Liberal? Libertarian? Conservative? Fiscally & socially, where do you stand?

Having read Dennis Olsen's statement: "The TB2K board is a CONSERVATIVE board. This one is quite obviously a LIBERAL board"; Having mostly recovered from my initial reaction to said statement (ROTFLMAO!); I began to wonder if the overall political leaning I believe is most prevalent here - Conservative, with quite a few Libertarians – is merely a reflection of my own philosophy, a figment of my imagination soiled by my own biases.

Although I rarely join political discussion, on this board as well as IRL, I would like to test my take on the general tilt of the folks on this forum, politically speaking, by polling posters on where they stand in this regard. I'm not interested in party affiliations for the purposes of this poll. Nor am I interested in responses from folks who use revolving handles.

PLEASE NOTE: Any response to this thread from a person not recognizable by handle will trigger a microchip implanted in my soon-to-be lobotomized brain which will compel me to track that person down and burn the hair off their knuckles. It has happened before. Jail food bites. I don't want to go back there. Simple, sample definitions to follow...

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), April 27, 2001

Answers

Liberalism FAQ

EXCERPT: 6. What do liberals want the government to do?

"Liberals see the role of government as providing a framework within which individuals can develop their lives and contribute to society. Regulation of private industry is needed to ensure integrity and safety, with respect to customers and workers. Equal opportunity should be a goal, which entails a level of provision to ameliorate the effects of poverty and discrimination. Health care and education should be universally available, since without either, individual choice is severely limited. Liberals do *not* want the government to protect people from themselves, or to interfere in individual interaction, except insofar as to prevent systematic actions that cause harm."

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), April 27, 2001.

Conservatism FAQ

EXCERPT: 6.2 What are mainstream conservatives?

"People who mix the traditionalist conservatism outlined in this FAQ with varying proportions of libertarianism and liberalism. Any conservative who gets elected or otherwise hits the mass market (e.g., Rush Limbaugh) is likely to be a mainstream conservative.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/conservatism/faq”>Conservatism FAQ

EXCERPT: 6.2 What are mainstream conservatives?

People who mix the traditionalist conservatism outlined in this FAQ with varying proportions of libertarianism and liberalism. Any conservative who gets elected or otherwise hits the mass market (e.g., Rush Limbaugh) is likely to be a mainstream conservative."

"Mainstream conservatives often speak the language of liberalism, especially classical liberalism. Their appeal is nonetheless conservative; typically, they reject more highly developed forms of liberalism in favor of earlier forms that retain more traces of non- liberal traditions."

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), April 27, 2001.

Key Concepts of Libertarianism

EXCERPTS:

"Individual Rights. Because individuals are moral agents, they have a right to be secure in their life, liberty, and property. These rights are not granted by government or by society; they are inherent in the nature of human beings. It is intuitively right that individuals enjoy the security of such rights; the burden of explanation should lie with those who would take rights away."

"However, three additional points need to be made: first, libertarianism is not just these broad liberal principles. Libertarianism applies these principles fully and consistently, far more so than most modern thinkers and certainly more so than any modern government. Second, while our society remains generally based on equal rights and capitalism, every day new exceptions to those principles are carved out in Washington and in Albany, Sacramento, and Austin (not to mention London, Bonn, Tokyo, and elsewhere). Each new government directive takes a little bit of our freedom, and we should think carefully before giving up any liberty. Third, liberal society is resilient; it can withstand many burdens and continue to flourish; but it is not infinitely resilient. Those who claim to believe in liberal principles but advocate more and more confiscation of the wealth created by productive people, more and more restrictions on voluntary interaction, more and more exceptions to property rights and the rule of law, more and more transfer of power from society to state, are unwittingly engaged in the ultimately deadly undermining of civilization."

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), April 27, 2001.

Rich: I noticed what Dennis said, and please do remember that he's Olson [not Olsen]. I laughed, as well. *I* consider myself a liberal on all things socially related. There's a part of me that is also libertarian, in that I don't want government messing with my life. The lines of delineation have become so fuzzy that I'm sure most of us cross them on various issues, and liberals, conservatives, moderates and libertarians have various degrees even within themselves.

The labels have been bastardized, as I see it. As you noted in a recent thread, you're more liberal in accepting someone's faith choices. You have an open mind about that. I do, too, but I draw the line when someone else's faith tries to dictate to ME.

I grow tired of folks blaming all the ills of the world on the liberals. You may have noticed several threads in which posters replied that liberals were the cause of "Why Johnny can't read, or Why Johnny can't do math." To ME, this is silly, as all three of my children could read and do simple arithmetic before they ever went to school.

I see it more as someone to blame, overall. It doesn't matter who it is, but if something goes wrong, it MUST be due to a philosophy that we don't share.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 27, 2001.

My apologies to Dennis for fouling up the spelling of Olson. Thanks for pointing out my error, Anita.

The more life experience, the more closely I identify with Libertarian philosophy – politically, socially, personally.

