jim/Libertarian Lawyer, while his muscles are all a-flutter, to keep his eye on your cane.
    Message 1 of 157 , Oct 1, 2009
      Well, Jeffrey, on basic humanistic principles I would caution Jeo/Jim/Libertarian Lawyer, while his muscles are all a-flutter, to keep his eye on your cane.  Jim, that cane could end up in places you really don't want it to be (I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy).
       
      JR, How do you know his muscles are "manly," anyway?  My gf has muscles, too, and they're quite feminine.
       
      Harrumph,
       
      Jeff
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 10:12 AM
      Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Good Riddance

       

      "Park's comments dont [sic] address the previous issues raised and misstates [sic] others' positions."

      I'd say he needs a good beating! Don't you agree? (Don't you love the way manly Jeo's muscles bulge and ripple when he administers his beatings?)

      Oh, I forgot! Mike is able-bodied. Never mind.

      JR

      --- In LeftLibertarian2@ yahoogroups. com, jeo1@... wrote:
      >
      > Park's comments dont address the previous issues raised and misstates others' positions.
      >
      > As far as the National Guard recruits, CJ is positing a situation almost like a draft and I think that is somewhat, but not entirely, true.
      > I don't know what NG enlistees sign, nor what they are told about the prospect of being sent to kill foreigners. I imagine most feel that it is "worth the risk" if they can get paid, free college and benefits and all they probably will have to do is some weekend calisthenics once a month or whatever.
      >
      > There is the natural disaster angle, but I think it's awfully generous to think they had no clue that they may be asked to make some war in return for gov't cash and benefits. That is a risk they consciously took in return for govt goodies.
      >
      > But yes, the gov't is now taking advantage of them, using them as killing machines and cannon fodder.
      > Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Mike Park <johnnycannuk@ ...>
      >
      > Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 06:05:57
      > To: <LeftLibertarian2@ yahoogroups. com>
      > Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Good Riddance
      >
      >
      > Charles,
      >
      > I think we may be in violent agreement here (and on the previous post).
      >
      > I can hold individual soldiers morally culpable for their actions
      > without wishing each and everyone of them dead merely because the wear
      > a uniform.
      >
      > I note the the recruiting ads never say "Join the Army and come kill
      > brown folks" .
      >
      >
      > I don't want soliers dead any more than I want Afghans or Iraqis dead.
      > I want them to stop and realize their errors. But I am able to
      > appreciate the lies and circumstances that got them into the military
      > might not have been murderous blood lust.
      >
      > Unlike others who are preferring the same kind of unthinking and
      > uncritical group think that started the wars in the first place.
      >
      > On Wednesday, September 30, 2009, Charles Johnson <feedback@.. .> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
      > > Hash: SHA1
      > >
      > > On 9/30/2009 5:25 PM, jeo1@... <javascript :_e({}, 'cvml', 'jeo1%40verizon. net');> wrote:
      > >
      > >> The soldiers who volunteer do not "end up" in various wars. It was their
      > >> intent and desire to serve the state in this violent fashion.
      > >
      > > Suppose that someone joins the Army National Guard, after a recruiter
      > > promises that he'll just be in for weekends, and may be called up in
      > > case of a natural disaster. A few years later, he gets a letter from the
      > > U.S. Army telling him that, contrary to what he was promised and what he
      > > expected, he's now being deployed to kill people in Iraq. In any other
      > > job in the world, you could quit and walk away; but since it's the
      > > military, quitting is a federal crime for which you will probably be
      > > imprisoned, and for which you could in principle be sentenced to death.
      > > At this point, at least on most libertarian theories of consent, the
      > > dude is not a "volunteer," but rather a slave acting under duress due to
      > > the threat of incarceration or death.
      > >
      > > Does that mean it's O.K. for him to comply with orders and kill people?
      > > No. Courageous people ought to refuse to kill innocents, even if it
      > > means risking their own freedom or their own lives. Does it mean that it
      > > was O.K. for him to have signed up with the National Guard in the first
      > > place, given the powers that the U.S. government claims that that gives
      > > them over your body and life? No, I think that it's a bad idea, and
      > > indeed morally wrong, to sign up for any branch of the U.S. military at
      > > any time, regardless of what your intent, desire, or expectations. But
      > > it *does* mean that you can't reliably infer, just from his presence in
      > > Iraq (say), that he signed up with the "intent and desire" to kill
      > > people in Iraq. And it also means that, whatever the moral status of his
      > > actions, they are no longer the actions of a volunteer performing his
      > > chosen duties; they are, rather, the acts of a man acting against his
      > > will, under duress from the state.
      > >
      > > Of course, there are also many military recruits who sign up with the
      > > hope and desire to kill a lot of people (preferably a lot of Muslims),
      > > who sign up hoping to go into combat zones to kill, who would never
      > > think of refusing a deployment into a combat zone even if they had the
      > > choice, etc. These people, whatever else they may be in private life,
      > > are acting as thugs and are motivated by a fairly simplistic sort of
      > > bloodlust. They deserve to be criticized and condemned for that. But
      > > given the way that the military actually works, at present, you can't
      > > reliably infer that everyone in it was thinking that way. Or that they
      > > are where they are because they "volunteered" to be there.
      > >
      > > - -C
      > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE--- --
      > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
      > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail. mozdev.org/
      > >
      > > iD8DBQFKw/1E1dpUSIv 3yzMRAuTPAJ0RvSr M3jtRSYOcGKNw6/ fmJwL70ACfbfj4
      > > Fkc2X/3cNq2KK2Eehi4 Pzm8=
      > > =ZIxQ
      > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE--- --
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >

