Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
Kathleen Vanbeekom

11447
13305 Posts
13305
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: The President That Hates His Country By Joan Swirsky
10/2/2011 5:50:08 PM

Hi Peter,

I think it would have been MUCH more interesting to have Joe Biden as president, just to find out all the goofy stuff he would have said.

It would be a bad idea to change the VP on the ticket, that would just make Obama look even more waffly. "Honest Joe" might be his only good advice-giver, since i think everything that pours out of his mouth is actually from the top of his unvarnished thoughts. I mean, he DID have a brain aneurysm or something a long time ago right? We all might be better off if all politicians lost their facade of slickness and just said what they really think all the time, maybe we should just start looking for candidates who've had brain trauma and they'll be much more open & upfront.

+0
RE: The President That Hates His Country By Joan Swirsky
10/4/2011 2:16:17 AM

Hello friends, here is another video with Dick Morris making excellent points!!

Cain in Contention!!! Dick Morris TV: Lunch ALERT!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cLUIPQ2bE4

+0
RE: The President That Hates His Country By Joan Swirsky
10/4/2011 2:33:56 AM

Here is another great article from Judi McLeod, one of my favorite authors, from the Canada Free Press.

Monsters in the backyard:

Knowing the Enemy

- Judi McLeod Monday, October 3, 2011
If there is one description of himself that likely sends Barry Soetoro Obama into spasms of laughter, it’s ‘incompetent’.

The Obamas and their hippy czars get an even bigger laugh at the accusation ‘Obama is incompetent‘ than they do from the in-house hilarities watching the infighting among Republican candidates for president and their supporters.
The document-challenged 44th ‘President’ of the United States is anything but incompetent.
Nor is he stupid. The 44th ‘President’ of the US is a lifetime-trained, cold-as-a-proverbial-fish Marxist ideologue, whose relentless mission no one seems able to stop, is to take down America.
Barry Soetoro Obama is not a “man child”, unless you add to that description by calling him a “Marxist man child”.The globalist elite revising history and working on the 2012 Yearbook have probably already air-brushed the photo of Obama, chin-up, showing him at his most arrogant.
Time is closing in on November 6, 2011, the official calendar kickoff for Election Year.
And at the starting gate, Obama’s wearing more diamond-flashing bling than his overbearing wife, who was wearing her imaginary crown over her baseball cap when she happened to “drop by” Target. The players to make it happen (or not) are already lined up as barbarians at the gate.
This time, Alex Jones, who fashioned a career on controversial conspiracy theories, got it right when he posted on Drudge a story indicating that the Wall Street protesters are out there actively working on the re-election of Obama.
And they’re just not trying to hand Obama re-election in the Big Apple. The protest which started off as a lead balloon has expanded to Denver, Los Angeles, Chicago and about to come on stream in other American cities.
Though the Wall Street protesters look like lazy bum hippies, they include the guidance of the rowdy organizers who helped turn Egypt back to the Muslim Brotherhood.
And that’s just Barry’s early openers in his today-the-pond-tomorrow-the-world forced march to One World Government.
In the Obama trajectory path that never ends, first came the release of his own (proven as fraudulent) birth certificate, followed a week later by the John Wayne claim he personally took down Osama bin Laden.
Some of his strategy is abandoned soon after launch date. Snitch line AttackWatch was aborted. Good news until the realization hits that it merely went underground.
False flag operations and scare tactics, including the one spreading alarm about the Internet being switched off on Nov. 29, abound.
It’s hard to tell who’s legit and who’s the drone in the Wild West known as the Worldwide Net.
People who lost their jobs and homes have to swallow their pride and rely on Government food stamps or the kindness of relatives and friends to feed hungry families. Protesters in lower Manhattan have three squares served up to them daily just for having the time and inclination to mill about and shout chants.
Before it’s all over (if it ever ends) police brutality will trump the important question of why so many are taking to the streets at once.
The “top down, bottom up, inside out” world predicted by Glenn Beck is happening before our very eyes.
The world is becoming an increasingly hostile place where it is getting harder by day to distinguish between fish and fowl.
But in the maelstrom of an America being pushed over the cliff there are still some absolutes, God in His Heaven being the first.
And the one that matters most after that is Barack Hussein Obama means ill will for America and by association, the Free World. The 44th ‘President’ of the United States is above all a Marxist ideologue working an agenda.

