TheAgitator.com
Pool Shark
Tuesday, December 9th, 2003I have a short piece on Tech Central today about Rep. Jim Gibbons and his tadpole-catchin’ ways.
39 Responses to “Pool Shark”
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Can anyone say Line Item Veto?
come on, cut him some slack, after all he used the time honored “everyone else is doing it defense”
So I suppose if all of your friends were going to jump off a cliff you would want to jump off a cliff too?
I only follow my friends who are lemmings.
“Better Rep. Gibbons exorcise his childhood demons at taxpayer expense, apparently, than have Robert Byrd swipe it up to install cappuccino machines to the umpteenth Robert Byrd Courthouse on Robert Byrd Road in Wheeling, West Byrdginia.”
Better for Gibbons, and no worse for you. How do you want the loot spent?
Unless you are oppose taking the loot in principle this is phony outrage. And if you are against taking the loot in principle then this is chump change, the real problem is the public spending you all approve of.
Frank N.: I only follow my friends who are lemmings.
I just heard the other day that the stories of lemmings jumping off cliffs in mass suicide is a myth â an urban legend.
John Kennedy: Unless you are oppose taking the loot in principle this is phony outrage. And if you are against taking the loot in principle then this is chump change, the real problem is the public spending you all approve of.
Now you are talking like an Individual again, brother John.
Radley,
How much may your government justly require from individuals? What public use of their money is just? What would be a good and just way to spend the money your government got for Peabo Bryson’s Samick Hi-Gloss Ebony Baby Grand Piano?
The problem isn’t that Gibbons is spending stolen money on his local pool, the problem is that the money was stolen in the first place.
If Gibbons had simply wanted to help out the local community by repairing the pool, that would have been semi-noble, but that was clearly, by his own admission, not his motivation. His motive was to satisfy his conscience, with someone else’s money.
Someone great once said, “I will not offer a sacrfice with that which costs me nothing,” because it then becomes no sacrifice at all.
Millhouse is jumping off a cliff???
-urgent exit-
Ms Dani wrote:
If Gibbons had simply wanted to help out the local community by repairing the pool, that would have been semi-noble
There is nothing even semi-noble about stealing others’ property, which is what is done everytime your representatives finance *any* endeavor.
Someone great once said, “I will not offer a sacrfice with that which costs me nothing,” because it then becomes no sacrifice at all.
But Gibbons isn’t pretending to make a sacrifice. His job- the one the voters approved him to do- is to spend the money of others as he sees fit. He’s doing precisely that.
Hah! West Byrdginia,
I don’t know if it is original or not, but that is exactly why I read you.
Lynette Warren: But Gibbons isn’t pretending to make a sacrifice. His job- the one the voters approved him to do- is to spend the money of others as he sees fit. He’s doing precisely that.
Gibbons is just âangling for benefitsâ, and if there is something wrong or immoral with angling for benefits then you should have just as much a problem with the “Billy Beckâs” of this world as you do with Gibbons.
The Serpent wrote:
if there is something wrong or immoral with angling for benefits then you should have just as much a problem with the “Billy Beckâs” of this world as you do with Gibbons
Why is that?
Not to be defensive or anything, but the Please Touch Museum in Philly is a first-rate (or aspiring to be) museum for children who get to actually touch things as opposed to merely observing them. It is replete with a miniature food market (check out lines and everything), replica vehicles, including the front section of a SEPTA bus, and other make-believe areas that encourage dressing up and making your own environment.
For those who find this too “touchy feely” I say you probably don’t have kids. The place is regularly packed with kids and their paying parents who often enjoy it as much as the little ones. It’s also excellent for city kids who don’t have very many opportunities to play in a 100% safe environment.
However, the place could use some updating as it’s getting a little frayed at the edges. This hardly compares to un-clogging a drain.
Razor wrote:
The place is regularly packed with kids and their paying parents who often enjoy it as much as the little ones. It’s also excellent for city kids who don’t have very many opportunities to play in a 100% safe environment.
How do you justify auctioning off Peabo Bryson’s personal belongings to pay for it?
If the Please Touch Museum is a valuable project, then why can’t it be funded with privately volunteered money instead of instead of public confiscations?
“The place is regularly packed with kids and their paying parents who often enjoy it as much as the little ones.”
Why should anyone but their parents pay for it?
Lynette Warren: Why is that?
Because Gibbons and Beck are doing the EXACT same thing â they are simply âAngling for benefitsâ.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong or immoral with âangling for benefitsâ, just ask your Don (Kennedy).
Lynette Warren: How do you justify auctioning off Peabo Bryson’s personal belongings to pay for it?
Because Peabo Bryson owed us money and refused to pay, so we had to send out the personal security force to collect on a debt.
