When did the left become crook bootlickers? (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

Let's not let the imprimatur of government sanction turn the crooks into something one needs to be above.

Let's call the crooks, thieves, bums, etc. crooks, thieves and bums.

And let's get personal. That is all.

 

[rockaction]

More importantly, Albert Jay Nock: "The judge said he disliked to sentence the lad; it seemed the wrong thing to do; but the law left him no option. I was struck by this. The judge, then, was doing something as an official that he would not dream of doing as a man; and he could do it without any sense of responsibility, or discomfort, simply because he was acting as an official and not as a man. On this principle of action, it seemed to me that one could commit almost any kind of crime without getting into trouble with one's conscience."

Jes' doin' my job.

https://mises.org/library/anarchists-progress-0

 

[cstu]

You got a list of these crooks for me and who is licking their boots?

 

[fantasycurse42]

Do you have a doomsday bunker under your house?

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Some people should have a breathalyzer attached to their keyboard

 

[apalmer]

Since this rant is apparently based on an 88-year-old article, it's probably been a while.

 

[Sabertooth]

Judge Smails onces sent a kid to the gas chamger. Didn't want to do it. Felt he owed him.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Boots are delicious.

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

Patrick Bateman type thread here.

Put down the bottle and the thesaurus, rock.

 

[3C's]

I'll lick these boots

 

[mr roboto]

I'll lick these boots

Just the left one though.

 

[Despyzer]

These boots were made for lickin', that's the left will do. Someday the left is gonna lick all of your boots.

 

[rct]

More importantly, Albert Jay Nock

Amazing coincidence, I was just thinking that this board needs to discuss a 1927 quote from an anarchist.

 

[rockaction]

More importantly, Albert Jay Nock

Amazing coincidence, I was just thinking that this board needs to discuss a 1927 quote from an anarchist.

Heh. I'm sure you're in the cop threads defending them for just doing their job as officials.

 

[rockaction]

Patrick Bateman type thread here.

Put down the bottle and the thesaurus, rock.

No BS, exactly what I was going for that deep into the bottle (also correct). No thesaurus, though. That's off of the dome.

 

[jon_mx]

I'll lick these boots

How about these? Bonus Super Bonus

 

[rockaction]

I'll lick these boots

How about these? Bonus Super Bonus

I'll go for the bonus round if that's the prize.

 

[jon_mx]

These are pretty good too.

 

[3C's]

I'll lick these boots

How about these? Bonus Super Bonus

She can leave her boots on.

 

[McGarnicle]

On the other hand, sixpence babyfat rhombus catch-22 can't hold a candle to the establishment predicated upon an almost puerile attachment to statism, false empathy and the absurdity of the proletariat. All very meta imo.

 

[timschochet]

I can't think of any examples as to when the "left" in this country has been sycophantic toward a convicted felon. Possibly someone is skipping my mind. I can however, think of a few examples as to when the "right" has done so. Oliver North comes to mind; he has his own show on Fox News and has been called a "great patriot" by Sean Hannity. There are a few others as well...

 

[rockaction]

I can't think of any examples as to when the "left" in this country has been sycophantic toward a convicted felon. Possibly someone is skipping my mind. I can however, think of a few examples as to when the "right" has done so. Oliver North comes to mind; he has his own show on Fox News and has been called a "great patriot" by Sean Hannity. There are a few others as well...

Name any administrative agency and it's staffed with crooks and enforcers "just doing their job."

I liked the direction this thread was taking with the girls and the boots and the licking.

 

[Steve Tasker]

I mean this in the nicest possible way, but I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about/trying to say in like 80% of your posts.

 

[rockaction]

I mean this in the nicest possible way, but I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about/trying to say in like 80% of your posts.

Eh, oh well.

 

[timschochet]

I can't think of any examples as to when the "left" in this country has been sycophantic toward a convicted felon. Possibly someone is skipping my mind. I can however, think of a few examples as to when the "right" has done so. Oliver North comes to mind; he has his own show on Fox News and has been called a "great patriot" by Sean Hannity. There are a few others as well...

