no-treason fool
tried to leave this comment on a john sabotta post at no-treason (“What to think about breathing, Lew”), but ran into a 300 character limit. hey, this blog finally came in handy:
did you buy a shitty used car from lew or something? what the fuck do you have up your ass about this guy? pay attention to your illogic. you quote lew: “Every neocon in the world is screaming the same line. No rational man could agree on that basis alone.” and then you say, “In light of this, I’d very much like to see the ‘neocons’ (whoever they are) come out in favor of oxygen. Then Lew would be obliged by his ideals to stop breathing. This would be a good thing.”lew said that no rational man could agree on that basis alone. it then gets transmuted through your used car fetish into meaning “whatever many people believe can’t be true.”
for all the tripe about logic that gets posted on this mostly cool site, the logical errors in the sniping are ridiculous. heal yourself. would be wonderful if you and the other LRC snaggletooths would at least direct the same type of scrutiny to your bullshit that you do toward lew.
oh i know, you’re not accountable for anything you say — because it’s so funny. only lew gets his sentences parsed with a fucking broken endoscope.
to save you the trouble of replying, i’m wrong about everything because 1) i type with almost all lower case. 2) i think lew’s a good guy. 3) i used to write for LRC. 4) i’m not a 22-year-old, loudmouthed dumbshit. 5) i don’t hate LRC because some of the things published there are laughably wrong. 6) i haven’t thrown out all my rothbard, mises, and hayek books because they’re not perfect. 7) i don’t buy comic books. 8) i misspelled a word somewhere. 9) i didn’t brush my teeth yet today. 10) i jerked off to a porn pic that wasn’t a cartoon or at least 40 years old.
logic. it matters or it doesn’t. but john sabotta is never wrong.
November 29th, 2004 at 13:33
Have to say that I don’t get the whole Southern-fetish/Lincoln-was-Satan thing over at LRC, but aside from that I usually enjoy the reads on both sites. Yours over at LRC included.
..and I’ve definitely dropped in on the middle of the LRC/NT feud, so I don’t get what *that* whole hoo-hah is about…
David
AgnostoLibertarianTechnoGeek
http://ddhead.blogspot.com
david_uctaa@yahoo.com
November 29th, 2004 at 22:52
Hardman,
There’s two ways to interpret Lew’s statement (“No rational man could agree on that basis alone”).
1): Said screaming is not enough evidence that the thing is true.
2): The fact that the neocons are saying the thing makes it unbelievable on the face of it.
You (correct me if I’m wrong) are taking position 1. Sabotta is taking position 2. I read that sentence as Sabotta did. If Rockwell was really trying to convey that there was a lack of evidence, he’d have simply said that there was no evidence for the thing, and that’d be that. I’m confident that he meant that if “every neocon in the world” is “screaming” something, it is by definition a lie.
David,
The hoo-hah is that LRC is a club. Club members and libertarian movement types aren’t supposed to go taking crowbars to one another – it’s impolite or something.
John Lopez
December 1st, 2004 at 02:29
hi, david. thanks for the comment. i didn’t get the “Southern-fetish/Lincoln-was-Satan” either, and was put off by it until actively wading through and trying to figure it out. i think some of the southern part does cross the line into knee-jerk support, but i can’t say the same for the lincoln aspect. LRC and others are trying to do what is almost impossible — correct the distorted view of lincoln. if the study of history is important, then it would be hard to overstress the role of lincoln in the destruction of the US. big trigger for decline. he was one nasty jackass who crossed over into deity, and if that’s not a pickle, i don’t know what is.
yeah, the south is sometimes praised uncritically at LRC. i’m cool with it, given how much the south has been bashed. people get a bit tender after a while.
December 1st, 2004 at 03:01
john, do you ever read objectively the shit you write? you might be able to make your argument with a straight face if lew had written, “No rational man could agree, on that basis alone.”
he didn’t.
figure it out or just shut up. snot-nosed punks, you and john sabotta. if lew were so bad, you wouldn’t need to cling to distortion and assumption to nail his ass. you can’t even admit john sabotta was wrong (which he clearly was). if you or he had any balls/integrity, you’d just say you screwed up. instead you throw out a willy clinton syntax analysis stinker. fuck you and the trons you rode in on. you aren’t fooling anybody except your fellow irrational LRC haters.
