Slashdot

Yeah, so I'm a giant retard. I was stupid enough to leave my slashdot account logged in on my cousin's computer. He's been using my moderator points like candy, and he even meta moderated for me - twice - before realizing that I was logged in.

Meta moderation is a chore at best, but should be considered actually punishment that is, unfortunately, required in order that Slashdot may live on. My cousin's willingness to undergo this torture, only to end up benefitting ME due to my incompetence and negligence in leaving myself logged in at his computer, requires some retribution.

Luckily, my cousin (Josh, or knewter as he is known) is perfect in all ways, and his retribution is swift and just. I will commence my punishment.

I like boys.
I like boys.
I like boys.
I like boys.
I like boys.
I like boys.
I like boys.
I like boys.
I like boys.
I like boys.

Wow, been a while since I've written in this but now that I remember it is here, I have decided to write something.

Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian party Cantidate, has basically the best gun control policy of any cantidates besides Michael Peroutka of the Constitution party:

I sincerely believe that statistical evidence supports the idea that crime increases exponentially wherever gun control is instituted as the governing policy. Washington DC, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles have the strictest gun control policies in the United States. The cities with the highest murder rates are Washington DC, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. It doesn't take a PhD to be able to draw the proper conclusion from this evidence. England and Australia have recently instituted strict gun control measures, and both countries have seen the statistics on violent crime quadruple. In contrast, I am told that the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a municipal ordinance that requires homeowners to have a firearm available. Home invasions have dropped to less than 10% of their original rate, indicating to me that criminals value their lives more than they value your property.

I know tons of people who own guns, shoot at ranges for practice or fun, hunt various types of animals, and own guns just for the sake of collecting or self-defense.

Why do people want to take this recreational fun away? This would be like saying OH WE ARE SORRY, MORE PEOPLE ARE KILLED EACH YEAR BY AMMONIA UNDER YOUR SINK THAN ANYTHING ELSE SO IT HAS TO BE BANNED!

But of course, the American liberals (cough John Kerry cough) wouldn't ever say that because you aren't going to be defending yourself and your home from someone who breaks in with ammonia. You also aren't going to be defending yourself from tyrannical rule, as government is not to ever be trusted.

Anyone blind enough to see gun control is nothing more than one more step towards tyrannical rule has no intelligence whatsoever. Hitler, Stalin, and Castro all agree: GUN CONTROL WORKS.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Be it guns, knives, poison, sporks, or whatever. I could kill someone probably easier with a knife than a gun, and I probably wouldn't get caught either.

This was written by Thomas Sowell, a professor at Stanford University I believe.

This may go down in history as the year when an attempt to win an election, at all costs, led to longer run disasters that make any election pale into insignificance. The biggest and loudest political rhetoric of this year is that President Bush "lied" about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

What are the known facts about Saddam Hussein's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons?

We know that, at one time or other, he was either developing or producing or using such weapons. Back in 1981, the Israelis bombed an Iraqi nuclear facility, to the loud condemnation of many nations. But, without that pre-emptive strike, the outcome of both Gulf wars could have been tragically different.

Saddam Hussein not only had, but used, chemical and biological weapons against his enemies, foreign and domestic. With the help of the French, he was rebuilding nuclear facilities, ostensibly for civilian energy purposes, but oil-rich countries do not need nuclear power plants to generate electricity.

More than a decade of playing cat-and-mouse with international weapons inspectors raised more and more suspicions about Iraq's weapons programs, and various nations' intelligence services reported that in fact he was back to his old tricks and developing weapons of mass destruction that could pose a major threat.

Who said so? The Russians said so. The British said so. Bill Clinton said so. Leaders of both political parties said so. George W. Bush was one of the last to say so. Yet he alone is accused of lying.

Were all these people wrong? While that is possible, it is also possible that Saddam Hussein used the long months between the time when the threat of invasion was debated at the United Nations and the time when it actually occurred to dismantle his weapons facilities and disperse them, perhaps to some neighboring country.

There is already photographic evidence of a massive dismantling of a facility of some sort before last year's invasion. These photos were published on the front page of the New York Times. Whether or not that particular building was producing weapons of mass destruction, it shows that Saddam Hussein saw the need to get rid of some things before they got captured.