Name any administrative agency and it's staffed with crooks and enforcers "just doing their job."

I liked the direction this thread was taking with the girls and the boots and the licking.

Hey you started the thread. I'm just responding.

As to your statement- OK. Please list the crooks in the State Department, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Education. Please don't be vague. Come up with some specific examples of felons. (As far as "enforcers", I have no idea what you mean by that; can you be more explicit?)

 

[jon_mx]

I can't think of any examples as to when the "left" in this country has been sycophantic toward a convicted felon. Possibly someone is skipping my mind. I can however, think of a few examples as to when the "right" has done so. Oliver North comes to mind; he has his own show on Fox News and has been called a "great patriot" by Sean Hannity. There are a few others as well...

seriously?

 

[rockaction]

I can't think of any examples as to when the "left" in this country has been sycophantic toward a convicted felon. Possibly someone is skipping my mind. I can however, think of a few examples as to when the "right" has done so. Oliver North comes to mind; he has his own show on Fox News and has been called a "great patriot" by Sean Hannity. There are a few others as well...

Name any administrative agency and it's staffed with crooks and enforcers "just doing their job."

I liked the direction this thread was taking with the girls and the boots and the licking.

Hey you started the thread. I'm just responding.

As to your statement- OK. Please list the crooks in the State Department, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Education. Please don't be vague. Come up with some specific examples of felons. (As far as "enforcers", I have no idea what you mean by that; can you be more explicit?)

You're asking me to name an impossibility. Of course they're not felons; being a felon would require an arrest for unjust or criminal actions. The sanction of legality precludes this.

You're totally changing the premise of the argument and the quote. You know that.

 

[rockaction]

I can't think of any examples as to when the "left" in this country has been sycophantic toward a convicted felon. Possibly someone is skipping my mind. I can however, think of a few examples as to when the "right" has done so. Oliver North comes to mind; he has his own show on Fox News and has been called a "great patriot" by Sean Hannity. There are a few others as well...

seriously?

 

[timschochet]

I can't think of any examples as to when the "left" in this country has been sycophantic toward a convicted felon. Possibly someone is skipping my mind. I can however, think of a few examples as to when the "right" has done so. Oliver North comes to mind; he has his own show on Fox News and has been called a "great patriot" by Sean Hannity. There are a few others as well...

Name any administrative agency and it's staffed with crooks and enforcers "just doing their job."

I liked the direction this thread was taking with the girls and the boots and the licking.

Hey you started the thread. I'm just responding.

As to your statement- OK. Please list the crooks in the State Department, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Education. Please don't be vague. Come up with some specific examples of felons. (As far as "enforcers", I have no idea what you mean by that; can you be more explicit?)

You're asking me to name an impossibility. Of course they're not felons; being a felon would require an arrest for unjust or criminal actions. The sanction of legality precludes this.

You're totally changing the premise of the argument and the quote. You know that.

I can't think of any examples as to when the "left" in this country has been sycophantic toward a convicted felon. Possibly someone is skipping my mind. I can however, think of a few examples as to when the "right" has done so. Oliver North comes to mind; he has his own show on Fox News and has been called a "great patriot" by Sean Hannity. There are a few others as well...

Name any administrative agency and it's staffed with crooks and enforcers "just doing their job."

I liked the direction this thread was taking with the girls and the boots and the licking.

Hey you started the thread. I'm just responding.

As to your statement- OK. Please list the crooks in the State Department, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Education. Please don't be vague. Come up with some specific examples of felons. (As far as "enforcers", I have no idea what you mean by that; can you be more explicit?)

You're asking me to name an impossibility. Of course they're not felons; being a felon would require an arrest for unjust or criminal actions. The sanction of legality precludes this.

You're totally changing the premise of the argument and the quote. You know that.

If they're not legally "crooks", then your statement is nonsense, IMO.