[you're probably too thick to understand that "fellow irrational LRC haters" doesn't mean "all haters of LRC are irrational."]
December 1st, 2004 at 22:16
“if lew were so bad, you wouldn’t need to cling to distortion and assumption to nail his ass.”
I don’t cling to either of those things, as a quick glance at Lew Rockwell Likes International Law will show.
Remember that, Hardman? Now, go ahead and talk to me about “distortions”, while you name-drop Clinton all up and down the place.
I’m just bloody astounded at you.
December 1st, 2004 at 22:23
“divert! divert! divert!”
how do you spell an air raid siren noise?
“eehhhhhhhhhh! eehhhhhhhhhh! eehhhhhhhhhh!”
next are you going to tell me to sod off? am i a wanker? a tosser? a poofter? a POHMmy bastard?
“eehhhhhhhhhh! eehhhhhhhhhh! eehhhhhhhhhh!”
dive! dive! dive!
here’s the matter at hand, boy. here. shove your face in it, bitch.
December 2nd, 2004 at 03:21
Hardman, it’s obvious that your prior, proven hypocricy in regards to LRC is quite relevant here, since this is a dispute of judgement. Your judgement of LRC has been proven to be bad.
JL
December 2nd, 2004 at 11:15
at least we have this classic to refer to, since you don’t want to deal with your latest bullshit:
i was hoping that you would not react to my somewhat puzzling paragraph order by shouting to me that lew rockwell wrote the specific piece you commented on.Then learn how to fucking write a coherent thought. And the occasional capital letter wouldn’t hurt, either.…
that he uses the standards of one aspect of his audience to prove the wrong in what they support overwhelmingly is not only logical, it’s probably necessary.What the hell? That isn’t even coherent.
December 2nd, 2004 at 22:01
I don’t know why you’re linking into *that*, Hardman. I admitted my error and agreed with you that Lew Rockwell was lying/bullshitting when he endorsed international law, there.
JL
December 2nd, 2004 at 22:54
ROFL. make up your mind, john. should we link to it or not? it shows very well what you are: a dodger. nitpick the shit out of lew rockwell’s sentence; meanwhile, you’re entirely unaccountable. instead of running away with a visible surrender sign, or at least backing off, you yell, “incoherent!” and “multiple meanings!”
everything since your first message is about something other than what you came in here to talk about. hmmmm. not much of a mystery there other than why you don’t tighten up your act. i and other people who think you’re often full of shit go to and link to no-treason for a reason: there’s something valuable there (including your and sabotta’s material). um, which happens to be the same reason i go to LRC, even though i think some people there are blowhard fools (worse than you). the problem, and it’s not imaginary, is that you guys target lew for demonstrating the same characteristics john kennedy shows to you even when he thinks you’re wrong: loyalty, and respect for the big picture. what’s worse is that out of everybody at LRC, lew is probably the closest to your view of liberty. very close. but you won’t cut him a break. i don’t get that. he really is a great dude, and you stomp on him out of proportion to what he (not somebody else) has written.
if you and john S pull your heads out of your asses one day, you just might see that picture too. wonder of wonders. and i hope to see you published at LRC eventually, which is something i know lew would consider. would he be published at no-treason? i hope so.
btw, there were a couple of things i sent to lew when i wrote for him that he wasn’t thrilled about, but said he’d print anyway. i took that as a signal to pull it. maybe others don’t. but there’s more there than you and john S appear so far to recognize. you guys have a hair up your ass about LRC, and it’s not all ideological.
December 4th, 2004 at 18:27
Charley, the children at No Treason remind me of what Humphrey Bogart said to the insignificant gunsel Wilmer (who carried two .45s to make up for how tiny and pathetic he was): “The cheaper the punk, the gaudier the patter.” From now on, if I ever refer to the place (which will make not only their day, but probably their lives) it will be to correctly refer to them as “Wilmers.”
