helping commies get to know knives
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Bad Commie Expose! Secrets of the jury trial exposed!
What is a jury trial?
That's when a bunch of KKK full members get together and lynch you.
For some reason, the television is busy telling me that a jury trial magically determines a person's guilt or innocence. Evidently, after a person that you know didn't kill anyone gets lynched, the government is allowed to kill you if you say and act as if that person was innocent. This is commonly accepted fact.
I don't know why we would believe the evidence of our own eyes instead of taking the words of 7 drunk people, selected especially for the qualities of being mentally retarded and easy to influence by the lawyers. That's somehow called justice when you worship drunks.
Anyway, after the corrupt prosecutor and lazy and incompetent investigators set you up for murder (to get their media masters of their backs), and then brainwash the jury, you are declared guilty - by the highest authority there is, the font of all wisdom, the holiest of holies - the chief judger - 7 drunk people. Then everyone must respect the 7 drunks and pretend like they are coughing up God's judgment about who is and who is not innocent. And when the drunks say something is true it becomes true.
In Bad Commie World, the jury is just a carefully selected lynch mob authorized by the state to kill.
When the lynch mob votes to lynch someone, the government goes and kills the victim. The government really really likes killing. It is awesomely good at doing it and rationalizing it.
Now, I don't object to 7 drunks getting together and killing assholes, but I want to be free to get my own 7 drunks, if 7 drunks go after me. I also want the drunks to do any killing, not some commie army with a gun. For the process to be fair, I believe every accused criminal (we are all guilty criminals) should be able to create a counter jury that is fully authorized by the government to kill anyone trying to oppress the criminal, including any government "agent". After all, what if the original 7 drunks are wrong and are killing an innocent man? Shouldn't they immediately go on automatic trial any time they make a life and death decision? I think so. After all, statistics and DNA evidence show that it is the jury and the commie government that is the REAL MURDERER 50% of the time in death penalty cases.
Everyone involved in the process I propose can follow the rule of law, instead of the anarchy that is followed in our current system. In the process I propose you actually have a just outcome because everyone has a chance to get killed for being a murderer and no one is artificially protected by the state's commie army.
I guess the criminal could get off, if his mob wins. Well, you know, shit happens. If the criminal can get 7 people to believe in him, maybe his victim DESERVED to DIE.
Everyone in any way involved with murder should be threatened with death, no matter if its the accused or the accusers or the jury or the government agents who want to kill the accused. All should have the negative reinforcement of being killed if they get out of line by causing murder or life imprisonment(same as murder) to be committed. Kind of like that justice league episode where your lawyer gets killed if he looses your case.
STAB ALL COMMIES.
Monday, February 07, 2005
This short paper is pretty good:
How the Government Breaks the Law, by Andrew P. Napolitano
The book has some awesome stories also.
I actually think the government breaking the law is the solution, not the problem. Government enforcers should break more laws.
When the government enforces communist 80% top rates on the people that have the money for ALL OF THIS CENTURY, you don't have to think too hard about the moral nature of the government. The government, in the memory of everyone alive, has always been a scum sucking freedom hating degenerate criminal.
So a republican marveling that every single law (including the laws against murder) has an exemption for anyone on government business is merely a direct reflection of the republican's complete incompetence at voting. And math. And morality.
I'm not against large or small scale crime. It helps identify those in need of a vicious stabbing.
Kind of reminds me of what H. L. Mencken said:
The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre - the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
and my favorite:
"I don't have any problem with Mao or Stalin or the Vietnamese leaders or certainly Fidel locking up people they see as dangerous. Because so often, dissidence has been used by the greater powers to undermine a people's revolution." -- Lynne Stewart
STAB ALL COMMIES.
Friday, February 04, 2005
Paul Krugman, the retarded communist strikes again! The power of other people's money is limitless!
Check out this communist drivel:
Confusions about Social Security Paul Krugman, Princeton "University"
"Confusions" is his way of saying that too many people are not falling for his homebrewed propaganda and are "ignorant". Note how he is trying really really hard not to call them retards in the title like they obviously desrved to be called.
The bigger problem for those who want to see a crisis in Social Security's future is this: if Social Security is just part of the federal budget, with no budget or trust fund of its own, then, well, it's just part of the federal budget: there can't be a Social Security crisis. All you can have is a general budget crisis. Rising Social Security benefit payments might be one reason for that crisis, but it's hard to make the case that it will be central.
Lets, see so if A+B=C and A gets bigger and causes C to get bigger, A is not the problem? Only if you're a crack smoking communist liberal tenured retard.
The Social Security system won't be in trouble: it will, in fact, still have a growing trust fund, because of the interest that the trust earns on its accumulated surplus. The only way Social Security gets in trouble is if Congress votes not to honor U.S. government bonds held by Social Security. That's not going to happen. So legally, mechanically, 2018 has no meaning.
Huh? "Interest" ? What is this baby muching skin lampshade diarrhetic weasel butt sniffer smoking? Exactly how does a government earn interest? A government can only LOSE money - 100% of all the money it collects - it can't EARN a SINGLE DOLLAR.
What we really have is a looming crisis in the General Fund. Social Security, with its own dedicated tax, has been run responsibly; the rest of the government has not. So why are we talking about a Social Security crisis?