Are you advocating a completely non-materialistic society now Ms. Warren?
-
John Kennedy: Why should anyone but their parents pay for it?
I agree.
The Serpent wrote:
Peabo Bryson owed us money and refused to pay, so we had to send out the personal security force to collect on a debt.”
What did he owe you money for? Did you sell him something? Did you contract with him for services?
Let’s see the paperwork on it.
Lynette Warren: What did he owe you money for?
He owed money to his private security force. Iâm just a stockholder.
Lynette Warren: Did you contract with him for services?
If he was living on U.S. soil then he contracted with us.
Lynette Warren: Let’s see the paperwork on it.
You mean the Constitution? (law of the land)
Hey look, if you genuinely feel so bad for Mr. Bryson, then why didnât you pay his subscription fees for him? Do you honestly believe that if the entire government crumbled and vanished overnight that tomorrow you and I would wake up better off?
I wonder how long you would last under Feudalism?
I bet you would look cute in a Burka though â¦
“You mean the Constitution?”
I don’t see his name on it.
What would give the parties to the Constitution authority over the territory anyway?
Razor, “museum for children who get to actually touch things as opposed to merely observing them. It is replete with a miniature food market (check out lines and everything)…”
Great. Just what I need, for my kid to be encouraged to touch things in the check-out line, as if she needed any encouragement.
John Kennedy: [The Constitution & peabo Bryson â¦] I don’t see his name on it.
A moot point.
Look if we were living under Anarchy and you ran the local private security force and this guy refused to be your client then you would just contact your buddy the local mafia boss and I would go over and rob the guys house of every possession he had, and maybe abduct a couple of his kids, or even his wife.
That would teach that silly nitwit exactly why he needed to be one of your customers in the first place.
John Kennedy: What would give the parties to the Constitution authority over the territory anyway?
You mean ⦠Why do bullets kill people?
The majority of individuals living in the territory are what gives the Constitution its authority. Or are you suggesting that less than 50% of the U.S. population actually support (are in favor of) the Constitution?
Razor, that was not a stab at you, juts being funny.
I’m not bashing the benefits of the museum either. I’m sure it’s great, but seriously, you must know what a pain the check out line is with kids. And I agree with the opinion that it should be paid for by private investors.
Serpent: “Look if we were living under Anarchy and you ran the local private security force and this guy refused to be your client then you would just contact your buddy the local mafia boss and I would go over and rob the guys house of every possession he had, and maybe abduct a couple of his kids, or even his wife.”
The fact that you freely admit to being a sociopath does not persuade me that you ought to have a vote on the disposition of me and mine.
“The majority of individuals living in the territory are what gives the Constitution its authority.”
1.) As a matter of principle: How is that?
2.) As a matter of fact: The overwhelming majority of the inhabitants in the territory were not even eligible to be party to the constitution.
John Kennedy: The fact that you freely admit to being a sociopath does not persuade me that you ought to have a vote on the disposition of me and mine.
Ohh Mr. Kennedy, you are better than to stoop so low.
Obviously I was speaking of a hypothetical situation in order to make a point. A point that you apparently feel more comfortable dodging than actually addressing.
Serpent (prev): The majority of individuals living in the territory are what gives the Constitution its authority.
John Kennedy: 1.) As a matter of principle: How is that?
Well forget the Constitution and the United States for a moment. Let say that you are newly arrived (born) in a new land â a country ⦠a territory. And the inhabitants of that country/territory already have a well established set of laws that everyone is generally happy with (the general consensus is that the laws are mutually beneficial).
As the new comer to that society what gives you the right to insist that everyone else accept your view that there is nothing wrong with Murder despite ancient and widely accepted laws, customs, and beliefs to the contrary?
John Kennedy: 2.) As a matter of fact: The overwhelming majority of the inhabitants in the territory were not even eligible to be party to the constitution.
That is true.
However, in the same exact way that YOU (John Kennedy) are the sum of your contiguous experiences, the United States (as an entity) is the sum of its contiguous experiences. Even though there is no one alive today who originally participated in ratifying the Constitution there exists an unbroken chain of Individuals who have venerated the ideals expressed therein. That chain of Individuals stretches all the way back to the Constitutionâs creation (to the founding of this nation). During that entire period of time no serious effort or challenge (by a majority) to the Constitution has ever manifested.
Pretending that the past (your past) is irrelevant and inconsequential is a natural side effect of a belief in âfree willâ. âFree willâ assumes that the law of cause and effect is merely an aberration â an illusion. A belief in âfree willâ requires that all events are ultimately uncaused, and that the past is irrelevant to the present or to the future.