Nations do not wait for iron-clad proof when there are lethal threats. The massive Manhattan Project that produced the first atomic bomb was begun when the United States was at peace because of reports that Hitler's scientists were working on such a weapon.

We had no proof -- and, after Germany surrendered, it turned out that Hitler's atomic bomb project was nowhere near the stage that we feared. But we couldn't take that chance.

People who talk glibly about "intelligence failure" act as if intelligence agencies that are doing their job right would know everything. But intelligence-gathering has always been a chancy business. In a nuclear age, the only thing that makes sense is to fail safe -- and strike pre-emptively, if necessary. If that offends people who think and talk in abstract terms about international law, then it is better that they be offended than that we wake up some morning and find New York or Chicago in radioactive ruins.

It was Saddam Hussein who chose to play cat-and-mouse with the weapons inspectors whom he had agreed to let monitor Iraqi facilities as part of the peace treaty ending the first Gulf War. It was his intelligence failure to think that he could keep on doing that indefinitely.

Iran and North Korea -- the other nations identified as part of the "axis of evil" -- are now playing the same cat-and-mouse game, and North Korea is openly threatening to produce nuclear bombs. Either or both these countries are potential suppliers of such weapons to international terrorists.

Libya backed out of the nuclear weapons game after Qadaffi saw what happened to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. What would have emboldened Iran and North Korea? Only a disunited America, full of loud irresponsible election-year talk about "lies" on weapons of mass destruction, making it unlikely that the United States can muster the political will to strike Iran or North Korea.

An election-year frenzy has let the longer run fate of this country fade away into the background.

I really, really, do not get liberals. I'm about to post for you a transcription of Rush Limbaugh's show, so read it. If you don't want to read it I'll post a link so you can listen to it.

Anyway, I haven't posted in a month. I have done a few things with a livejournal and a blog, but I've figured out that Slashdot journals rock. ----------------------------------------- http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/clips/04/07/070604_2_kerryabortion.asx

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You know what we're not hearing about today? Let me tell you what this vice president announcement today is all about. You know what we're not hearing about today? We are not hearing about John Kerry's flip-flop on abortion, and I am here to tell you, folks, when I heard about this over the weekend, I was doing handstands -- and that's not easy for me to do -- because this is an irreconcilable position he's got. He's trying to do a (Former NY Democrat Governor) Mario Cuomo on this issue but it's not going to work. Once the artificial excitement -- and all this veep "excitement" is pure artificial. It's always happens no matter which candidate names a veep, there's always (a bounce) Don't be upset if there's a poll out tonight or tomorrow that shows Kerry's got the election won and we may as well cancel it 'cause it's over. Don't be worried about any of that. This is natural. There's always some excitement -- especially when your nominee is Kerry! I mean, they've actually got somebody on the ticket now that has a personality and so they're all excited on the Democratic side because they've got somebody with a little bit of charisma. So you got a guy who thinks he's JFK at the top of the ticket. You got a guy who thinks he's RFK at the bottom of the ticket. Edwards is the fourth highest ranked liberal in the Senate; Kerry is first. So you've got the 1st and 4th biggest liberals in the country on the Democrat ticket. You have an anti-war activist and a trial lawyer as the Democrat ticket. If that doesn't say exactly who the Democrats are, nothing could. (noise) What was that? Your computer? Oh, computer burped, is that it? The mouse got screwed up again, huh? So anyway, he came out over the weekend, whenever this was, and he said that he believes life begins -- Kerry did "life begins at conception," but that he's not going to impose his views on people! What good is "the view," when you're talking life! Life begins -- and he's still going to have his litmus test on judges to the Supreme Court! So what's the deal? It's another typical Kerry flip-flop, and I'll tell you what: the reason I'm not making that big a deal about Edwards today is because I don't believe that it's over.

You know, the New York Post today, they got a tip last night -- and they felt comfortable with it, and the cover of the New York Post says it's Gephardt and it still could be. Kerry could flip-flop tonight and name Gephardt tomorrow. So until this is actually done and we see 'em together... Kerry didn't have Edwards up there, when he made the big announcement in Pittsburgh. Why Pittsburgh? Kerry's got zilch connection to Pittsburgh except one of his wife's 13 or 14 estates is there. Big union town, that's why. I got depressed. I watched the feed before Kerry actually came out; Franco Harris was one of the guys warming up the crowd. Oh, my hart sank. I'm a big Steelers fan. There's Franco Harris, eating a lot of doughnuts. By the way, owns a doughnut shop -- and I think he's eating the product. (Cough) I played golf with him not long ago. He gave me a business card, owns a doughnut shop. Anyway, what else? Uh, tst, tst, ts. I had something else. Well, they've taken this abortion thing off the front pages. Nobody's even talking about it. That's a huge flip-flop.