+0
RE: The President That Hates His Country By Joan Swirsky
10/4/2011 2:57:12 AM
Hello friends, this article from the Canada Free Press was in my inbox today and I as I read it, it really resonated with me. It is a brilliant article that spells everything out in a way that can not be misunderstood, or at least by those who can recognize the facts. I give a thumbs up to Morry Markovitz for this very well written article.

The barbaric savage you actually are

Open letter to tax-the-rich, wealth re-distributing, liberal/regressives

- Morry Markovitz Monday, October 3, 2011

Dear 21st Century Liberal/Regressive:
Your “tax the rich” idea and the idea of redistributing wealth are so intellectually brilliant you can actually boil them down to one single word without losing any of their essence. That word is: “Gimme.”
You want it, you think you need it, there it is in someone else’s possession, so just take it. Just “gimme.” You want, I have, so you feel you have some kind of moral right just to take it from me.Your lack of it plus your want of it, automatically give you a moral right to seize it from me by force.
I have 5 potatoes, you have one, so just grab a couple of mine. Wonderful moral idea. An absolutely brilliant and creative solution to not having something you want. Worthy of an Einstein. No wonder you have only 1 potato. Only a bona fide moron could call a philosophy that belongs in the prehistoric jungle, and which comes straight from the jungle, “progressive.”
What brains you liberal/regressives must have to think of such a clever solution all by yourselves, with only some drivel (by an undoubtedly mentally stable Jewish anti-semite named Karl Marx) to clue you in. Hard to imagine the hilarious ideas you’d come up with if you had ALL the Marx Brothers to memorize excerpts from.
See anything you need anywhere in someone’s hands or garage or pocket? Take it! WOW, what a creative leap. What an admirable moral system must underly that idea. It’s probably so complex we’ve just gotta interview the many thousands of experienced experts who have lived by that rule and now occupy the prison system.
It amounts to legalizing crime, the crime of theft, which all progressives clearly respect as the lovable and moral and endearing trait of a wise and admirable and superior human being like their very barbaric selves. You also think you have a right to a lifetime of comfort and care? Well,OK. How about this: we’ll set up a nice clean prison cell for you, too.

That was a joke. I know you don’t REALLY want to spend your life in a cell. So I understand—FULLY—why you advocate LEGALIZING your criminal proposals.
When an animal wants something, it takes it. When a tiger is hungry, if he sees a litter of squirrel pups he eats them alive. If he sees a lion cub eating part of a recent kill, he takes it from the cub. It’s called the law of the jungle. IT IS IN ORDER TO BANISH THAT LAW FROM HIS LIFE THAT MAN CREATED CIVILIZATION. A lone Tarzan in the jungle would have to live by that law too.
But we do NOT choose to live in the jungle. We are MEN. We live together in man-made, man-created groups. And these places are NOT just collections of bricks and wood, which is all your strictly materialistic mentality can see. They are the result of ideas, of laws, of intense and brilliant thought by great intellects, and of the resulting moral principles which men agree they MUST live by in order to graduate FROM the jungle to the benefits of civilization, and in order to realize their highest potential as human beings in peace, without the threat of being eaten alive by a wild animal or otherwise destroyed by some inhuman liberal/regressive jungle beast like you.
We acknowledge the rights of all men and we do the uniquely MAN thing, we live according to our IDEAS of what is right and wrong for ALL of us as human beings. We RESPECT each other’s existence and rights. We develop detailed, rigorous thinking into documents like a Constitution. We don’t live by “take, and ye shall receive.” We don’t live by the law of the jungle. We chose to rise above that, we escaped from it, because . . . we are HUMAN beings and the last thing we need is to drag back into our magnificent creation—civilization—the very thing we sought to banish when we created civilization: being subjected to the jungle’s moral code of “Gimme,” the code embraced by the modern-day liberal/regressive barbarians.

If you don’t like our system, go back to the jungle where your morality will fit right in. Then you can relax and be comfy in your own kind of world. You won’t be “a stranger and afraid in a world you never made,” or be constantly reminded of your inferior animalistic nature and mental deficiencies by all those superior HUMANS around you who know how to deal with reality better than a pathetic animal like you does. Back there in the jungle with the animals is your true home, where you won’t have to try so hard to convince yourself of your inherent superiority, because you probably will in fact be a wee bit more intelligent than most of the animal life around you.