I want to witness the peeling away of the layers of government bureaucracy. Strip down government, I say. Amend the constitution to include a statute of limitations, wherein all laws enacted external from the U.S. Constitution are not endowed with life in perpetuity, but must be renewed every 'X' number of years. This would serve to do one of two things: either force reduction in the number of criminal and civil codes to be manageable, & the simplification of those we keep on the books (as with the tax code, for example), or cultivate a vast bureaucracy in order to attend to the hundreds of thousands of laws on the books. God forbid the latter manifests as reality.

Too late. It already has.

This dismantling should be undertaken methodically over many, many years. Our present state of government didn't spring up overnight. It has taken two centuries of greed and avarice, equal parts foolishness and twisted brilliance, to build this complicated web of ours. Let's get started. We have a long row to hoe.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), April 27, 2001.

Senor Rich, your definitions make the question more difficult. May I offer an alternative?

Libertarians believe in maximization of personal and economic freedoms. (Flint, Unk, Eve) Examples of public policy stands: pro- gun, pro-abortion, pro-business, anti-government.

Conservative believe in maximizing economic freedom, however, they accept limitations on personal freedom where "moral" issues are involved. (Maria) Examples of public policy stands: pro-business, anti-abortion, pro-"family values," anti-government, anti-social programs.

Liberals accept limitations on economic freedom to promote "equity." They also accept limitatations on personal freedom to promote "social justice." (Anita) Examples of public policy stands: anti-business, anti-gun, pro abortion, pro government, pro social programs

Greens are a subset of liberals (or socialists). They accept limitations on economic and personal freedoms to promote the natural environment. (Brian McLaughlin) Examples of public policy stands: anti-business, pro environment, pro government.

These definitions are general. Political orientation is not a matter of believing every element of a political philosophy, but a general concurrence. There are pro-gun liberals and anti-gun conservatives.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), April 27, 2001.

Appreciate your simplification and clarification of terms, Senor Ortega. My curiosity on this issue is not matched by my grasp of the subject.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), April 27, 2001.

Not sure how Olson could have arrived at his conclusion this is a LIBERAL board. Particularly if he hadn't been to this place in months as he claims.

I get the impression there is an equal balance of political leanings on this forum. Hard to gauge though, considering the fact that only a few people here actually dive into the "talk politics" pool. It would at times appear there are a lot of people voicing their opinions but it's fairly apparent that many are merely supporting their previous posts under multiple anonymous names.

The way I see it, "Aint Gonna Happen", "Cherri", "Dumbya" and "libs are idiots" are for the most part the only ones who feel the need to spew propaganda on the subject around here. And, being on opposite sides of the fence from each other, their steady stream of cut 'n pastes and/or predictable one liners basically cancel each other out.

As for me, Rich... As Anita pointed out, labels are somewhat misleading at times. With that said, I guess you can chalk me up as for the most part, a CONSERVATIVE. (I think that's fairly safe to say. After all, I'm a registered Republican who enjoys listening to Limbaugh.) At the same time, I would probably fit neatly into Senor' Ortega's definition of a LIBERTARIAN also.

I can say one thing with certainty, however. I am definately NOT a LIBERAL. After all (as Anita reminded me in her post), all the ills of the world are their damn fault! ;-)

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), April 27, 2001.

CD, I loath playing the label game; in politics & spiritual matters especially.

I thought perhaps thinking about these terms and the various shades of gray, and posting where we stand based upon ACTUAL consideration of the 'big picture' (adjust vertical hold as necessary) as we view it might be refreshing and even educational, as opposed to the tired, mind-numbing Dem/Repub concretized mindsets which produce little in the way of actual, out-of-the-catbox thought.

There are plenty of folks here who really don't have a handle on the meanings of these various labels (I'm raising my hand). Yet some toss them around like grenades, as if somehow calling someone a Liberal or Conservative is tantamount to passing sentence of life swimming in molten lava. I don't get it. I've never understood it.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), April 27, 2001.

Well, since I evidently started this by that statement...

It appeared to me to be a liberal board, since every other thread had the word "Dumya" in it, and I know how bitter the November defeat was for libbie Dems everywhere. (Supposedly Balwin and Streisand were to leave the contry if Bush won, but somehow managed to wiggle out. Over at the other board, we were taking up a collection for their one-way tickets.)

Personally, I am a lifelong Democrat, who has becoe VERY conservative on most things, but still liberal on issues like health care. Also, I am firmly in the camp of "get the government OUT of our lives", so I guess that makes me a Libertarian as well.

Not that any of you really care, but I thought I'd get the ball rolling.

-- Dennis Olson (djolson@pressenter.com), April 27, 2001.

The Dumbya posts are troll posts by conservatives. Damn you're dense. Get it? Dennis = dense?

-- Polly Wanna Cracker? (polly@wanna.cracker), April 27, 2001.

In order for me to know that the "Dumya"/"Dumbya" posts aren't legit, I'd have to know the board dynamics. Since I never come over here, that's not realistic. Anyway, you people have fun, and continue with your name-calling, purile crap. Don't let me stop you...

-- Dennis Olson (djolson@pressenter.com), April 27, 2001.

