Free Republic

It's too bad you missed the Kosher food thread.

The subject of food often opens up an amusing can of worms. Have a link?

Only if you call following a 3000 or so year old tradition "new age..."

"New Age" is actually "Old Age"--deriving its practices and beliefs from a number of pre-Christian faiths, such as Hindu spirituality, for example, and even from Jewish sources such as the Kabbalah. Just ask Madonna (the singer, not The Madonna). Or is that M-donna?

Why is it my "little G-D" tag?" I'm not Jewish. However, unlike you, I respect my friends who are Jewish and choose to to spell "God" as "G-d."

In that case, wouldn't it also make sense to follow suit by typing out "J-wish?"

I agree with you. I don't see why "file-sharing" is a violation of a true copyright law anyway. Why not just keep it simple, where the only true violation of a copyright law occurs when you take a book or CD or other such media and make a copy of it with the intent of selling it to someone else for money.

So what's the point? All this reveals is the politically incorrect fact that minorities tend to not be "rugged individualists," which is why they overwhelmingly tend to vote for the Democrats, welfare programs, and so on. Minorities aren't likely to go to live in places where they can't extract these "goodies" from the state--that's all that poster you quote from was saying. How is this any of this a mystery?

And why is any of this considered sinister? No one, of any race, is being harmed by legal, voluntary political activity. We still have some degree of freedom of association in this country, and these people are merely expressing a political and demographic preference.

Damn! Everything changes, huh?

That's the whole point of the article. He's asking what good is it to be a conservative if you don't resist these "changes." Today's brand of "conservatism" popular in Beltway circles is really just a form of "status quo-ism," to coin an awkward phrase. The only things being "conserved" are the fruits of the "liberalism" from LBJ's times.

There's strength in numbers--what are they going to do, sue millions of people at once?

The reason the TV was on Rosie is the fact that it is the favorate show of most people that actually end up serving on juries. Thus we get the O.J. juries and the Billion dollar awards for spilling coffee.

That's true. It gets better, though. If I recall correctly, the particular Rosie show that I saw that day was one where she showed the audience a Barbie-Doll-brand toy of herself, one made in her image. The thing I found so hilarious about this was that the "Rosie Doll" was thin! Who are they fooling? The doll was nowhere close to being true to life because Rosie's a fat tub! Of course, the toy company had to make that decision since no one would want to buy or play with a doll of an obese woman. The liberals call this "sizeism." LOL!

Since the end of the draft, I think jury service is the only time that our government demands a citizen's personal services. But, for some people even that is apparently too much to ask.

What about all the taxes and regulations there are on the citizens? We're already serfs at this point.

His apparent "crime" was not simply failing to show (there must be thousands who fail to show without sanction.) His crime was expressing his views to the court. He failed to respect their "authoritay". Thugs and bullies HATE that!

That's true--tons of people don't show up and they don't have the resources to track them all down. He's in trouble for "making himself known" to those authorities personally--same thing that got Iraqi citizens in trouble under the Ba'athist regime--in that environment, you didn't want to be "noticed" as a dissident by the authorities.

I think that the guy said what more judges need to hear.

I agree with you. Americans need to have more of a defiant spirit--if they had it, the government wouldn't get away with half the things it does. I admire the guy because he certainly has more guts than I did in that situation. Although, as I said earlier, that level of passion would be more understandable were it a military draft they wanted him for than the jury--because then they're seriously taking his life in the name of the State.

At the same time, he could have been a little more diplomatic in his phrasing, because his profanity is now being used by the media and the other goody two-shoes "civic duty" types to make him look bad.

"This was the most egregious example of the complete reverse of a sense of civic responsibility."

I've never been a big fan of forcing people to serve. Wish they could take volunteers. I was called up for jury duty and I went (because I didn't think it was worth going through what this guy is now--jail isn't a nice place, I hear). Fortunately they didn't need me, I sat in a room with like 20 other people all day (the TV was set to Rosie O'Donnell's show, of all things) and at the end of the day they told us all we could go home.

