RashyNullPlanet

There is no significant difference between this…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_ZWTx-QUj4

…and this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ljYNgLnpxM

The only difference between those two videos is who pays the perpetrators.

In both videos the murderers are obviously dedicated to the task of killing.

In both videos the murderers have abandoned their responsibility to determine right from wrong and are simply following orders from distant others.

In both videos the murderers act without fear of interference from bystanders.

In the first video, the murderers are a mob of men brutalizing a woman who dared violate their ridiculous insane sense of ownership of all women.

In the second video, the murderers are a mob of men brutalizing a mentally handicapped man who dared violate their ridiculous insane sense of self-importance.

In both cases, the murderers have abandoned their consciences, and persist in their brutality despite the obvious murder they’re committing.

The only discernible difference is that the murderers in the first video were a mere mob, and the murderers in the second video were a gaggle of tax-financed cops in “the land of the free, and the home of the brave.”

All those murderers are the worst kind of sub-human zealots. They crave violence and sadism, and they seek someone, anyone, to make their violence and sadism appear legitimate, so they don’t have to think for themselves or answer for their murderous actions. The mob latched onto religion. The cops latched onto worship of law.

From Wendy McElroy’s place:

If protection rackets represent organized crime at its smoothest, then war making and state making—quintessential protection rackets with the advantage of legitimacy…

There are a few critical words missing there. This is how it should read:

“If protection rackets represent organized crime at its smoothest, then war making and state making—quintessential protection rackets with the advantage of the appearance of legitimacy… ”

Don’t ever give an inch to such shoddy language. If war making and state making are truly legitimate activities, then what’s the point of the rest of the article?

Of *course* those comments are closed.

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.3250

Matt Taibbi hasn’t a clue:

“In the Randian ethos, called objectivism, the only real morality is self-interest, and society is divided into groups who are efficiently self-interested (the rich) and the ”parasites” who wish to take their earnings through taxes.”

Got a cite for that bullshit, Taibbi?

Look here, Taibbi, you clearly haven’t read and don’t understand Rand, and, more importantly, you don’t understand moral interaction with your fellow humans.

Morality is this: don’t hurt anyone.

That’s what self interest is all about. Pursue whatever you wish, as long as you don’t harm anyone.

Get your head straight.

At this point in human devolution, how many people can rub enough synapses together to understand what a machine gun is?

Via Say Uncle.

Again: Your job does not free you from your primary obligation to determine right from wrong and to act accordingly.

Three recent items, all excellent examples of that fact:

• Government-paid hell-raisers
• Thoreau on separating oneself from the state
• Judicial terrorists

See the binding principle?

Obama, at his appearance at Arlington National Cemetery yesterday:

Carved into the marble behind me are the words of our first Commander-in-Chief:  “When we assumed the soldier, we did not lay aside the citizen.”  Just as the contributions that our servicemen and women make to this nation don’t end when they take off their uniform, neither do our obligations to them.  And when we fulfill those obligations, we aren’t just keeping faith with our veterans; we are keeping faith with the ideals of service and sacrifice upon which this republic was founded. [emphasis mine]

The thug-in-chief is a manipulating liar. America was forged upon the ideal of individual liberty, not servitude and sacrifice:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

There was no screeching appeal to either service or sacrifice in attendance at the birth of America.

Obama wants you to think that you owe something to people you don’t know, haven’t ever met, and never will meet. He wants you to accept the idea that you owe something to everyone else simply because you exist.

There is no premise more wrong.

Obama, pretensively speaking about detainees in Guantanamo, but, in fact, speaking about you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVChNmN9y7E

Via Wendy.

Obama, while introducing Sotomayor as his choice to replace Souter, had the nerve to utter this:

Well, Sonia, what you’ve shown in your life is that it doesn’t matter where you come from, what you look like or what challenges life throws your way, no dream is beyond reach in the United States of America.

I’ve long dreamed of keeping all the money I earn. I dream of living without the compulsion of others’ preferences.

I dream of cannibals walking away from the pot.

“No dream is beyond reach in the United States of America.”

Bullshit.

Mitch McConnell is concerned:

It certainly sets up the potential for the majority — if it chooses to — to run roughshod over the minority…

The tyranny of the majority was set in motion the day The Declaration died:

The important point here is to understand that we aren’t where we are because the past leaders and legislatures have failed to live up to the ideals of the Constitution, but that those who framed the Constitution failed to live up to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence.

The American Revolution in fact *died* with the ratification of the US Constitution.

That idiot McConnell can’t see past the nose on his face.

This, from here:

Most people ‘going Galt’ refuse to recognize the final moral meaning of it; it’s a form of nonviolent social protest, and something you do on account of principle, and you should expect to pay a significant penalty for doing it.

Note the ultimatum: “you should expect to pay a significant penalty for doing it.” That “it” is minding your own damn business, and that chiseler presumes that you should pay dearly to someone for doing so.