A newborn human infant operates on the law of the jungle too. When he sees what he wants, he reaches for it and if nothing interferes to stop him, he takes it. Just like an animal. Just like a liberal/regressive. He is not yet a full human being, just like a liberal/regressive. He still has all his non-human animal attributes, but has yet to develop his uniquely HUMAN ANIMAL behaviors, knowledge, and ideas. Just like a liberal/regressive. He has yet to develop his human MIND. Indeed, just like a liberal/regressive, an infant’s mind hasn’t yet progressed to the fully HUMAN level. Someday it will, assuming he doesn’t have liberal/regressive parents.

Human parents teach their animal-like infants how to grow into full human beings. Liberal/regressives want to teach full grown human beings how to turn themselves back into animals. CORRECTION: They want to FORCE full grown human beings to turn themselves back into jungle beasts.

HUMAN parents teach an infant how much better it is FOR HIM,HIMSELF and for EVERYONE around him who are his potential friends and assets, if he can develop the ability to see beyond the range of the immediate “now” moment in which other animals perpetually live, and look into the future, long range, and THINK, and accumulate knowledge and plan for perpetually improving his lot and the welfare of everyone in society simultaneously,rather than stagnating at the level of an animal who lives today in the same way and at the same level as he did 10,000 years ago—and who will remain in that same moment eternally. WE are the ones who teach our infants how to PROGRESS steadily by understanding the relationship of the present to the future, and that it is often in a HUMAN being’s own best interest to give up or “trade” a current need or want for much greater rewards tomorrow and next month and next year. And that to be able to live in such a world of hope, ever increasing knowledge, ever-lengthening lifespan, ever-improving health, ever-expanding cultural and intellectual opportunities and ever improving conditions of every stripe, he must respect the full rights of others who share those goals, he must regard them not as objects which may be holding something he wants now, but as equals to himself, with the same human rights,which he must respect if he expects them to respect his—under a moral code which would never work for animals, but which is the ONLY code that will work for a HUMAN BEING if he chooses to be a full human being, to actualize his potential, and to rise above the reflexive, instinctual “gimme NOW” level of a jungle beast or a newborn human infant or a liberal/regressive.

It is PROFOUNDLY IRONIC that those who call themselves “progressive” advocate a MORAL philosophy that amounts to a monstrous REGRESSION, demanding that we return to the morality NOT of a human adolescent or even a human child, but to the morality and ethics of a beast in a pre-historic jungle. It is anti-human, it is anti-civilization, it is anti-HUMANE, it is anti-INTELLECT, it is anti-MIND it is anti-LIFE and it is anti-PEACEFUL HUMAN CIVILIZATION WITH MUTUAL RESPECT AMONGST ALL GENUINELY CIVILIZED INDIVIDUALS. It is ANTI-those who prefer the UNIQUELY HUMAN laws of civilization to the law of the jungle.
And need I add: it is ANTI-PROGRESS. It is in fact, a regression all the way back to the beginnings, the absolutely most extremely regressive idea anyone could possibly conceive. Back to the time BEFORE human beings had even arrived on this earth. Back to total chaos, and LITERAL “dog eat dog.” That’s the incredible irony of its advocates calling themselves “progressives.” It would be hilarious if it weren’t so stupid—and so frightening that people with advanced college degrees can be so abjectly ignorant, and so incredibly STUPID. (Come to think of it, the stupidity part is actually very understandable. Isn’t it obvious that abject stupidity is a PRE-REQUISITE in order that someone be able to advocate seriously the savage ethics of the jungle as a moral ideal and practical base for human civilization?)

C’mon, Mr. Liberal/Regressive, admit it. You may not be a “noble savage” but you are a savage, and a pretty darned moronic one at that.
OK, down to brass tacks now:
You, sir or madam, are an advocate against humanity, human intelligence, and an arch enemy of everything man has accomplished in rising above the law of the jungle. You are a throwback, not of a century or even a millennium, but a throwback by eons and ages. You see someone who has what you want, or what someone you like wants, and your moral idea—MORAL, I emphasize—for obtaining it is ... just seize it—like an animal would or like a human infant would try to do. You want to re-introduce the law of the jungle back into civilization, which was created to escape that very law of the jungle. You want us to regress back to even further than the operating moral code of a human child. You want men to adopt the moral principles governing the behavior of newborn human infants and of wild jungle beasts. You want to legalize, to incorporate into the laws of OUR HUMAN civilization, provisions which will enable the moral philosophy of “gimme” to be exercised and enforced by law. And you want to live in OUR HUMAN civilization, but demand that you be allowed to behave like a wild animal toward the rest of us.
And worse: Pathetic moral coward that you are, you want to use OUR LEGAL SYSTEM to force SOMEONE ELSE to use THEIR fangs to do your dirty work for you so you won’t have to see yourself as the barbaric savage you actually are. You want to open wide our doors to the jungle, and welcome its prehistoric jungle law back in to destroy the civilization that HUMAN BEINGS have created.
And you call this a MORAL code. And you call this “PROGRESSIVE.”
Do you really dare to think of yourself as human?
Oh, that’s right, I guess you do. For a moment there I forgot how stupid you are.
+0
Peter Fogel