I grow tired of folks blaming all the ills of the world on the liberals

Anita,

You are only seeing ONE side of this. You see it that way simply because you identify yourself as a "Liberal" and thus blame pointed towards "Liberals" sticks out in your mind. Go to any college campus these days and see just who is being blamed for the world's ills there! Trust me, they are not blaming the Liberals for the world problems, they are blaming the greedy Conservative capitalistic pigs for the worlds ills.

Frankly the "problems of the world" tend to line up by way of a person's political leanings. Liberals see funding cutbacks for social programs as a problem, while Conservatives may see the very program itself as the "problem" and the cutbacks as the solution. It depends on what you see as a problem, and Liberals have differing ideas about that than do Conservatives or Libertarians.

As a (mostly) Libertarian I tend to see government itself as the problem, since government can force you at the end of a gun to do as they bid. The larger and more complex a government becomes the more issues (read laws) they can force you to comply with, even if complying is against your best interests, and even if all parties invloved in the issue to not want to be interfered with by the government, prostitution for example.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 27, 2001.

Rich, I thought I'd weigh in. I consider myself libertarian. I recall a web site that place a person on a grid based on the person's views in politics. (Maybe it was on Poole's forum). I am registered repub and follow most of their agenda. However, as Jose incorrectly labeled me, I'm also pro-abortion. I don't spew much of my personal life on this board but I've had two abortions and I wouldn't want to force any woman to have a child she didn't want. So you see, it is hard to place people in a box; we're all very different.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 27, 2001.

In order for you to know the Dumbya posts weren't legit, you'd have to have eyes.

-- Polly Wanna Cracker? (polly@wanna.cracker), April 27, 2001.

Polly, you would be correct, assuming (?!?) that I bothered to read them. Which I did not. I thought it was tough to seperate the wheat from the chaff at the recently deceased TB2K. Man that place was NOTHING compared to here, where you might have ONE legit post in 50 raging flame/troll ones.

But I guess you people like it that way. Too funny, and so ironic.

-- Dennis Olson (djolson@pressenter.com), April 27, 2001.

Yeah Dennis, funny as hell!

Freedom can be sloppy my friend, but some of us would have it no other way. You want to be free? Well, freedom is something that you can ONLY get if you are willing to give it to others, there is no other way to do it.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 27, 2001.

You obviously read enough to notice them.

Maybe this place has a lot of trolls, but it sure beats censorship. Here we're free to say whatever we please to whomever we please about whatever we please without fear of retribution. Only cowards who hide behind carefully screened and monitored boards would be afraid of too much freedom.

-- Polly Wanna Cracker? (polly@wanna.cracker), April 27, 2001.

Dennis Olson,

Not to hijack Rich's thread, but since this is the first time that I have seen you on this board, would you care to clear up the widely held misconception that I am you.


Rich,

I am almost a straight Libertarian, even though I am a Christian. God himself does not force us to come to Him, and as such, I don't believe that it is government's job to legislate morality. To clarify, I think that everyone should lead a life that Jesus approves of, but I don't think that the government should be there enforcing those choices.

One (and possibly the only) place where I strongly disagree with the Libertarian view is abortion. I believe that an unborn child has a right to life. I believe that a person's (even an unborn person's) right to life exceeds most other rights whenever the two may collide.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 27, 2001.

You know what I detest? People that say "you people". I hear it day in and out here at work. It goes this way "you people have my"...fill in the blank.

It is normally used when they are angry. It appears the same in Dennis's case.

Let me get it right: Dennis, you come here, belittle 'us' ramble on about free speech and y2k (MAJOR eye roll) board that you now moderate, invite us all over and turn around and once again on yet another thread start the same old shit. Yeah, SHIT.

Funny, ironic? It is. That you can come here to be critical of us, but wont allow that at yours!!!!!

See uncle dee has it going on, he ALLOWS freedom.

Admit it dennis, YOU want freedom, or you would not be here :-)

NOW thats IRONIC.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 27, 2001.

J, glad you have the opportunity (finally) to seek confirmation - for the record - from Dennis that you ARE two distinct individuals.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), April 27, 2001.

Very well put, Unk! Unfortunately, I'm afraid it will be lost on Dennis however.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), April 27, 2001.

I apologize, Maria, if I misread your political leanings. I must disagree with Senor Olson's claim that this is a "liberal" board. Like any open community, there are members who have little to say, though they use a great deal of space making this point. My impression is that the forum is diverse, with the only commonality being a hint of smugness in many participants.

Future iterations of the "closed" ex-doomsayer forum will inevitably fail. Liberal or conservative, an open forum will last much longer because the vitality conferred by free and open exchange of ideas. Dissent is the fire that forges great thoughts.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), April 27, 2001.

Freedom can be sloppy my friend, but some of us would have it no other way. You want to be free? Well, freedom is something that you can ONLY get if you are willing to give it to others, there is no other way to do it.

That is correct. But implicit in that freedom is the right of others to feel good ("Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness"), and not be insulted or verbally assaulted by others. (And you only have to look at the "About Fucking Time" thread to see some of YOUR better assaults unpon myself)

And FOR THE RECORD, "J" is not me. I hadn't been over here for a long, long time. And probably won't again, after this little exchange is over.

