Featured
Poor Scott
Listening to the Kaos archive. Listening to Scott respond to the lie that Bush’s failures have debunked the “free market.”
Yes, it’s frustrating. Maybe this will be a good thing about an Obama presidency: His fascism won’t be blamed on free enterprise. On the other hand, no matter how many Arabs he slaughters, the rightwing will say a “peaceful” foreign policy is leading to our problems, just as Bill Clinton’s “neglect” supposedly led to 9/11.
Buy Scott's Stickers
Highest Rated
- Philip Giraldi: Beware of Israeli False Flag Attacks in Iraq
(2 out of 5) - who’s next? (0 out of 5)
- Vincent Bugliosi at the ‘imperial presidency hearing’ (0 out of 5)
- Randy Pausch, 1960-2008 (0 out of 5)
- A Year at the Wheel (0 out of 5)
- Zionist Christians Target Iran (0 out of 5)
- Pat Buchanan on Antiwar Radio/you-tube (0 out of 5)
- Fox News commentators “white house tools”. (0 out of 5)
- The Show: Philip Giraldi (0 out of 5)
- Kid Falls from bridge and breaks his back, what do the police do ? …. Taser him 19 times of course. (0 out of 5)
Social Bookmarks
© 2008 Stress. 
I think that’s sort of what bugs me about Robert Dreyfus. I mean, here you have this excellent journalist, well-read, knows history, etc. But then he says some boneheaded thing like “we” (meaning the state; meaning you and I) should establish organizations and what-not to help the poor in suffering nations. Yet, not a minute later, he says it’s not really any of our business what sort of government other nations choose to have. So, in other words, “we’re” responsible for bailing out poor nations even though they’re leaders may happen to be f*cking morons who can’t discern slavery from freedom, or worse, have chosen slavery over freedom.’ Yet we’re expected to help them. No thanks.
Dreyfus and others like him are statists, nay communists, plain and simple. They’re useful so far (Dreyfus’s book, Devil’s Game is excellent), but then they become boring and useless.
I had similar misgivings about Dreyfuss. Liberals these days can really tie themselves into knots with all their contradictions.
Dude’s a great reporter though.
Well, he’s a great dude as well. And I didn’t mean to come off sounding like I think he’s trouble or “the enemy” or something. It’s just that there is a point where the new alignment splits at the same ol’ point where it always has. Liberty just scares the hell out of most people.
Poor Scott? Dude’s got skateboarding, a pirate radio show AND groupies! Doesn’t get any better than that! Well, throw in the Rush Limbo money and I guess it could but Angela’s workin’ on that.
Hey Scott, why don’t you interview Vin Sypronowicz? And when are ya gonna interview Russell Means?
Get someone like P. J. O’Rourke on and tear him a new butthole for making out like he’s a libertarian or a modern Mencken or something.
Hey Scott, why don’t you interview Vin Sypronowicz?
–What did he write I should interview him about?
And when are ya gonna interview Russell Means?
–Don’t know. Sounds like a good idea though.
I always shudder to think what would have happened if Bush would have been able to “privatize” social security. I’m sure the official line would be that social security worked great up until it was taken out of well meaning bureaucratic hands to be ravaged by the free market.
Come to think of it, statists would have probably been better off supporting that move in order to deflect responsibility away from central planning and onto the destructive nature of laissez-faire. It would have made a great “cause-and-effect” to prop up future arguments for the necessity of government control (maybe not “great” but I bet effective). Especially now that the baby boomers are coming of age, it really would have been a smarter move on their part. And in retrospect, I’m surprised that Bush didn’t have more bipartisan support.
That’s a good point. I suppose the Democrats were simply too stupid to act to their own advantage.
At least we have that.