1470
7259 Posts
7259
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: The President That Hates His Country By Joan Swirsky
10/5/2011 11:35:02 AM
Hi Evelyn,

Thanks for the video and excellent articles that cover the issues excellently. I do have a bit of a problem with the last article below for a few reasons. While I completely agree that the clowns protesting their extended day of rage near Wall Street and elsewhere in the United States are as a whole a group of free booters waiting to glean the benefits of other people's labors, efforts and accomplishments. My problem with the article is the comparison to the jungle and animal world.

The basic law of the jungle is survival of the fittest. When you compare that to what's happening with the free booters and gimmee crowd in a way it's comparable since those that are succeeding in life through their personal endeavors are the haves and those expecting to be supported are the have nots and they want what the others have. They call it "redistribution of wealth". Well in the jungle and the human world it doesn't work that way does it? Take the most socialistic or communistic country if you don't work you don't eat. And the masses ate a lot less then the elites of those countries did. They're trying to rewrite failing systems into a healthy society and they'll end up in even worse situations of they succeed.

My exception to the use of the jungle is deeper than that by far. The basic difference between man and animal is being able to think and choose. Animals work in accordance with their instincts. What that means if an animal is hungry he will hunt for food. when he's full he rests, plays and sleeps. Think about it there is no greed or killing for the sake of killing but for the sake of sustenance only. Here's where the rule of survival of the fittest comes in to play. The strongest will eat as will their groups. Even then the strongest of the pack will get the best portion and the rest what's left over.

What you also have in the jungle are the scavengers - those that live on the left overs of the hunters and dead animals in the wild. They're expecting others to do the dirty work for them and they live on what's left over. And that's what these jokers protesting are. Scavengers who want the remains of the hunt .... the scraps but in this case the protesters are much worse since they want the whole kit and caboodle. In other words you work like a fool and I'll reap the benefits of your labor. These mindless idiots are dangerous cos they haven't got the capabilities to earn on their own or they have but prefer living off the others work ethic. They are even more dangerous since they are being led by the puppet masters and their liberal left wing socialist and communist organizations.

They are being fed three hot meals a day, have expensive tents and appliances for the simple task of being out there in their so called protest movement. What a farce.

Take for example that scam artist I posted about a few days ago who claimed that Chase Manhattan Bank took his parents home from them. This proved to be a total lie and due to financial difficulties his parents decided to sell their $500,000 home even though they only owe $60,000 on their mortgage. The important part here is that this kid is going to a prestigious University at the cost of $70,000 a year. He didn't offer to go to a cheaper University and then his parents could have paid off their mortgage in one year but continues in the same University and goes out and play acts the loving son demonstrating cos his parents were wronged. In my opinion their only wrong is the way they raised their kid and his expectations to be supported by others. A perfect example of a scavenger.

The animal world has rules of its own and they live by them day after day and year after year. To compare these freebooters and gimmee clowns is an insult to the animal kingdom. But as I said these clowns are barbarians and savages who simply want to live on our dime.

Shalom,

Peter




Quote:
Hello friends, this article from the Canada Free Press was in my inbox today and I as I read it, it really resonated with me. It is a brilliant article that spells everything out in a way that can not be misunderstood, or at least by those who can recognize the facts. I give a thumbs up to Morry Markovitz for this very well written article.