I restarted the TB2K board as a free exchange board. No bans, no hard feelings, nada. I got a TON of emails begging me to "pre-ban" some of you. I refused. (Evidently I do not hold a grudge or bad feelings as effectively as some of YOU PEOPLE do.)

So, the new board shall continue to be open to all participants. Flint (Tnilf") has already posted there, in his verbose but entertaining style. Any of you are free to do so. However, please read the rules before posting. I believe that you WILL find them to be easy to understand and fair to all.

Those rules will NOT change, nor will they be added to. People who verbally assault others will be warned, then banned if necessary. What many of you seem incapable of understanding is that FREEDOM does not grant anarchy. This board is "free", if you don't mind a "Lord of the Flies" kind of freedom. Personally, I DO NOT find that type of freedom reasonable or attractive.

If that's what you require to be "free", you can still wallow in it over here. If you come over there, decorum WILL be enforced. Those of you that can understand these points are always welcome. Those of you that can't, well, spew on. After all, you are so good at it....

-- Dennis Olson (djolson@pressenter.com), April 27, 2001.

That you can come here to be critical of us, but wont allow that at yours!!!!!

Two errors here that I feel need to be cleared up.

1) I did NOT come here to be critical of you. I came here to present the "other side" of the discussion about the TB2K board. For that I have been mercilessly attacked. Now what were some of you saying about open-minded discussions again...?

2) "Being critial" is NOT the same as verbal abuse. Evidently it is to some of YOU, so I might suggest some anger management therapy, or perhaps a nice Carnegie course in Human Relations. You can come over there and be as critical of VIEWPOINTS as you want. You may NOT, however, attack the individual board members personally nor belittle their personal beliefs, just as I would not allow them to attack any of YOU personally. And vast quantities of profanity will not be tolerated. That isn't "freedom", it's gutter-mouth.

Hope this clears up a couple of points. Rave on...

-- Dennis Olson (djolson@pressenter.com), April 27, 2001.

Dennis Olson,

Thanks for your clarification.

Good luck on the new board.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 27, 2001.

Hey Dennis

Just out of curiousity, are you embarassed that people confused you with J, who thinks Tim McVeigh is a hero and the Eric Rudolph's a patriot?

-- Polly Wanna Cracker? (polly@wanna.cracker), April 27, 2001.

Actually, I don't know J's politics or leanings toward anything, and I really don't care. We all believe as we wish. Evidently, you believe in acting like a 6 year old, which is also fine by me. Personally, I think McVeigh may have had the right idea, but the wrong target, and he certainly didn't do his homework in finding out if there would be innocents in the building. I'd have gone for the IRS building in DeeCee. At least try to benefit the country if you're gonna bomb something... (snicker)

I don't know J. I don't know you. No problem.

Rave on....

-- Dennis Olson (djolson@pressenter.com), April 27, 2001.

Personally, I think McVeigh may have had the right idea, but the wrong target, and he certainly didn't do his homework in finding out if there would be innocents in the building. I'd have gone for the IRS building in DeeCee. At least try to benefit the country if you're gonna bomb something... (snicker)

No profanity and no attacks, but it's perfectly alright to advocate violence.

OK, I won't use a bad word to call you a name. I'll just tell you your view on this is INSANE.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), April 27, 2001.

That is correct. But implicit in that freedom is the right of others to feel good ("Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness"), and not be insulted or verbally assaulted by others. (And you only have to look at the "About Fucking Time" thread to see some of YOUR better assaults unpon myself)

The majority of these so-called "assaults" were merely pointing out that you were just as adept at insulting people as any of us, so this holier-than-thou stance of yours is hypocritical in the extreme. You continually referred to this forum and its predecessor as the "House O Debunkie Trolls," even though it contained a high number of doomers from the original TB2K who were simply tired of all the censorship taking place on the EZ-Board replacement. You frequently delighted in any news that the Uncensored forum was possibly failing in some way, and occasionally taunted us using your "Yeah Right" persona for your own personal pleasure. And now you have the stones to try to grab the moral high ground and claim you are above "insults" and "verbal assaults?" The word "bullshit" comes to mind.

That said, I still think the new forum should be given the benefit of the doubt. Dennis did eliminate the stupid "pre-bans" on all the former pollies, and that has to account for something. Banning people is a "slippery slope," however. It's easy to make threats, but when it comes time to carry them out, it's important to eliminate the bias. On the old Greenspun forum, personal attacks were supposedly not allowed, and yet only pollies who posted personal attacks were banned or deleted. Doomers who posted the very same kind of attacks were either ignored or praised. On the EZboard replacement, INVAR began calling Hawk "Nazi-boy" on a regular basis. Hawk, who espoused the liberal point of view, eventually responded with his own brand of insults. Chuck stepped in and issued Hawk a warning. INVAR's insults were ignored.

This is the kind of crap that must be avoided if one wants to prevent the new forum from suffering the same fate as the old one. Apply your rules to everyone or don't bother applying them at all.

-- (One@WhoWas.There), April 27, 2001.

"Personally, I think McVeigh may have had the right idea, but the wrong target, and he certainly didn't do his homework in finding out if there would be innocents in the building. I'd have gone for the IRS building in DeeCee. At least try to benefit the country if you're gonna bomb something... (snicker)"

Wow. You might as well be J.