Ummmm? Social security is a responsibly run theft scam? It is responsible to take my money and give me nothing in return? At least ragheads get bombed when W takes my money. What is Krugman's personal vodka stash getting me? Nothing, that's what. Because he is a retarded communist thief.
I'm not a Pollyanna; I think that we may well be facing a fiscal crisis. But it's deeply misleading, and in fact an evasion of the real issues, to call it a Social Security crisis.
Yes, Yes, English is so misleading. A is not A. Lets just call it a communist crisis.
Now it's true that in the past stocks have yielded a very good return, around 7 percent in real terms - more than enough to compensate for additional risk. But a weird thing has happened in the debate: proposals by erstwhile serious economists such as Martin Feldstein appear to be based on the assertion that it's a sort of economic law that stocks will always yield a much higher rate of return than
bonds. They seem to treat that 7 percent rate of return as if it were a natural constant, like the speed of light.
I see, Commie-conomist is a creationist - he certainly doesn't believe in science! What does this retarded weasel think is going to happen that has not happened in the last 100 years? Magical fairy thieves are going to spinkle pixie dust on the market? I assume he thinks the return rate will get bigger because humanity now has enough resources to feed and clothe and house everyone? Oh wait, I forgot. He's a communist who doesn't understand win-win and would never assume something like that.
What ordinary economics tells us is just the opposite: if there is a natural law here, it's that easy returns get competed away, and there's no such thing as a free lunch.
But there IS a free dictionary. And if you use it, you would not have to put unrelated words together to make nonsense.
Then there are management fees. In Britain, they're about 1.1 percent. So now we're down to 2.7 percent on personal accounts - barely above the implicit
return on Social Security right now, but with lots of added risk. Except for Wall
Street firms collecting fees, this is a formula to make everyone worse off.
So, British Commie Poodle-Puppies steal at 1.1% Who cares? When ameriCANS see communist thieves, they stab them. He assumes the people in charge are retarded thieves and then he says the plan will fail because they behave like retarded thieves. Wow, circular logic is so insightful.
ObT says: "Not only are the people in charge retarded theives, so are ALL THE SOCIAL SECURITY PARTICIPANTS".
And so are ALL THE MEXICANS AND CHINESE WHICH WE KEEP AS SLAVES TO MAKE STUFF FOR US in a WIN-WIN situation.
account holders would be given the option to upgrade to actively managed funds, which would invest in a more diverse range of assets with higher risk and potentially larger fees. (My emphasis.)
At first? Hmm. So the low-fee thing wouldn't be a permanent commitment. Within months, not years, the agitation to allow "choice" would begin. And the British experience shows that this would quickly lead to substantial dissipation on management fees.
Ummm, Paul Krugman the commie-conomist is ranting again. Additional optional choice is bad, eh commie? Come closer so I can give you your choice of knives, unstabbed retard.
To sum up: claims that stocks will always yield high, low-risk returns are just bad economics. And tens of millions of small private accounts are a bad way to take advantage of whatever the stock market does have to offer. There is no free lunch, and certainly not from private accounts.
So he is saying that the government buraucracy is more viable/smarter/richer than good ole American know-how and business? Government invited the automobile? Government invented the computer? Government invented electricity?
It's the government that EARNS our money by working hard and not business?
STAB STAB STAB STAB STAB STAB STAB STAB.
But does it make any sense to worry now about how to pay for all that?Intergenerational responsibility is a fine thing, but I can't see why the cost of medical treatments that have not yet been invented, applied to people who have not yet been born, should play any role in shaping today's policy.
Yes, saving for the future and college and the science stuff is so new-fangled. Did you know that with science we can mass produce knives the better to stab you with? Let's just assume you and your children will be dead of stab wounds from being communist.
Privatization is a solution in search of a problem As I've described it, the case for privatization is a mix of strange and inconsistent budget doctrines, bad economics, dubious political economy, and science fiction. What's wrong with these people?
The answer is definitely not that they are stupid. In fact, the case made by the privatizers is fiendishly ingenious in its Jesuitical logic, its persuasiveness to the unprepared mind.
Yes, we have to listen to your retardese for months so you can "educate" us that the government can do better with our money than we can. I got some education for you. WITH A KNIFE.
There are both crude and subtle reasons why economists who know better don't take a stand against the illogic of many of the privatizers' positions. The crude reason is that a conservative economist who doesn't support every twist and turn of the push for privatization faces political exile. Any hint of intellectual unease would, for example, kill the chances of anyone hoping to be appointed as Greenspan's successor. The subtle reason is that many economists hold the defensible position that a pay-as-you-go system is bad for savings and long-run growth. And they hope that a bad privatization plan may nonetheless be the start of a reform that eventually creates a better system.
But those hopes are surely misplaced. So far, everyone - and I mean everyone - who has signed on to Bush administration plans in the hope that they can be converted into something better has ended up used, abused, and discarded. It happened to John DiIulio, it happened to Colin Powell, it happened to Greg Mankiw, and it's a safe prediction that those who think they can turn the Bush drive to dismantle Social Security into something good will suffer the same fate.
All economists disagree with you because they want to be appointed King Greenspan?
Everyone got shrubberized? Even that "violent welfare queen" secretary Rice? Clarence "dumb nigger" Thomas? Speedy "drunk lazy vicious mexican" Gonzales? Both houses of Congress (a pox on their name)?
STAB ALL COMMIES.