The barbaric savage you actually are

Open letter to tax-the-rich, wealth re-distributing, liberal/regressives

- Morry Markovitz Monday, October 3, 2011

Dear 21st Century Liberal/Regressive:
Your “tax the rich” idea and the idea of redistributing wealth are so intellectually brilliant you can actually boil them down to one single word without losing any of their essence. That word is: “Gimme.”
You want it, you think you need it, there it is in someone else’s possession, so just take it. Just “gimme.” You want, I have, so you feel you have some kind of moral right just to take it from me.Your lack of it plus your want of it, automatically give you a moral right to seize it from me by force.
I have 5 potatoes, you have one, so just grab a couple of mine. Wonderful moral idea. An absolutely brilliant and creative solution to not having something you want. Worthy of an Einstein. No wonder you have only 1 potato. Only a bona fide moron could call a philosophy that belongs in the prehistoric jungle, and which comes straight from the jungle, “progressive.”
What brains you liberal/regressives must have to think of such a clever solution all by yourselves, with only some drivel (by an undoubtedly mentally stable Jewish anti-semite named Karl Marx) to clue you in. Hard to imagine the hilarious ideas you’d come up with if you had ALL the Marx Brothers to memorize excerpts from.
See anything you need anywhere in someone’s hands or garage or pocket? Take it! WOW, what a creative leap. What an admirable moral system must underly that idea. It’s probably so complex we’ve just gotta interview the many thousands of experienced experts who have lived by that rule and now occupy the prison system.
It amounts to legalizing crime, the crime of theft, which all progressives clearly respect as the lovable and moral and endearing trait of a wise and admirable and superior human being like their very barbaric selves. You also think you have a right to a lifetime of comfort and care? Well,OK. How about this: we’ll set up a nice clean prison cell for you, too.

That was a joke. I know you don’t REALLY want to spend your life in a cell. So I understand—FULLY—why you advocate LEGALIZING your criminal proposals.
When an animal wants something, it takes it. When a tiger is hungry, if he sees a litter of squirrel pups he eats them alive. If he sees a lion cub eating part of a recent kill, he takes it from the cub. It’s called the law of the jungle. IT IS IN ORDER TO BANISH THAT LAW FROM HIS LIFE THAT MAN CREATED CIVILIZATION. A lone Tarzan in the jungle would have to live by that law too.
But we do NOT choose to live in the jungle. We are MEN. We live together in man-made, man-created groups. And these places are NOT just collections of bricks and wood, which is all your strictly materialistic mentality can see. They are the result of ideas, of laws, of intense and brilliant thought by great intellects, and of the resulting moral principles which men agree they MUST live by in order to graduate FROM the jungle to the benefits of civilization, and in order to realize their highest potential as human beings in peace, without the threat of being eaten alive by a wild animal or otherwise destroyed by some inhuman liberal/regressive jungle beast like you.
We acknowledge the rights of all men and we do the uniquely MAN thing, we live according to our IDEAS of what is right and wrong for ALL of us as human beings. We RESPECT each other’s existence and rights. We develop detailed, rigorous thinking into documents like a Constitution. We don’t live by “take, and ye shall receive.” We don’t live by the law of the jungle. We chose to rise above that, we escaped from it, because . . . we are HUMAN beings and the last thing we need is to drag back into our magnificent creation—civilization—the very thing we sought to banish when we created civilization: being subjected to the jungle’s moral code of “Gimme,” the code embraced by the modern-day liberal/regressive barbarians.

If you don’t like our system, go back to the jungle where your morality will fit right in. Then you can relax and be comfy in your own kind of world. You won’t be “a stranger and afraid in a world you never made,” or be constantly reminded of your inferior animalistic nature and mental deficiencies by all those superior HUMANS around you who know how to deal with reality better than a pathetic animal like you does. Back there in the jungle with the animals is your true home, where you won’t have to try so hard to convince yourself of your inherent superiority, because you probably will in fact be a wee bit more intelligent than most of the animal life around you.

A newborn human infant operates on the law of the jungle too. When he sees what he wants, he reaches for it and if nothing interferes to stop him, he takes it. Just like an animal. Just like a liberal/regressive. He is not yet a full human being, just like a liberal/regressive. He still has all his non-human animal attributes, but has yet to develop his uniquely HUMAN ANIMAL behaviors, knowledge, and ideas. Just like a liberal/regressive. He has yet to develop his human MIND. Indeed, just like a liberal/regressive, an infant’s mind hasn’t yet progressed to the fully HUMAN level. Someday it will, assuming he doesn’t have liberal/regressive parents.

Human parents teach their animal-like infants how to grow into full human beings. Liberal/regressives want to teach full grown human beings how to turn themselves back into animals. CORRECTION: They want to FORCE full grown human beings to turn themselves back into jungle beasts.