 

[rockaction]

I can't think of any examples as to when the "left" in this country has been sycophantic toward a convicted felon. Possibly someone is skipping my mind. I can however, think of a few examples as to when the "right" has done so. Oliver North comes to mind; he has his own show on Fox News and has been called a "great patriot" by Sean Hannity. There are a few others as well...

Name any administrative agency and it's staffed with crooks and enforcers "just doing their job."

I liked the direction this thread was taking with the girls and the boots and the licking.

Hey you started the thread. I'm just responding.

As to your statement- OK. Please list the crooks in the State Department, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Education. Please don't be vague. Come up with some specific examples of felons. (As far as "enforcers", I have no idea what you mean by that; can you be more explicit?)

You're asking me to name an impossibility. Of course they're not felons; being a felon would require an arrest for unjust or criminal actions. The sanction of legality precludes this.

You're totally changing the premise of the argument and the quote. You know that.

I can't think of any examples as to when the "left" in this country has been sycophantic toward a convicted felon. Possibly someone is skipping my mind. I can however, think of a few examples as to when the "right" has done so. Oliver North comes to mind; he has his own show on Fox News and has been called a "great patriot" by Sean Hannity. There are a few others as well...

Name any administrative agency and it's staffed with crooks and enforcers "just doing their job."

I liked the direction this thread was taking with the girls and the boots and the licking.

Hey you started the thread. I'm just responding.

As to your statement- OK. Please list the crooks in the State Department, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Education. Please don't be vague. Come up with some specific examples of felons. (As far as "enforcers", I have no idea what you mean by that; can you be more explicit?)

You're asking me to name an impossibility. Of course they're not felons; being a felon would require an arrest for unjust or criminal actions. The sanction of legality precludes this.

You're totally changing the premise of the argument and the quote. You know that.

If they're not legally "crooks", then your statement is nonsense, IMO.

A crook is simply a dishonest person. It is not dependent upon legality. And that's the whole point of the quote, and the point of the article. The sanction of legality does not make dishonest actions or people suddenly honest, and that the growth of the machinations of the state is responsible for this attitude.

 

[timschochet]

This thread should really be titled:

When did the left become what I consider to be "bootlickers" toward people whom I consider to be crooks, based solely on my political partisanship, but with no real evidence outside of rumors and falsehoods I've been fed by the conservative blogosphere?

 

[rockaction]

This thread should really be titled:

When did the left become what I consider to be "bootleggers" toward people whom I consider to be crooks, based solely on my political partisanship, but with no real evidence outside of rumors I've been fed by the conservative blogosphere

Yeah, uh, that'll do it.

 

[timschochet]

This thread should really be titled:

When did the left become what I consider to be "bootleggers" toward people whom I consider to be crooks, based solely on my political partisanship, but with no real evidence outside of rumors I've been fed by the conservative blogosphere

Yeah, uh, that'll do it.

This thread should really be titled:

When did the left become what I consider to be "bootleggers" toward people whom I consider to be crooks, based solely on my political partisanship, but with no real evidence outside of rumors I've been fed by the conservative blogosphere

Yeah, uh, that'll do it.

I meant bootlickers. Typing errors, sorry.

 

[dozer]

This thread should really be titled:

When did the left become what I consider to be "bootlickers" toward people whom I consider to be crooks, based solely on my political partisanship, but with no real evidence outside of rumors and falsehoods I've been fed by the conservative blogosphere?

I think it should be titled: I'm a KooK. Proof in here.

 

[timschochet]

He's not a kook.

I get the argument that, because of the immense size of our government, a lot of the people in it must be corrupt. It's an old argument and rockaction certainly isn't the first one to make it. I just really disagree with it, and I find it offensive- not personally offensive since I don't work in government. But offensive to those who do, most of which are honest people who strive to do the best they can. Are there crooks in government? Sure. And as we know, in the private sector as well. But they're not representative.

