• Haha, I should double check

    Haha, I should double check my links. Try now.

  • missed you too


    But I aint back any more than you are.

    Let's rap.

    Peace, Love, we have in droves
    Enough to make a body sick
    Restless, packin', seekin' fortunes
    But where's the gold? I ask it often
    Wheres the gold, wheres the gold?
    Where is my sunken spanish galleon?
    Where is my reward for all this truth
    Where is the payment for me and you
    If truth cannot convert to fed bux
    Well then tellin it, the job it sux
    But for us real artists and fighters
    Paid in memory, little stories
    Posthumously, wrapped in glory

    dedicated to the warrior smudge pot and the unappreciated artist m nys

  • It's fun to watch people do their thing.

    MN will come out clean regardless. He's just an artist stressing over his pots and creations. Creators are never satisfied, except for some mothers...

    Dodge the flood, its coming!! I is curious if anyone has ever committed straight up infanticide/abortion on their own community? Jim jones notwithstanding. But usually a mother will sell the baby rather than drown it, but anything is possible in the human drama. I watch with absorbing interest. Once a week at least!

    Good to see you to jrd. Glad to see you're still the knife wielding enforcer around here.

  • Love.

    And let's forgive our god his trespasses and too hasty drowning the clay he formed. Even a god needs thick skin.

    Love to treubig, and love to Nystrom.

    Arks are good, but sometimes a nigga finna learn to swim.


  • : )


  • I don't know about chiggers

    But I miss riggers. Where'd she go?

  • You scallywag

    I know who you are!

  • First rate

    Hume's quote reminded me of this passage from Beyond Good and Evil (a book with no few barbs against the English):

    That which causes philosophers to be regarded half-distrustfully and half-mockingly, is not the oft-repeated discovery how innocent they are—how often and easily they make mistakes and lose their way, in short, how childish and childlike they are,—but that there is not enough honest dealing with them, whereas they all raise a loud and virtuous outcry when the problem of truthfulness is even hinted at in the remotest manner. They all pose as though their real opinions had been discovered and attained through the self-evolving of a cold, pure, divinely indifferent dialectic (in contrast to all sorts of mystics, who, fairer and foolisher, talk of "inspiration"), whereas, in fact, a prejudiced proposition, idea, or "suggestion," which is generally their heart's desire abstracted and refined, is defended by them with arguments sought out after the event. They are all advocates who do not wish to be regarded as such, generally astute defenders, also, of their prejudices, which they dub "truths,"—and VERY far from having the conscience which bravely admits this to itself, very far from having the good taste of the courage which goes so far as to let this be understood, perhaps to warn friend or foe, or in cheerful confidence and self-ridicule. The spectacle of the Tartuffery of old Kant, equally stiff and decent, with which he entices us into the dialectic by-ways that lead (more correctly mislead) to his "categorical imperative"—makes us fastidious ones smile, we who find no small amusement in spying out the subtle tricks of old moralists and ethical preachers. Or, still more so, the hocus-pocus in mathematical form, by means of which Spinoza has, as it were, clad his philosophy in mail and mask—in fact, the "love of HIS wisdom," to translate the term fairly and squarely—in order thereby to strike terror at once into the heart of the assailant who should dare to cast a glance on that invincible maiden, that Pallas Athene:—how much of personal timidity and vulnerability does this masquerade of a sickly recluse betray!

    6. It has gradually become clear to me what every great philosophy up till now has consisted of—namely, the confession of its originator, and a species of involuntary and unconscious auto-biography; and moreover that the moral (or immoral) purpose in every philosophy has constituted the true vital germ out of which the entire plant has always grown. Indeed, to understand how the abstrusest metaphysical assertions of a philosopher have been arrived at, it is always well (and wise) to first ask oneself: "What morality do they (or does he) aim at?" Accordingly, I do not believe that an "impulse to knowledge" is the father of philosophy; but that another impulse, here as elsewhere, has only made use of knowledge (and mistaken knowledge!) as an instrument. But whoever considers the fundamental impulses of man with a view to determining how far they may have here acted as INSPIRING GENII (or as demons and cobolds), will find that they have all practiced philosophy at one time or another, and that each one of them would have been only too glad to look upon itself as the ultimate end of existence and the legitimate LORD over all the other impulses. For every impulse is imperious, and as SUCH, attempts to philosophize.

  • Well now

    That might be the best thing you've ever written, or even the best thing ever published on the Paul.

  • Watch out

    when Faithkills breaks out the "Horsepucky" line, you know its on.


  • It's a hard, thankless task

    and I am deeply altruistic, selfless, nay, self sacrificial. I do it because I am so good, so pure, so without blemish. No, I don't enjoy it - perish the thought. It is not because it is my obsession, my love, my passion. It is all for you guys. I serve, I slave, I break myself on the rocks of hate and downvotery.

    No, but really I do it because I like to and it is my peculiar vice. Truth, a vice.

  • P.S. I do have one request.

    In the event that you do cut me loose, I would hope you allow me to access at least my poetry posts. The rest can go to the dogs.

  • Thank you

    I may be banned. If so, I want to congratulate you in advance on your victory!

  • With due respect

    and I hope you know how much I do respect you, I think I won't comment further on the issue at all.

    Although I think the immigration situation is a serious issue, worthy of thoughtful discussion, it is perhaps one of those topics that is too sensitive for some places.

    I respect that! I usually avoid it altogether, unless it is rubbed in our faces. But I won't pretend it's an issue of language.

    In the very post to which this one is a riposte, the article ends "go back to sleep, sheep" and denigrates people who are not in favor of open borders as evil and foolish.

    Many of my posts have called things foolish, and you've lauded them. Fool is one of my favorite words; yours too, I imagine, from the fool card.

    It's the issue, not the language. I typically avoid the topic, unless a position I strongly disagree with is spotlighted, as in the case of the dwalters post.


  • I sat out the immigration hoopla

    until an anCap post was front paged making specious arguments. The point being, open borders is in contradiction to ancap, yet its champions will ignore that little contradiction to latch onto a politically correct position.

  • :D

    and I love how I can tell a Marcclair comment by the love.

  • False

    It is in service to higher principles that we often use aggression. I could commit aggression by invading Murray Rothbard's property and feeding his kid. He says he has the right to not feed his kid and you aren't allowed on his land. NAP is foolishness.

  • BILL3 came

    that he may take and bear all the downvotes of mankind upon him.

  • But its not true

    Self ownership, NAP, property rights, are ethical claims defining individual relationship to society. It doesn't demand the individual refrain from doing to others what he would not want done to him. For example, I would not want anyone to say nasty things about me. Nothing in these anarchist ethical principles is against it. They are claims of a different kind, and a different moral system. Rothbard said parents have a right to starve their children. He didn't know about your silver rule, so you're just forcing syncretism where there isn't any.

  • Permitting property owners to make

    such decisions would result in much more tightly controlled immigration. It is the forceful prevention of this that keeps immigration open. When they try to defend their property, your friends in DC stop them. It seems to me you support this.

    If you are against the government keeping open borders against the will of the property owners, you should say so. Otherwise we have to assume you support it, and desire more of it.