Did you see Kerry over the weekend out there trying to make it look like he's a farmer? He's out there talking to the cattle! He was telling the cattle who his veep choice going to be but he wouldn't tell anybody else. Pictures of him talking to the cattle and then he's out there, you know, picking up gun and looking -- just amazing. Yeah, he's a farmer. He says he has experience on farms. He got dirty once, and he drove a tractor. It was air-conditioned, but he drove a tractor. Anyway. (Laughing.) Folks, I really am having (laughing). You know, you can hear it my voice. I'm having trouble taking it seriously, because the bottom line is this. The Clintons' phasers are now going to be switched from "stun" to "kill," because this cannot stand. I mean, if this ticket wins, Hillary has got a fight on her hands that she doesn't want to have in 2008, so just keep a sharp eye. I saw Clinton earlier today on TV. They I asked him about Hillary and whether or not she was ever on the list, and he said (Clinton impression), "I don't even know if she's on that short list or not."

Like he doesn't know what's going on in the party! She probably never was on the list and probably wouldn't have taken it anyway. Because if she had wanted to be on the list, and if she wanted to be veep, she would be, is probably the best way to analyze this. So people are going to be hitting us all now with things that Edwards has said over the years and things that Kerry said and the things they said during their campaign, and it'll be fun entertaining stuff but it isn't going to matter much, I don't think. The thing to focus on with Edwards is who he is and what kind of experience he has -- which is very little. He spent six years in the Senate, basically running for president is what he was doing. He's leaving the Senate, and the reason why he wasn't going to get reelected. You know, Kerry said early on in his campaign (Kerry impression), "Well, everybody makes a mistake of looking South." So he goes and gets this guy from North Carolina he thinks is going to help get the South. They're not going to win North Carolina; they're going to win the South. This is not going to change anything.

In fact, Kerry has actually chosen somebody who brings some weaknesses to this ticket when it comes to national security. Edwards, if you recall the Democrat primaries, when he went out there to talk he had this whole thing of "two Americas," meaning that... It's the same old class warfare, class-envy card the Democrats have been playing all their lives, and he's trying to make a case that this one America where nobody is doing well. Nobody's happy, nobody has a chance and then there's the other America where the gigolo John Kerry lives and the 50 millionaire John Edwards lives. By the way, you know, we could call this the Hooker Ticket: two Johns on the road, wealthy Johns on the road looking for approval. I was playing with that today. Also a friend of mine sent me a suggested campaign slogan: "Flush the Johns in '04." (Laughing.) "Rush, aren't you willing to take this seriously? Yes, my friends, I'll take it seriously at some point.

I'm just telling you you're going to make a huge mistake if you watch the media, because they're going gaga. They're just going gaga and they're having so much fun. The reason they're excited is because there's a candidate on the ticket now, I'm telling you, has a personality. If they're not careful -- and I think one of the reasons that Edwards was not in Pittsburgh today was that he would upstage Kerry. He's gonna to upstage Kerry when thee appear together, and Kerry knows it, and that's why Edwards is still in his multimillion-dollar mansion down in Georgetown, supposedly huddling with aides, and tonight they're going to fly into Pittsburgh, have a big dinner there at one of Teresa's homes. I don't know what the chef is going to prepare for these average Americans who understand your plot and plight in life, but I'm sure there will be delicacies that Kerry will not have to use his hands to actually touch the food. Knife and fork will work. That kind of menu. Let me go to the audio sound bites here for just a second. I want you to hear. I heard the loudest applause I ever heard at a John Kerry campaign rally this morning, the longest and the loudest sustained applause -- and there hasn't been much of that no matter where you go but there was today. That's why it stood out and I want you to hear what it was that caused this raucous display of public applause, affection and excitement at the John Kerry campaign rally.