I have a feeling this is also an attack against Hillary Clinton and her fans (though I could be wrong about this part, since rockaction doesn't specifically mention her.) There is a general belief among conservatives that Hillary Clinton, along with her husband, are criminal or shady characters, and that liberals and Democrats are willing to vote for her anyhow because they care more about winning than about ethics. I strongly disagree with this belief. I don't think that Hillary Clinton is a criminal, and I don't think her fans are as ambivalent to ethics as conservatives would like us to believe.

 

[rockaction]

He's not a kook.

I get the argument that, because of the immense size of our government, a lot of the people in it must be corrupt. It's an old argument and rockaction certainly isn't the first one to make it. I just really disagree with it, and I find it offensive- not personally offensive since I don't work in government. But offensive to those who do, most of which are honest people who strive to do the best they can. Are there crooks in government? Sure. And as we know, in the private sector as well. But they're not representative.

I have a feeling this is also an attack against Hillary Clinton and her fans (though I could be wrong about this part, since rockaction doesn't specifically mention her.) There is a general belief among conservatives that Hillary Clinton, along with her husband, are criminal or shady characters, and that liberals and Democrats are willing to vote for her anyhow because they care more about winning than about ethics. I strongly disagree with this belief. I don't think that Hillary Clinton is a criminal, and I don't think her fans are as ambivalent to ethics as conservatives would like us to believe.

This actually comes from people sucking at the teat of a tow company in the Britt McHenry thread, not to mention the movement on the left over the past ten years in favor of regulatory and administrative agency enforcement.

I gave conservatives the exact same crap a week ago, and instantly the left was defending regulatory and administrative SWAT teams.

 

[ClownCausedChaos2]

And what's the deal with polio? They'll never figure that out.

 

[timschochet]

He's not a kook.

I get the argument that, because of the immense size of our government, a lot of the people in it must be corrupt. It's an old argument and rockaction certainly isn't the first one to make it. I just really disagree with it, and I find it offensive- not personally offensive since I don't work in government. But offensive to those who do, most of which are honest people who strive to do the best they can. Are there crooks in government? Sure. And as we know, in the private sector as well. But they're not representative.

I have a feeling this is also an attack against Hillary Clinton and her fans (though I could be wrong about this part, since rockaction doesn't specifically mention her.) There is a general belief among conservatives that Hillary Clinton, along with her husband, are criminal or shady characters, and that liberals and Democrats are willing to vote for her anyhow because they care more about winning than about ethics. I strongly disagree with this belief. I don't think that Hillary Clinton is a criminal, and I don't think her fans are as ambivalent to ethics as conservatives would like us to believe.

This actually comes from people sucking at the teat of a tow company in the Britt McHenry thread, not to mention the movement on the left over the past ten years in favor of regulatory and administrative agency enforcement.

I gave conservatives the exact same crap a week ago, and instantly the left was defending regulatory and administrative SWAT teams.

I'm not a huge fan of red tape, but mostly because it's inefficient and wasteful and often incompetent, not because it's crooked or tyrannical by intent.

 

[rockaction]

He's not a kook.

I get the argument that, because of the immense size of our government, a lot of the people in it must be corrupt. It's an old argument and rockaction certainly isn't the first one to make it. I just really disagree with it, and I find it offensive- not personally offensive since I don't work in government. But offensive to those who do, most of which are honest people who strive to do the best they can. Are there crooks in government? Sure. And as we know, in the private sector as well. But they're not representative.

I have a feeling this is also an attack against Hillary Clinton and her fans (though I could be wrong about this part, since rockaction doesn't specifically mention her.) There is a general belief among conservatives that Hillary Clinton, along with her husband, are criminal or shady characters, and that liberals and Democrats are willing to vote for her anyhow because they care more about winning than about ethics. I strongly disagree with this belief. I don't think that Hillary Clinton is a criminal, and I don't think her fans are as ambivalent to ethics as conservatives would like us to believe.