A military draft on the other hand, and I'm sure I could come up with even more expletives than this guy did.

Actually, Satanists, from my experience, tend to be BIG racialists as well.

I guess Odin and the other Norse gods aren't the preferred racialist deities anymore. I wonder what sparked that decision.

Breeding may also be motivated by the power of pure evil. Incredible as it may seem, all the aforementioned problems do not represent the full extent of Vincent Breeding’s pathologies: He’s also a Satanist.

Satanism? Isn't this becoming just a bit hysterical? Besides, from what I've heard, those who self-idenitfy as "Satanists" are basically atheists who don't really believe in an actual Satan, but just see it as a symbol for rebellion. They also tend to reject race-centered ideologies, since they're "radical individualists." Also, word has it that the head of the Church of Satan, Anton LaVey, was Jewish, so a lot of things just don't add up here.

Players had their feet scalded and toenails ripped off for failing to win

Now this isn't very logical, is it? Doing these things to the players' feet is not likely to make them perform better in the next game, since the pain will interfere with their activities.

Well, that assumes that there'd be some country with big enough britches to try it someday on us. If there isn't now, we shouldn't really worry about setting any precedent, because it'll never happen to us. /sarcasm

There's that word "precedent" again. That implies a degree of foresight that the gung-ho types among us don't seem to possess. You're right--it'll never happen to us. These triumphal hyper-interventionists are addicted to their own slogans: "America's best days are still ahead," and Clinton's "Don't stop thinking about tomorrow" (or about history, or about the consequences that will arrive next month, a decade, or a century from now).

Thanks for pinging me to the thread. If I understand correctly, is LG basically advocating for America the position of ancient Rome, that wherever a Roman citizen travels, Rome's law and might follow right behind?

Me, I'd always thought that when an American travels abroad, he does so at his own risk, and shouldn't expect the U.S. military (and taxpayers) to personally save him with some sort of flashy commando raid. Are we really going to touch off a war with some country because some arrogant American citizen didn't carefully read his State Department travel advisory?

How would Americans feel if other countries could swoop in at night with commandos and pluck out their citizens who feel "harmed" in some way on our soil? I'd bet they'd feel that their national sovereignty was violated.

You're right, it's not a problem. I was just stating it as a fact, not a criticism. I have no desire to see the U.S. defending Taiwan or Kashmir or East Overshoe. It always struck me as weird (and wrong) that Americans pay their money and sometimes their lives defending people overseas who the Constitution doesn't cover, who don't pay any taxes, who often have nothing in common linguistically or culturally with Americans, and who probably wouldn't return the favor anyway. I agree with you. America, come home.

the Paleocon's "lets limit immigration to French LePen supporters" philosophy to be unrealistic.

But don't you see the cleverness behind the plan? French LePen supporters, being the patriots that they are, would never move out of France. So we really get to have no immigrants come in from anywhere, while making it look like we're generously opening our borders. LOL!

Good post, btw. I enjoy colorful (and funny) examples, it "livens up" political reading.

If we stopped supporting Israel today and tomorrow the Arab world united and pushed Israel into the sea, killing all those 'nasty Jews' in the process the Islamists would then berate our 'support' of India re: Kashmir. The Buchananites can't see this however, they'll find out one day...

Paleos like Buchanan have nothing against Israel specifically, and your comment about India can help prove that. Paleos don't want to see the U.S. support India any more than it does Israel or any other country. Why should the U.S. care about what happens in Kashmir? Same thing for Taiwan and South Korea--a paleo foreign policy would pull the troops out of Asia and the U.S. wouldn't care if N. Korea invaded S. Korea or if China took Taiwan. The U.S. wouldn't have cared if Iraq took over Kuwait, had paleos been in charge back in 1990. Paleos don't "single out" Israel for non-assistance, they're non-interventionists across the board.