-- Polly Wanna Cracker (polly@wanna.cracker), April 27, 2001.

This is the kind of crap that must be avoided if one wants to prevent the new forum from suffering the same fate as the old one. Apply your rules to everyone or don't bother applying them at all.

That is exactly correct. Both myself, as well as any staff I bring in, will be using that yardstick. Polite and civil means just that. On all sides.

And as for my views on McVeigh... I guess some are just too dense to see a bit of HUMOR. Hmmm.....

-- Dennis Olson (djolson@pressenter.com), April 27, 2001.

It seems, Senor Olson, that you are too thin skinned for this environment. Mercilessly? The behavior of the "doomsayers" on the original TB 2000 was far more vicious and personal. No one here has accused you of being a government "operative" or of murdering people by your lack of "preps." Here, there is no double standard. If memory serves, the "delete on sight" policy was aimed at people whose behavior was no less civil than Paul Milne or the other apocalyptic soothsayers.

This forum is no more "Lord of the Flies" than contemporary radio or television. Like with any medium, you can simply ignore those messages you find offensive.

Personally, I would avoid your forum. With all due respect, I think you will be quick to punish those who disagree with your world view and reluctant to enforce your petty rules on your cronies. So it has been in every incarnation of the Time Bomb, and so shall it remain.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), April 27, 2001.

I don't find anything humorous in 168 dead Americans. I hope I never do.

-- Polly Wanna Cracker (polly@wanna.cracker), April 27, 2001.

Dennis,

Please clarify.

You stated: (And you only have to look at the "About Fucking Time" thread to see some of YOUR better assaults unpon myself)

Was the *YOUR* directed at me, as in Unk D has assaulted you? You seemed to be replying to my post, but I believe that you are somewhat confused since I do not recall EVER saying things about you that could be confused with a verbal assault. Trust me bud, if I were to verbally assault you it would be a work of art, not just a bunch of names directed your way.

Truth be told, you came in here, announced your judgement upon MY forum without actually READING the posts that you referred to in order to reach your conclusion, and then proceded to insult the intelligence of the posters here!

And you think WE are ironic? LOL!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 27, 2001.

No Unk. I was using YOUR to refer to some board members in general, rather than any specific person. The offenders know who they are.

And "back then", tempers were short all around. Feelings were raw and bruised. That was nearly 18 months ago. I felt that it was time to move on. Bury the hatchet if you will. But there are some here that just can't let go. THOSE are the one's I'm "passing judgement on" if you want to word it that way.

Y2K is over. Get a life. Let go of the rollover animosity (those of you who CAN)...

-- Dennis Olson (djolson@pressenter.com), April 27, 2001.

And as for my views on McVeigh... I guess some are just too dense to see a bit of HUMOR. Hmmm.....

I see the humor. I just don't find SICK HUMOR funny.

BTW, for the original topic of this thread...

Libertarian politically, conservative economically, and liberal when dealing with people directly.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), April 27, 2001.

I just don't find SICK HUMOR funny.

Then you must have a MIGHTY tough time on this board, from what I've read today...

-- Dennis Olson (djolson@pressenter.com), April 27, 2001.

Oh dennis go take a flying leap thru a donut hole.

See, I 'can be' kind when I wanna.

Dennis, why you gonna hang out here getting the shit beat out of you verbally? Lemme guess so you can go back to your y2k (yawn) rulz board and talk shit about us? And we are the weird ones?

BTW, I've used the same name since before y2k. For you to know my real name is not important. IF I want cha to have it, I'd give it to you. I believe you are only here to bait/report at your new house.

Free indeed, you wouldnt know freee if free dropped kick you in the groin area.

now, pull up a chair, dude, we gotta talk.....ROFLMAO.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 27, 2001.

I don't find anything humorous in 168 dead Americans. I hope I never do.

But I guess the 86 men, women and children slaughtered by government stooges for a MEDIA EVENT (and more budget $'s for the subsequent year) are okay with you? Or that the gov't agents perjured themselves to get the armored equipment? Or that the "search warrant" was originally BLANK and was filled in later? (which is ILLEGAL BTW)

I guess that murder under color of authority is just fine with some of you, but one guy wanting revenge for such events is somehow horrible. (Hint: BOTH events are horrible, and should not be allowed, and those guilty of performing them should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Instead, some members of ATF involved were promoted and/or received comendations!)

But, I expect these facts to be lost on those that believe that the ever-benevolent U.S. government can do no wrong, and will never, either through action or inaction, allow its citizens to be injured or killed. (Now THAT'S funny...)

-- Dennis Olson (djolson@pressenter.com), April 27, 2001.

So, you are one in the same, eh J?

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 27, 2001.

Now we know why your over here, your board takes toooooooooo

lonnnnggggggggg

toooooooooo

load....

hee hee.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 27, 2001.

No, they were both awful. Awful enough that one does not justify the other.

-- Polly Wanna Cracker? (polly@wanna.cracker), April 27, 2001.

Hey... psst... Rich, ya want to start a new thread? How did we get to Tim McVeigh and Dennis burning?