This actually comes from people sucking at the teat of a tow company in the Britt McHenry thread, not to mention the movement on the left over the past ten years in favor of regulatory and administrative agency enforcement.

I gave conservatives the exact same crap a week ago, and instantly the left was defending regulatory and administrative SWAT teams.

I'm not a huge fan of red tape, but mostly because it's inefficient and wasteful and often incompetent, not because it's crooked or tyrannical by intent.

There are several things to say to this:

a) That statement reflects a utilitarian view of justice rather than a natural rights view

b) This isn't about red tape, really, and I should have been more clear. This is about either a ministerial abuse of one's duty or an enforcement of an order that offends basic justice

c) The processes through which regulatory and administrative agencies work is beyond the scope of natural justice and rights. Some would argue the development of both regulatory and administrative agencies and the subsequent enforcement protocols were a necessary evil, but it brings about, IMO, greater procedural and process evils than that which people were trying to solve.

 

[timschochet]

He's not a kook.

I get the argument that, because of the immense size of our government, a lot of the people in it must be corrupt. It's an old argument and rockaction certainly isn't the first one to make it. I just really disagree with it, and I find it offensive- not personally offensive since I don't work in government. But offensive to those who do, most of which are honest people who strive to do the best they can. Are there crooks in government? Sure. And as we know, in the private sector as well. But they're not representative.

I have a feeling this is also an attack against Hillary Clinton and her fans (though I could be wrong about this part, since rockaction doesn't specifically mention her.) There is a general belief among conservatives that Hillary Clinton, along with her husband, are criminal or shady characters, and that liberals and Democrats are willing to vote for her anyhow because they care more about winning than about ethics. I strongly disagree with this belief. I don't think that Hillary Clinton is a criminal, and I don't think her fans are as ambivalent to ethics as conservatives would like us to believe.

This actually comes from people sucking at the teat of a tow company in the Britt McHenry thread, not to mention the movement on the left over the past ten years in favor of regulatory and administrative agency enforcement.

I gave conservatives the exact same crap a week ago, and instantly the left was defending regulatory and administrative SWAT teams.

I'm not a huge fan of red tape, but mostly because it's inefficient and wasteful and often incompetent, not because it's crooked or tyrannical by intent.

There are several things to say to this:

a) That statement reflects a utilitarian view of justice rather than a natural rights view

b) This isn't about red tape, really, and I should have been more clear. This is about either a ministerial abuse of one's duty or an enforcement of an order that offends basic justice

c) The processes through which regulatory and administrative agencies work is beyond the scope of natural justice and rights. Some would argue the development of both regulatory and administrative agencies and the subsequent enforcement protocols were a necessary evil, but it brings about, IMO, greater procedural and process evils than that which people were trying to solve.

If I understand your point (a) correctly, then I strongly disagree with it, but that would lead to a long philosophical debate that I think people would find boring.

I get your points (b) and © and have already disagreed with ©.

 

[Stinger Ray]

He's not a kook.

I get the argument that, because of the immense size of our government, a lot of the people in it must be corrupt. It's an old argument and rockaction certainly isn't the first one to make it. I just really disagree with it, and I find it offensive- not personally offensive since I don't work in government. But offensive to those who do, most of which are honest people who strive to do the best they can. Are there crooks in government? Sure. And as we know, in the private sector as well. But they're not representative.

I have a feeling this is also an attack against Hillary Clinton and her fans (though I could be wrong about this part, since rockaction doesn't specifically mention her.) There is a general belief among conservatives that Hillary Clinton, along with her husband, are criminal or shady characters, and that liberals and Democrats are willing to vote for her anyhow because they care more about winning than about ethics. I strongly disagree with this belief. I don't think that Hillary Clinton is a criminal, and I don't think her fans are as ambivalent to ethics as conservatives would like us to believe.

This actually comes from people sucking at the teat of a tow company in the Britt McHenry thread, not to mention the movement on the left over the past ten years in favor of regulatory and administrative agency enforcement.