HUMAN parents teach an infant how much better it is FOR HIM,HIMSELF and for EVERYONE around him who are his potential friends and assets, if he can develop the ability to see beyond the range of the immediate “now” moment in which other animals perpetually live, and look into the future, long range, and THINK, and accumulate knowledge and plan for perpetually improving his lot and the welfare of everyone in society simultaneously,rather than stagnating at the level of an animal who lives today in the same way and at the same level as he did 10,000 years ago—and who will remain in that same moment eternally. WE are the ones who teach our infants how to PROGRESS steadily by understanding the relationship of the present to the future, and that it is often in a HUMAN being’s own best interest to give up or “trade” a current need or want for much greater rewards tomorrow and next month and next year. And that to be able to live in such a world of hope, ever increasing knowledge, ever-lengthening lifespan, ever-improving health, ever-expanding cultural and intellectual opportunities and ever improving conditions of every stripe, he must respect the full rights of others who share those goals, he must regard them not as objects which may be holding something he wants now, but as equals to himself, with the same human rights,which he must respect if he expects them to respect his—under a moral code which would never work for animals, but which is the ONLY code that will work for a HUMAN BEING if he chooses to be a full human being, to actualize his potential, and to rise above the reflexive, instinctual “gimme NOW” level of a jungle beast or a newborn human infant or a liberal/regressive.

It is PROFOUNDLY IRONIC that those who call themselves “progressive” advocate a MORAL philosophy that amounts to a monstrous REGRESSION, demanding that we return to the morality NOT of a human adolescent or even a human child, but to the morality and ethics of a beast in a pre-historic jungle. It is anti-human, it is anti-civilization, it is anti-HUMANE, it is anti-INTELLECT, it is anti-MIND it is anti-LIFE and it is anti-PEACEFUL HUMAN CIVILIZATION WITH MUTUAL RESPECT AMONGST ALL GENUINELY CIVILIZED INDIVIDUALS. It is ANTI-those who prefer the UNIQUELY HUMAN laws of civilization to the law of the jungle.
And need I add: it is ANTI-PROGRESS. It is in fact, a regression all the way back to the beginnings, the absolutely most extremely regressive idea anyone could possibly conceive. Back to the time BEFORE human beings had even arrived on this earth. Back to total chaos, and LITERAL “dog eat dog.” That’s the incredible irony of its advocates calling themselves “progressives.” It would be hilarious if it weren’t so stupid—and so frightening that people with advanced college degrees can be so abjectly ignorant, and so incredibly STUPID. (Come to think of it, the stupidity part is actually very understandable. Isn’t it obvious that abject stupidity is a PRE-REQUISITE in order that someone be able to advocate seriously the savage ethics of the jungle as a moral ideal and practical base for human civilization?)

C’mon, Mr. Liberal/Regressive, admit it. You may not be a “noble savage” but you are a savage, and a pretty darned moronic one at that.
OK, down to brass tacks now:
You, sir or madam, are an advocate against humanity, human intelligence, and an arch enemy of everything man has accomplished in rising above the law of the jungle. You are a throwback, not of a century or even a millennium, but a throwback by eons and ages. You see someone who has what you want, or what someone you like wants, and your moral idea—MORAL, I emphasize—for obtaining it is ... just seize it—like an animal would or like a human infant would try to do. You want to re-introduce the law of the jungle back into civilization, which was created to escape that very law of the jungle. You want us to regress back to even further than the operating moral code of a human child. You want men to adopt the moral principles governing the behavior of newborn human infants and of wild jungle beasts. You want to legalize, to incorporate into the laws of OUR HUMAN civilization, provisions which will enable the moral philosophy of “gimme” to be exercised and enforced by law. And you want to live in OUR HUMAN civilization, but demand that you be allowed to behave like a wild animal toward the rest of us.
And worse: Pathetic moral coward that you are, you want to use OUR LEGAL SYSTEM to force SOMEONE ELSE to use THEIR fangs to do your dirty work for you so you won’t have to see yourself as the barbaric savage you actually are. You want to open wide our doors to the jungle, and welcome its prehistoric jungle law back in to destroy the civilization that HUMAN BEINGS have created.
And you call this a MORAL code. And you call this “PROGRESSIVE.”
Do you really dare to think of yourself as human?
Oh, that’s right, I guess you do. For a moment there I forgot how stupid you are.
Peter Fogel
Babylon 7
+0