KERRY: I am pleased to announce that, with your help, the next vice president of the United States of America will be Senator John Edwards from North Carolina. (Applause)

RUSH: Whoa! Oh, did it end? It went on and on and on and on and on. It was the longest applause I'd ever heard. I want you to hear a typical applause line from a Kerry rally. This is back in February, and here he is speaking to the firefighters, one of his biiig lines.

KERRY: If George Bush wants national security to be the central issue of this campaign, I've got three words for him that I know he understands. Briiing iiit ooon! Bring it on. (Light applause.)

RUSH: It's tepid applause. By the way, the NEA, the National Education Association endorsed Kerry today. That's a big blockbuster news story, head lightened all over the press today, as though that's any kind of surprise -- and Kerry actually mentioned when he announced Edwards. He did his usually stump speech after he announced Edwards and he mentioned this, for some of you who may not know it, but he was a boat captain in Vietnam.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I want to go back to what I said at the very beginning of this program and that is that I believe one of the fundamental reasons the choice was made today was that Kerry really stepped in it over the weekend when he said, "Life begins at conception," because when you say that, you undercut the building block foundation of the pro-choice movement. With "life begins at conception," bye-bye any rational for abortion if you really believe it; if it's a fundamental belief that you hold. Now, he said it, and he can't take it back. Don't know why he said it. It makes no sense. All it's going to do is cause heart flutters and other bad things in his base. Well, I do think there's a reason. I think he's trying to mend fences with priests and the Pope and the hierarchy at the Catholic church, and he's probably -- it's a typical Kerry move. This is a flip-flop. He's going to go out there and say (Kerry sing-song voice impression), "Well, I belieeeve that life begins at conceeeption." Oh, really? "But I stiiill favor partial-birth abooortion, and I still favor a litmus test for pro-choice (judges)." Why? "Well, because I cannooot impose my religious views on Ameeerican people and Jews and Protestants and aaatheists."

You can't enforce the view or impose...? Well, then why are you going to impose your view on taxes on us? Why are you going to impose your view on France and Germany on us? Why are you going to impose every other view you have, but this one, you believe life begins at conception, you're not going to impose that on people? By the way, "impose"? Where does this word come from? You're not "imposing," anyway. You're supposed to be "leading." You're supposed to be sharing. See, this is what these liberals think. They have to impose their views on people, because they so oppose them. So he has to impose his views on us, otherwise we wouldn't accept them on our own. Just like they think we impose freedom on people around the world who live in dictatorships and under tyrants. But I'm telling you, this is going to come back. There are people that have not forgotten this.

He's trying to sweep it off the front page today with this VP choice. But this is going to come back, and he's going to have a lot of explaining to do, and he's going to be flip-flopping all over the place when he does it. I mean, this is extraordinarily cynical, folks. To sit out there and say, "I believe life begins at conception," and then to hold every view he claims to hold when it comes to aborting human life. I mean, he says -- and it's, by the way, more of the same. He says he's strong on defense, yet he's opposed virtually every major weapons program during the last 20 years. He said he believes marriage ought to be between a man and a woman, and yet he's opposed every effort to preserve the traditional meaning of marriage. Senator Kerry says he believes intelligence is "crucial" to winning the war on terrorism, yet he's voted to gut the intelligence services every chance he's gotten as a senator.

He says he has "conservative values," yet he has the most liberal voting record in the entire United States Senate. He opposed the war before -- he voted for it -- and he opposed Senator Edwards before he chose him! And now he's out there saying that life begins at conception. If you believe that, how can you be in favor of ending that life? How can you? And yet he's got to make this case. So when all this Edwards hubbub is over, this kind of stuff, being stockpiled and he's going to be asked about it. He's going to have to explain it, and primarily for people on the left. I'm guaranteeing, when Kate Michelman and these babes at the NAGs (National Organization for Women) heard that, I guarantee you there were some red flag e-mails flashing around this country at all these liberal activists because that, folks, that is (exhale) you do not understand. That has the potential to be the biggest gaffe of this election campaign so far. Mark my words.

END TRANSCRIPT

My question is, could this eventually lead to something like this in the United States? It's basically one of the steps to becoming a Communisn nation.

To save the lives of millions of people, I wish I had a time machine right now to go back in time and kill Karl Marx. Geeze...