I gave conservatives the exact same crap a week ago, and instantly the left was defending regulatory and administrative SWAT teams.

I'm not a huge fan of red tape, but mostly because it's inefficient and wasteful and often incompetent, not because it's crooked or tyrannical by intent.

So you have no issues of red tape that can be skirted around through corruption and crooked politicians?

 

[timschochet]

He's not a kook.

I get the argument that, because of the immense size of our government, a lot of the people in it must be corrupt. It's an old argument and rockaction certainly isn't the first one to make it. I just really disagree with it, and I find it offensive- not personally offensive since I don't work in government. But offensive to those who do, most of which are honest people who strive to do the best they can. Are there crooks in government? Sure. And as we know, in the private sector as well. But they're not representative.

I have a feeling this is also an attack against Hillary Clinton and her fans (though I could be wrong about this part, since rockaction doesn't specifically mention her.) There is a general belief among conservatives that Hillary Clinton, along with her husband, are criminal or shady characters, and that liberals and Democrats are willing to vote for her anyhow because they care more about winning than about ethics. I strongly disagree with this belief. I don't think that Hillary Clinton is a criminal, and I don't think her fans are as ambivalent to ethics as conservatives would like us to believe.

This actually comes from people sucking at the teat of a tow company in the Britt McHenry thread, not to mention the movement on the left over the past ten years in favor of regulatory and administrative agency enforcement.

I gave conservatives the exact same crap a week ago, and instantly the left was defending regulatory and administrative SWAT teams.

I'm not a huge fan of red tape, but mostly because it's inefficient and wasteful and often incompetent, not because it's crooked or tyrannical by intent.

So you have no issues of red tape that can be skirted around through corruption and crooked politicians?

He's not a kook.

I get the argument that, because of the immense size of our government, a lot of the people in it must be corrupt. It's an old argument and rockaction certainly isn't the first one to make it. I just really disagree with it, and I find it offensive- not personally offensive since I don't work in government. But offensive to those who do, most of which are honest people who strive to do the best they can. Are there crooks in government? Sure. And as we know, in the private sector as well. But they're not representative.

I have a feeling this is also an attack against Hillary Clinton and her fans (though I could be wrong about this part, since rockaction doesn't specifically mention her.) There is a general belief among conservatives that Hillary Clinton, along with her husband, are criminal or shady characters, and that liberals and Democrats are willing to vote for her anyhow because they care more about winning than about ethics. I strongly disagree with this belief. I don't think that Hillary Clinton is a criminal, and I don't think her fans are as ambivalent to ethics as conservatives would like us to believe.

This actually comes from people sucking at the teat of a tow company in the Britt McHenry thread, not to mention the movement on the left over the past ten years in favor of regulatory and administrative agency enforcement.

I gave conservatives the exact same crap a week ago, and instantly the left was defending regulatory and administrative SWAT teams.

I'm not a huge fan of red tape, but mostly because it's inefficient and wasteful and often incompetent, not because it's crooked or tyrannical by intent.

So you have no issues of red tape that can be skirted around through corruption and crooked politicians?

I'm not sure I understand this question.

 

[chauncey]

I've been waiting for a thread to drop my hot rednecks in boots pics:

Oh Deere

American Girl

Saddle Up

Sweetheart

Who's Hottest

Those Are Some Giant Tires

 

[Peyton Marino]

whatcha drinkin?

 

[3C's]

Licking boots, sucking teats. I love this thread!

 

[NCCommish]

So I assume our good friend Rock is for jury nullification?

 

[NCCommish]

I read where Christie said if elected he'd crackdown on pot. So I guess he's good with perpetuating an unjust law and the many issues it creates especially for minorities

 

[BobbyLayne]

I mean this in the nicest possible way, but I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about/trying to say in like 80% of your posts.

 

[rockaction]

So I assume our good friend Rock is for jury nullification?

 

[rockaction]

whatcha drinkin?

Some cheap vodka and beer.