Jose, no apology necessary, and I too find this board diversive with no particular leanings. Thanks Unk for your benevolent rulings.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 27, 2001.

Actually, it has a great deal to do with EZBoard's (there's a contradiction) attempt to move their server farm to a higher bandwidth provider. That started on the 24th, and they have yet to get all the kinks worked out.

(And if 'J' and I both object to government-sponsored mass murder of innocent citizens for NO GOOD REASON, then I stand by him. Proudly.)

-- Dennis Olson (djolson@pressenter.com), April 27, 2001.

Senor Olson, the "doomers" were a tiny sliver of the online community. With few exceptions, the tiny tempest of the Y2K debate raged on the "doomers" home turf, places like Yourdon's forum. The rare "pollies" who entered the sanctums of pessimism and preparedness were treatly quite poorly. In the face of personal attacks and concerted efforts to destroy credibility, most pollies behaved fairly well. As one might expect, there was some gloating on rollover... the primary reason Yourdon ran off to EZB and the locked the door against Flint, Latimer and others. The reason Flint, Latimer and others were "right" about Y2K is that they have a bit less distorted world view than you and the other unreconstructed "doomers." They "got it right" because they looked at the data more objectively and did a better job of analysis. Except for oddballs like Charles Reuben, most pollies are quite bored with Y2K and prefer to discuss other relevant topics. Any sight would benefit from the participation of the more thoughtful pollies. If anything, Senor Olson, it seems you are still "raw and bruised" about missing the call on Y2K so badly. Why not relax and try to learn something from not only your mistake, but the others who were successful?

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), April 27, 2001.

J thinks that anyone who works for the government deserves to die. Do you stand by him on that point too?

-- Polly Wanna Cracker? (polly@wanna.cracker), April 27, 2001.

J thinks that anyone who works for the government deserves to die. Do you stand by him on that point too?

I don't have that opinion. But evidently (based on how you present your opinions on this matter) YOU seem to feel it okay for the government to kill any citizen it sees fit, for whatever illegal or trumped up reason.

Interesting...

-- Dennis Olson (djolson@pressenter.com), April 27, 2001.

"But evidently (based on how you present your opinions on this matter) YOU seem to feel it okay for the government to kill any citizen it sees fit, for whatever illegal or trumped up reason."

I think what the government did was wrong, but what Tim McVeigh did was just as wrong. Someday I hope you and J can see that Tim McVeigh is nothing more than a terrorist who killed innocent people to get revenge for the deahts of other innocent people.

-- Polly Wanna Cracker? (polly@wanna.cracker), April 27, 2001.

I saw that immediately. I felt that if McVeigh wanted to "get revenge" on those responsible, he should have taken his fight to the military or LEA's, rather than commit a terrorist act. Military/rogue LEA agencies are the ones that do the damage, and they are the ones to be fought.

Killing civilians for government acts is ridiculous and counter- productive.

-- Dennis Olson (djolson@pressenter.com), April 27, 2001.

I felt that it was time to move on. Bury the hatchet if you will.

Apparently, "moving on" and "burying the hatchet" involve continuing to call this forum The New Debunkie House O' Trolls.

-- (One@WhoWas.There), April 27, 2001.

Another fine example of liberalism. The British Army announced recently that it is providing funding for some women to have their breasts enlarged. The reason given was "so that they'd feel better about themselves".

-- AnArmyThatsAll (ItCan@Be.com), April 27, 2001.

So you think that instead of killing one group of innocent Americans he should have killed another group of innocent Americans? You think that because someone is part of a group who has members who've done bad things, they should be killed? Does this mean it's okay to kill all white people because of what Tim McVeigh did? Does this mean it's okay to mutiliate Eric Rudolph's mother because Eric Rudolph mutilated a nurse at the Birmingham bombing?

I don't know what religion you are but with someone who glorifies violence and revenge so much could never be a Christian. I'll pray for you Dennis with the hope that someday the LORD will shed His spirit of peace and wisdom on you.

-- Polly Wanna Cracker (polly@wanna.cracker), April 27, 2001.

Maria: Nah. This thread has served at least two very useful purposes.

1. J has confirmation he really isn't Dennis.

2. I believe if someone asks for a spanking, they should get their wish. ROTFL!

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), April 27, 2001.

"diversive" should be diverse or divisive. Either one you'd like to put in place of my typo, feel free.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 27, 2001.

mr. Olson,

I believe we're still waiting for your response to the measured commments of Jose Ortega y Gasset. You aren't afraid to respond - are you?

-- Long Memory (ed@yourdumb.com), April 27, 2001.

Hi Dennis!

Rich: We ended up together here because of a tempest in a teapot a couple of years ago. That situation made it quite clear that I am a liberal, in that I would have cared for all of you if things had gone badly. I am also a conservative in that I would have preferred that my community be allowed to enforce locally made decisions in how to respond to the situation if things had gone badly. I am a libertarian in that I decided what I wanted to do and did it because it was my life dammit -- and would you like a side order of rice with that? I still have plenty.

-- helen (looking@the.same.stuff), April 27, 2001.

A Poll: Which Way Do You Lean?

I lean a little forward. Being top-heavy will do that to you. :)

-- Pammy (pamela_sue57@hotmail.com), April 27, 2001.

