How do you keep the spammers from eating you alive? i’ve seen blogs with nothing but spam postings.

How do you keep some left wing extremist from posting racist or defamatory rhetoric? and if you cant stop them, what are you legally liabel when they do?

can viruses be posted to blogs?

9/11 Mysteries: Demolitions
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=9%2F11+mysteries+demolitions

Of course al Queda should be called al CIAda since they are tool of the CIA.

You write:

“Didn’t you officially quit the Libertarian Party a couple years ago to found the BTP cause the LP was not ‘extremist enough’ for you?”

1. It was last year.

2. I didn’t leave the LP to found it, and as a matter of fact made a specific point of maintaining my LP membership while founding it, and of saying I intended to do so, and to remain active in the LP.

3. The BTP’s platform is, in fact, more “moderate” than either the LP’s platform or the Republican Liberty Caucus’s “Liberty Pledge.” It specifies no extremes, merely direction.

“Who will the BTP running for President in 2008?”

Whomever it nominates, of course— if it nominates anyone. If I have my way (but I’m only one of several hundred members), it will reconstitute itself as an internal caucus of the LP at some point, or at least endorse the LP’s presidential ticket.

In another comment, you implicitly ask about Steve Kubby’s opinion of 9/11. I have not asked him about his conclusions regarding any of the various theories out there, but his position paper on Iraq and US foreign policy does allude to 9/11 in terms that seem to indicate that he accepts the “official account” in its broad outlines, i.e. that al Qaeda were the perpetrators (as, it so happens, do I).

Of course, even if that were not the case, someone who offers Jayna Davis’s rant as “proof” that Iraq was involved in the OKC bombing is hardly in a position to go around lecturing anyone else about “conspiracy theories.”

Regards,
Tom Knapp

That’s called Orwellian Double Think.

Why address this to me? As if I give a shit.

He won’t do any of these things because he’s a PUSSY, all talk and no action. He claimed that he would join if they’d still take him at the age of 43. Well, 9/11 happened (or more accurately the government caused it to happen) over 5 1/3 years ago. That means that Eric would have been 37 at the time. At 37 (I think his birth day is after 9/11) he certainly could have reenlisted in the US military. He could also enlist right now in the IDF or as a mercenary with a security company like Blackwater USA but yet for some reason he won’t do this. Eric would rather hide behind his keyboard and squack like a chicken while others go out and do the dirty work that he’s afraid to do himself.

I haven’t enlisted in the military because I believe that the war is bullshit. I’m focused on fighting our own corrupt government.

I most certainly use my other name Rittberg, for many purposes. It is my legal name. I am legally Eric Dondero Rittberg. I’ve not used Rittberg too much in politics, cause it’s a bit cumbersome. Nothing to “hide” as some here think. Quite proud of my Rittberg name. It’s from my adoptive parents who now live in Florida. Dondero is biological Father. So, my names reflect both my Jewish and Italian heritages.

Full story at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

And just for the record Andy, that was “hundreds of girlfriends,” including Mexican chics, not “hundreds of Mexican girlfriends.” (I promise that’s the last word on that matter from me.)

As for the NAP, I can agree that we should not Initiate Force unless attacked. The problem lies in the definition of attacked. While I don’t agree with the Neo-Cons on the Iraq issue, its not because I believe it was inherantly wrong to attack Iraq (as it had threatened to attack America and American interests many times, and was continually in violation of ‘international law’), its because Congress didn’t declare war.

We have a fundamental disagreement then. When you say threatened to attack America, is there any reason to believe that any such threats could have been credible? The Downing Street Memo indicates clearly that any statements to that effect by the US regime, UK regime, etc., were deliberate lies.

When you say “American interests,” how do you define those?

When you say that it violated international law, what did those violations consist of?

Do you think the US regime has violated international law?

If the US regime has violated international law, does that mean that other countries are now justified in invading and occupying the United States and killing innocent Americans?

While I agree as a Moral Concept that the NAP is wonderful. It is not a realistic central platform for a GOVERNMENT because governments must act on the behalf of the people. If 99% of people had preferred to goto War against Iraq, then how would a Libertarian Government have responded?

That’s an excellent question.

But to answer it properly, I have a few questions to ask as well.

Would those hypothetical 99% then have the right to extort tax money to pay for their war from the few remaining millions of people?

If 99% of the people wanted to start a war against, say, Cuba, not because it threatened the US or anyone else in any way, but merely because hotel and casino companies wanted to make billions of dollars, for example, would that justify government acting “on behalf of the people”?

What, exactly, did average Iraqis and Afghanis who are being killed, robbed, raped, tortured, made homeless, and maimed by the millions do to you or any American?

Were they responsible for the nefarious actions of their regimes?

If so, are you responsible for the actions of “our” regime, and if you are, are their friends and relatives justified in taking revenge against you?

Even in the midst of strongly disagreeing with you, I didn’t post any of what I found, since that would have been wrong, and irrelevant.

Please refrain from doing this again in the future. Also, “the hundreds of broken-hearted mexican girlfriends” stuff, even if true, makes you look ridiculous.

I merely listed them as reasons why someone might want to protect their privacy.

A little bit of research into cyberstalking, stalking in general, and related issues might lead anyone to understand why they would want some privacy on public internet discussion boards like this one.

Therfore, I am politely asking that Eric and everyone else refrain from using a name other than the one I choose to use for the purpose of discussing ideas and issues. My permission is formally and explicitly denied to use the name that Eric revealed without permission, and continues to use without permission, here or anywhere else.

I guess he doesn’t mind using thug tactics to shut people up.

No wonder he supports fascists and calls himself a libertarian at the same time.

Not only does he justify starting aggression, he actively engages in starting it, as he just did right here.

All I did was disagree with him. I don’t believe I aggressed against him in any manner. If there’s going to be a problem, he started it and this is for the record.

Also, for the record, Eric does not have my permission to reveal any additional information about me, although he has already made it possible for others to do so, and they do not have my permission either.

If he does, it will constitute further aggression against me and breach of privacy.