Why do I have to call you âJohn Kennedyâ just because that is the name you have had all of your life? Why canât I call you Moreise? Or, just because you have woken up as a male every day of your life doesnât mean you wonât wake up tomorrow as a female? Or maybe you will spontaneously, and without cause, revert from a Heterosexual to a Homosexual?
In the same way I canât be born in the United States today, and then tomorrow start insisting that murder, rape, and robbery are morally acceptable behavior, and that majority or no majority EVERYONE must accept my view or they are maliciously âcoercingâ me and infringing on my rights as an Individual.
JTK, are you a native American Indian or a descendant of such? That would make your statements make more sense to me. I guess I’m trying to figure out why you think the way you do.
Ms. Dani wrote”
JTK, are you a native American Indian or a descendant of such? That would make your statements make more sense to me.
I’m just trying to figure out why ancestry would be relevant to JTK’s perception of individual rights.
The man who wrote the following was not a Native American, but he was born in America long before any present day Native American ever existed here:
If any considerable number of the people believe the Constitution to be good, why do they not sign it themselves, and make laws for, and administer them upon, each other; leaving all other persons (who do not interfere with them) in peace? Until they have tried the experiment for themselves, how can they have the face to impose the Constitution upon, or even to recommend it to, others?”
“JTK, are you a native American Indian or a descendant of such?”
That’s an impertinent question.
“That would make your statements make more sense to me.”
The validity of my argument is independent of my heritage.
‘Ohh Mr. Kennedy, you are better than to stoop so low.
Obviously I was speaking of a hypothetical situation in order to make a point. A point that you apparently feel more comfortable dodging than actually addressing. ”
My comment was as hypothetical as yours. My point stands. The fact that sociopaths exist is a very poor argument for putting one’s life and liberty up for a vote.
“John Kennedy: 2.) As a matter of fact: The overwhelming majority of the inhabitants in the territory were not even eligible to be party to the constitution.
That is true.”
Then your stated argument for the authority of the constitution obviously fails.
Lynette Warren: I’m just trying to figure out why ancestry would be relevant to JTK’s perception of individual rights.
Ms. Daniâs comment made sense to me.
Since Mr. Kennedy was talking about land ownership and the right that the (U.S.) government has to âyourâ land the issue of whether or not Mr. Kennedy was a native American (some would argue the rightful ownerâs of the land) could be relevant (a motivating factor) to his argument.
John Kennedy: My comment was as hypothetical as yours.
Ad Hominems, Mr. Kennedy? I guess I gave you credit for being better than that.
John Kennedy: My point stands. The fact that sociopaths exist is a very poor argument for putting one’s life and liberty up for a vote.
And my point is that if the real problem is sociopaths, then why do you believe that Banning ALL Guns will solve the problem?
Why not deal with the real problem? ⦠or donât you have the stomach (nerves) for that?
John Kennedy: Then your stated argument for the authority of the constitution obviously fails.
By your logic when a baby is born the parents have to obey the baby (the baby makes the rules) instead of it being the other way around.
Your view of reality is inside-out, upside-down, and backwards, and it is all because of an initial flawed premise.
“Ad Hominems, Mr. Kennedy? I guess I gave you credit for being better than that. ”
I said my comment was as hypothetical as your’s. If we assume we’re both speaking honestly then no disrespect can be inferred. I know I’m speaking honestly.
“And my point is that if the real problem is sociopaths, then why do you believe that Banning ALL Guns will solve the problem?”
The embedded premise in that question is a bizarre non sequitur.
John Kennedy: The embedded premise in that question is a bizarre non sequitur.
You are getting to be quite the artful dodger. You should be careful because people notice that a lot more readily than you are apparently aware.
John Kennedy: My point stands. The fact that sociopaths exist is a very poor argument for putting one’s life and liberty up for a vote.
Serpent (previously): And my point is that if the real problem is sociopaths, then why do you believe that Banning ALL Guns will solve the problem?
And my point is that if You concede the real problem is sociopaths, then why do you believe that Banning ALL Government will solve the problem? Isnât that simply naïve? Kind of like the assumption that banning all guns will reduce crime?
Hereâs another âgood oneâ on this same subject.
Colorado taxes refurbish gay sex club exterior
“More than $200,000 in state money was paid to renovate a building in Denver that houses a sex club… Midtown Spas ads boast of hot men, hot music and hot sex shows several times a week. The spa is a legal, for-profit business. It has operated there for more than 20 years… ‘We’re supporting basically a sex club, so they can create a dungeon in there with their own money and have sex parties and so forth, and I dont want my state dollars being used for that,’ Rep. David Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs, said… State Historical Society officials said they don’t see how restoring the exterior of the building is a benefit to the business inside.”
The complete article.
http://news4colorado.com/investigates/local_story_339115817.html