So, I guess I can't even go out for a cruise on my bike without some of th more impatient among you accusing me of something. Interesting...

I fail to understand exactly what I am supposed to say to Sr. Gasset, as he really didn't ask me any questions. Are my feelings still hurt? Never were, not by the worthless trash that assaulted me (and you know who who are).

And the U.S. military is a legitimate target for hostilites (after all, they represent the FORCE of U.S. gov't). As individuals, they ARE innocent. As a representative of the coercive might of a government out of control, they are indeed a legitimate target for armed hostilities. The people in Oklahoma City were unarmed bureaucrats. The Army has the ability to "return fire".

Now Polly, a person like YOU even SPEAKING the name of Christ is blasphemous. I wish you luck when you stand before the Altar of God.

And Helen, why not come over and say hi? You don't have to stay if you don't want to, but there are a BUNCH of "old timers" who've come over, now that things have changed. Hope to see you there.

And to be honest, the events pre and post-Y2K (and the opinions of individuals in those "camps") no longer matters a bit to me. If you people here want to keep pounding away at the dusty dried flesh of that decomposed horse, by all means. But you rarely hear "Y2K" mentioned over at TB2K anymore.

We got past it. Why don't you try it? You'll really feel better. (I'm still waiting for Andy Ray to hurl forth more "I told you so's", and CPR to come over and threaten to turn everyone in to the FBI.

"House O' Trolls"? If the shoe fits....

-- Dennis Olson (djolson@pressenter.com), April 27, 2001.

You advocate the death of innocent Americans in an act of misplaced vengence and you say that I'm blasphemous for mentioning the LORD.

It must be difficult to even look at yourself in the mirror. May the LORD save you from ever knowing the pain of losing an innocent family member to terrorism.

-- Polly Wanna Cracker (polly@wanna.cracker), April 27, 2001.

If individual members of the military are innocent and you think the entire military is responsible as an arm of the repressive government, in attacking the military, aren't you still attacking innocent people? Unless you can take out the entire military at one time, which, of course, is made up of innocent people. Also, since the military only enforces policy, shouldn't you really be advocating attacking the people who make the policies, such as Congress and the Joint Cheifs of Staff?

-- Alice in Wonder Bra (alice@wonder.bra), April 27, 2001.

You are fortunate, Senor Olson, to live in a country that will tolerate you. There are nations where seditious outbursts against the government or the military would greatly shorten your lifespan.

While I can appreciate the passion of your beliefs, I cannot help but think you badly misguided. Did you learn nothing from you Y2K errors? Some would have reconsidered their views in the light of such a grand miscalculation, and a few might have had the wisdom to learn from those who were correct.

Finally, I am not a theologian, but it is my understanding of Christianity that a true man of faith would never accuse another of not being worthy of Christ. Is it not the story that Christ granted salvation to the thief beside at the cruxification? Myth or not, it is a noble example and one you shame with you petty tirades.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), April 27, 2001.

Tarzan will you confirm that I am not you?

-- dudesy (dudesy@37.com), April 27, 2001.

I am not dudesy.

-- dudesy (dudesy@37.com), April 27, 2001.

I am not Dudesy.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 27, 2001.

We got past it. Why don't you try it? You'll really feel better. . . . . . . "House O' Trolls"? If the shoe fits....

So which is it? Are you past Y2K, or are you still going to keep calling this place a House O' Trolls? Make up your mind.

-- (One@WhoWas.There), April 27, 2001.

Poor ol' Dennis Olson, he still has not learned the lesson of humility. When you've been that wrong for that long you'd think it would come easier to him...

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), April 27, 2001.

sumer,

That was uncalled for.


Dennis Olson,

There are some things, possibly even numerous things, where I disagree with you; however, it is true that you "and I both object to government-sponsored mass murder of innocent citizens". Many here seem to forget, and/or believe the media propaganda regarding, the Waco atrocity. As was said earlier, and with which I agree, both acts were horrible. The fact is that only one of the two was a motivating factor to the other.


Polly Wanna Cracker?

Let me completely fabricate something outrageous and attribute it to you, since you seem to enjoy doing it to me.

Polly Wanna Cracker performs lewd acts on road-kill armadillos. Does anyone here stand by Polly Wanna Cracker on that point?


Rich,

I have always known that I wasn't Dennis Olson. : ) Now those doubters know it, too. Thanks for the thread.


Pammy,

That's very funny. Is it true that you and Tommy are getting back together?


Jose Ortega y Gasset,

We are all lucky to live in such a great country, yes? Pop quiz: For 100 points, who said, "Dissent is the fire that forges great thoughts"? : )


Tarzan,

Will you confirm that I am not Dennis Olson? : )


Y2K Pro,

Are you really the original, banned on sight, sliver under the skin of hard core "doomers", Y2K Pro?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 28, 2001.

I still believe you are ONE in the same.

You even post alike. And btw, how come you just NOW showed up again?

Needed some time to think, did cha?

Uncalled for, well, okay, at least you took me to task like a nice troll.

Rich, you gonna have mail.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 28, 2001.