    • Dan
      I actually agree with you here. I think Jeff went too far in that direction. But this is a matter of taste. Sometimes a joke isn t funny, to me, if it feels
      Message 157 of 157 , Oct 2, 2009
        I actually agree with you here. I think Jeff went too far in that direction. But this is a matter of taste. Sometimes a joke isn't funny, to me, if it feels overwritten. I've recently watching the American version of "The Office." I loved the British version, but I'm finding the problem with the American version, for me, is that the jokes are too overdone. With the British one, for me, it felt like they would do something funny, know the audience got it, and move on to the next incident. With the American one, they have to keep hammering at the same joke until it gets boring -- for me. IMHO, Jeff Olson did that here.
         
        Regards,
         
        Dan

        From: "jeo1@..." <jeo1@...>
        To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thu, October 1, 2009 5:55:09 PM
        Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Meanwhile, back on the playground...

         

        Very funny. Your concern is touching.

        Now JO and DU, we don't want to sound like 6th graders do we? One might think your message here is just a wee bit childish.

        Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®


        From: Jeff Olson
        Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:27:48 -0500
        To: <LeftLibertarian2@ yahoogroups. com>
        Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Meanwhile, back on the playground.. .

         

        Agreed.  If he suffers from anything it would probably be a classic case of Assholus Blowhardus.  It's a tragic disease which renders some misfortunate individuals to be capable only of expressing themselves via blowing their words out their ass.  Nothing subtle (or minty fresh) about that.
         
        Sadly,
         
        Jeff
         
         
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Dan
        Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 5:23 PM
        Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Meanwhile, back on the playground.. .

         

        Might be a subtle insult cast at Jeff Riggenbach. But I don't think Jim suffers from being subtle.
         
        Regards,
         
        Dan

        From: Jeff Olson <jlolson53@gmail. com>
        To: LeftLibertarian2@ yahoogroups. com
        Sent: Thu, October 1, 2009 5:06:18 PM
        Subject: Re: Meanwhile, back on the playground.. ./was Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Good Riddance
         

        Was the misspelling of disrespect also a sign of disrespect (one can't help but wonder)?
         
        Jeff :)
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Dan
        Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 5:00 PM
        Subject: Meanwhile, back on the playground.. ./was Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Good Riddance

         

        What is this? The six grade? I believe you need to give it a rest. (No, I'm not the moderator and I'm not telling you how to live you life, but I'm giving my unsolicited judgment here.)
         
        Regards,
         
        Dan

        From: "jeo1@verizon. net" <jeo1@verizon. net>
        To: LeftLibertarian2@ yahoogroups. com
        Sent: Thu, October 1, 2009 1:16:30 PM
        Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Good Riddance
         

        That's on purpose, a sign of disrepect.

        Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®


        From: Jeff Olson
        Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:27:10 -0500
        To: <LeftLibertarian2@ yahoogroups. com>
        Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Good Riddance

         

        "Flying saucers Olsen?"  Hmmm...thanks for the tip, buddy.  I just might look for him.  Sounds like he might be a long-lost relative of mine or something.
         
        Jeff
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:33 PM
        Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Good Riddance

         

        Why don't u go outside and check for flying saucers olsen? Report your "findings" to us later. Much later.

        Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

        From: Jeff Olson
        Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:26:58 -0500
        To: <LeftLibertarian2@ yahoogroups. com>
        Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Good Riddance

         

        For what it's worth, Jeffrey, I think you could kick his ass - both literally and figuratively.  You're a pretty big guy, with a big vocabulary, and that cane of yours sounds nasty.
         
        :-)  Jeff
        .



      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.