Stephen Jarislowsky, 11/22/07

Stephen A. Jarislowsky (born September 1925) is a Canadian billionaire investor and philanthropist.

Unless your a centcom blogger or something then you can fuck off!!

Is that the best you can do Mark? Confident in the correctness of your deduction? If so, care to back it up with some serious fiat currency?

As to what you label yourself I could not care less. I use labels with you because you utilize them. Labels at best are ignorant at worst are a tool to manipulate the innocent.

No matter what label you self-attach to your views Mark, from what I have read of them they are mostly a hazard to Liberty, whether deliberate or misguided is of little practical consequence.

As long as they are limited to the groups whose views you support Mark? Or did I misunderstand you, Doug and Kevin in your repeated efforts to place some groups on the permanently banned/permanently silenced list for public discourse and the public policy process. I will remember and requote the above when you next(again)attempt to smear Ron Paul simply because Americans you deem unsavory are exercising their “freedom of association” even though it is one-sided and unrequited. Rights are enumerated and protected precisely to ensure the freedom of the unpopular exercise of those rights. People that use their rights to conduct themselves only in ways popular with the majority require no assistance to ensure free exercise of their natural rights.

Mark states to Max “Again- the burden is on you to prove this point, or similar points that somehow our lives are being controlled without our knowledge by some secret cabal of people. Thus far, you have still not even attempted to do so.”

Who says that is Max’s burden Mark? You? I say it is your “burden” to disprove Max’s assertions on this matter. What say you to that? If you do not “prove” it I will restate that it is your “burden” to do so by preceding it with the word-”Again”. What nonsense.

Mark also states to Max- “The very fact that you are able to write that, though, should pretty much prove that it’s false.”

Your statement above “pretty much proves” absolutely nothing of the sort. Further, self-evident, nonsense. However, I encourage you to accept the burden to prove the bulletproof logic behind your statement above. Please do elaborate.

Mark, did I understand you correctly that you are a lawyer?

1. “The NAU is a “conspiracy theorist” myth with no supporting evidence”. Stop investigating, discussing, talking, etc. about the “mythical NAU”.

2. “Hey, We “Liberatarians” all agree that an NAU(that is a myth)/ One World Govenment/any movement in that direction is a really good thing if you are a REAL, GOOD, “Libertarian” right? Don’t We? Come on now, just nod YES so we can move on to the next item on our, ahem, agenda.” Hotse Totse another Good Little Nazi.

*the FEW, who are they? Those already well placed re: unequal power distribution. Imagine that, people plugged into power using that power to promote the concept that increasing both the level and scope of the power of the powerful is a good thing. Whoda thunk it. What a novel concept, unseen in all of human history.

Libertarians:

Against Coercion. Ok so far.

Understand the State is the ultimate coercive force due to wielding “State Power”. Check.

For efforts to move State Power toward One Central Global Super State entity which will be granted the awesome aggregated power of the national governments it supercedes and will be free to wield that unprecedented power as it alone sees fit to exert it’s authority over the entire globe.

Gigantic Huh???

Not surprising the Faux Liberty Loving, Libertarians at the “Liberty Papers” that “support” Ron Paul “support” him in the fashion they consistently exhibit. RP wants to reduce/limit State Power and move it back down towards the level of the individual as the Founders wisely intended. The neo-cons attempting to con people at the “Liberty Papers” are promoting moving State Power further from the level of the individual, increasing total State Power and placing that power into fewer hands.

Good news Mark, Kevin, Doug and any other “Liberty Papers” neo-cons in libertarian clothing it may concern:

Your oft(incessantly) expressed concerns re: Ron Paul and/or melodramatic announcements of being off the Ron Paul “bandwagon” should no longer trouble you or be a source of anguished indecision; the overwhelming majority of POTUS candidates will suit your agenda nicely. Essentially any candidate other than Ron Paul(not counting Dennis K. or Mike G.) will move you precisely in the direction you wish to go. So you see, you were wasting time all along “supporting” Ron Paul. Perhaps you already realized that ;-}

When think tanks shape public opinion, it’s because they are able to convince the public that they are right- are you denying that people have the ability to think for themselves whether a think tank is right or not? When think tanks and lobbyists affect policy, it’s because that is what our system is designed to do; the solution isn’t to further restrict such groups, the solution is to allow even more of them into the process. Which, by the way, is what our system was originally set up to do- or have you not read Federalist Paper No. 10.

“I nor any other man or woman in this country gave them that power they took it unilaterally.”
Again- the burden is on you to prove this point, or similar points that somehow our lives are being controlled without our knowledge by some secret cabal of people. Thus far, you have still not even attempted to do so. The very fact that you are able to write that, though, should pretty much prove that it’s false. As the saying goes: democracy is a crappy system, except everything else is crappier.

And as for the CFR and every other think tank out there, when they and there members shape public opinion and make policy that is criminal, policy/laws is to be made by the executive judicial and the legislature not by some elitist/social climbing scum bags.

“The real question is why do we give great power to such people” I nor any other man or woman in this country gave them that power they took it unilaterally.

is it ok for policy makers to be meeting in secret with corporate chieftains, media moguls, European royality etc, so is it?

Yes. I certainly don’t have any moral authority to deny their right of free association.

The real question is why do we give great power to such people?

Oh and the CFR is small potatoes, the CFR is public, Bilderberg, Skull and Bones, Bohemian Grove are all secret and there members make up the most powerful people in Europe and the United States, is it ok for policy makers to be meeting in secret with corporate chieftains, media moguls, European royality etc, so is it?