To answer the original question in a drascically reduced summary -- well, hopefully pithy, too. Yep -- full of pith.

Libertarian, with just enough government to preserve and protect our individual rights of life, liberty and property (Constitution) and the pursuit of happiness (Declaration of Independence). Thus: the armed forces, the police and the courts. All public lands would be sold off, with the exception of those required for operation of the reduced government. Maybe an office complex. :)

Plus very clear, objective regulations controlling the following: pollution, product safety and worker safety.

Plus a safety net for the severely handicapped.

And any transition should be spread over several decades so that no one who's currently on the system will be tossed on the street.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 28, 2001.

To elucidate -- of course, we'd still have the three branches of government. But most of the alphabet agencies and their regulations would have to go.

Government financing? User fees and fees each time a contract is entered into (including all credit transactions), if the parties would like it adjudicated by the gov't. in the event of a dispute. Lotteries, too; a great way, as they're voluntary. Ideally it all would be enough to fund a government that might be 10% of its current size.

But again -- tax reductions -- the elimination of the income tax, estate tax, inheritance taxes, etc. -- would be over a period of decades, to ease the transition.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 28, 2001.

People, please! I have no desire to participate in any discussions in this bedlam and wouldn't be here now except that I've been getting e-mail from posts I supposedly made on this thread. But that's the problem with Greenspun, you can't tell when a particular poster is saying something and when they're being spoofed. For the last time, the person on this thread posting in my name IS NOT ME.

I don't give a damn what you talk about or what happens here. I don't participate on this board and I'm not about to start. Now stop e-mailing me and start getting lives and names of your own.

-- The REAL Dennis Olson (djolson@pressenter.com), April 28, 2001.

See? Crap like this is what drives many decent people out of here. I remember when posting under someone else's handle or name was a favorite "sport" among the troll crowd. Evidently, you still have those with the same TIIIIINY little minds doing EXACTLY the same crap.

Have fun.... Buy bonds...

-- Dennis Olson (djolson@pressenter.com), April 28, 2001.

sumer,

You said, "And btw, how come you just NOW showed up again"?

Would you care to clarify what you mean?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 28, 2001.

J: Uncalled for?

Back to back...think it over.

BTW, i do hate it when this "Wasnt me" shit starts. Although I used the phrase on another thread, it was in jest.

Here's wonderin now IF it was the real dennis here in the 1st place.

Here we go again *sigh*

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 28, 2001.

I'm with sumer on this one. This gets real confusing.

Will the real Dennis please stand up?

(Sit down J)

ROTFL!!

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), April 28, 2001.

I'll go you one better, sumer. I'm not Tarzan, I'm the person who posed under his name last night in response to Dudesy. I'm not surprised that Dennis has been spoofed. It's really easy to post under someone else's name here.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 28, 2001.

sumer,

I had been on this thread Friday afternoon, and then we went out to eat. I returned later that night, and that is when I posted the "uncalled for" statement. It was probably early in the a.m., actually. Then I had some business to attend to this a.m. I returned to the thread and am now corresponding with you. As for Dennis Olson, you would have to ask him where he's been during those hours in question. : )

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 28, 2001.

I will eat a bug to prove to you that I'm not Tarzan.

-- dudesy (dudesy@37.com), April 29, 2001.

I noticed someone even posted as me on one thread. I don't know what point they were trying to make, but it was an obvious fake because it was too short and didn't drone on and on like a good post ought to, and didn't use any words nobody knows the meaning of.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 29, 2001.

No doubt about it J is Dennis OlsOn.

Rich:

I think I fall in the category of a conservatively, liberal libertarian. Or is that a liberally, conservative libertarian. Well what I mean is that I believe most people are gray, depending on issues.

Labels usually don't fit too well when describing any one individual on this board. Except for Dennis/J. Trying to characterize this board and the people who post here is very difficult.

Though a wild and wacky bunch of assorted crackpots, theologians, astrology wielding, anarchistic, tax protesting, poetic, bigoted perverts may come close. I'm sure I've left out a few traits here, no offense to anyone intended.

Dennis/J.

How do you think the meeting between God and McVeigh went?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), April 30, 2001.

: [TIP] New forum for JUST religious discussions Posted By: Dennis Olson (Chief Curmudgeon) Posted At: 4/29/01 8:49:15 pm Reply In light of the in-depth conversations we've been having about religious posts, I decided to create a "safe place" for religious discussions of all kinds.

Link: pub65.ezboard.com/ftimebo...17873frm21

The point of this new discussion area is NOT to push religious discussion off the main board. It's to allow any of you that have a REALLY SERIOUS interest in religious topics to go somewhere and discuss it without "clogging" the main board, or ruffling others' feathers.

I remember that there were many, MANY very deep religious threads. Much of the conversation in them was very good, but almost invariably they would degenerate into a religion-bashing festival.

I thought that if we have a place specifically set aside for religious issues, the bashing would leave, while the discussion could get even better. If no one wants to use it, that's okay, and I'll eventually delete it. But I felt that it might be a really neat place to meet, and I wanted to give us that option.

Again, I am NOT attempting to push religious posters off the main board. Honest.

Yep, the check is in the mail.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 30, 2001.