Bob Wallace
December 4th, 2004 at 23:53
“lew is probably the closest to your view of liberty. very close. but you won’t cut him a break. i don’t get that.”
That’s because you have the club mentality. Look: despite your implications to the contrary, no one a NT cuts anyone else slack, Kennedy least of all. When someone says something stupid, he jumps on them. A site search for “Palestinian State Prison” will give an example.
I haven’t seen anything like that from LRC.
Instead, I see folks like yourself saying “LRC does soooo much for the libertarian movement, why can’t you ignore it when they publish foolishness?” when someone at NT comments on something particularly bad.
And you aren’t mad because we’re wrong (although sometimes we are). Mainly, you’re mad because we’re right, and we won’t shut up about it. Instead, we charmingly say “Stephan Kinsella Should Shut His Stupid Cake Hole” or “Attention Epstein: Jared Taylor is a Crypto-Nazi”.
There isn’t much to rebut those (because they’re *right*), so you have folks like Wallace, above, sneering about “punks” because they can’t defend their anti-libertarian worldview. It’s an attack against *style*, not against substance.
It isn’t “loyalty” to not correct someone when they’re wrong, Hardman. Now I understand that most LRC’ers are rational evangelists, trying to sell freedom one voting feeb at a time, and so they hate to see bad arguments exposed for what they are. But no one has yet explained to me how *irrational evangelism* in the form of untruths and bad arguments is going to do a thing for liberty.
December 5th, 2004 at 01:40
howdy, bob. “wilmers” will be understood if i hear it. i’m done with the fools. what admiration i had is outweighed by the stupidity and cowardice. anybody on the attack who can’t deal directly and precisely with his own words isn’t worth a shit. although i’ve been tempted to try in detail, i doubt there’s no way to explain to them what they’re missing. the possibility appears to be impossible in their eyes (speaking mainly of john L and john S., who are, unfortunately, the yappiest ones at NT). they are right at the start, but get derailed like your average loser amtrak.
December 5th, 2004 at 07:35
Wallace, above, sneering about “punks” because they can’t defend their anti-libertarian worldview.Yes, you’re quite right…the buffoons at No Treason can’t defend their anti-libertarian worldviews (that’s not what you meant, though, right?)
Let’s face facts. LRC is a huge site, and No Treaon is nothing, because it’s populated by fools. No one takes you seriously, and no one ever will. You’re wasting your lives, which is fine with me. Say what you will, the site is completely irelevant.
December 5th, 2004 at 13:29
“…the buffoons at No Treason can’t defend their anti-libertarian worldviews…”
Can you cite those worldviews, Wallace?
“Let’s face facts. LRC is a huge site…”
And the RNC is even bigger. That settles it, I guess.
JL
December 6th, 2004 at 17:52
Tell me something, Wilmer. How does it feel to be a pussy? Do you feel like a real man making sexually suggestive comments about Karen De Coster? What does your sex life consist of? Jerking off to your own posts? Oh, yes, you are certainly admirable, aren’t you? How about facing facts? You’re disgusting, you’re a coward, and you’re pathetic.
Bob Wallace
May 14th, 2005 at 23:33
John, perhaps LRC writers have taken, and LRC readers should take, the sage advice of your own Mr. Beck. It’s said that there are two kinds of questions: those which illuminate, and those which destroy. Certain NT writers appear to be in the latter camp; but by all means feel free to prove this apparency wrong. Mark Odell
January 28th, 2007 at 11:56
I just ran into a girl who knows for a fact that John Sabotta is a chronic methanphatamine user. His wit comes out of a white powder. She also said he leads two lives. The conservative on top and the crack addict hidden under. He’s like that gay minister that was outed and had to quit.
January 28th, 2007 at 13:02
you ran into “a girl” who “knows for a fact” that sabotta’s a drug addict? who, other than john’s friends, gives a fuck? i recall no writings of his which would make any drug problem of his hypocritical or contradictory in the least. running around the internet printing hearsay such as this points to a bigger problem with you, asshole.