Fat Guy In Montana

[Kelley]

Originally Posted by N.M. Valdez

Organized government isn't the only source of authoritarianism under capitalism; capitalists themselves act as independent sources of hierarchical authority.

I think the problem with asking you to advocate the reinstatement is your idea that opposing viewpoints should be casually dismissed with "facepalms" rather than debated.

It's a facepalm because what you are doing is not debating, but simply making retarded statements. It's pretty hard to debate a person that has no clue what they are talking about.

I vote libertarian. I am registered libertarian. It doesn't matter what you think I am. I'm libertarian.

As for capitalism... I am no more capitalist than any other artisan. So unless you are going to walk into the artisan district of Seattle or Portland and call all of the liberals fascist... you might want to get a new thought into your head.

Hel, you are more authoritarian than I am.

[Brenna Wolf]

There are many Pro-White American 'Libertarians' on the internet, Valdez.

Linder is one of them IMO. Have you listened to his latest 3-4 interviews?

Your 'Smash the Fash' gains absolutely no yardage with us.

Nunya!

[N.M. Valdez]

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

I never mentioned "VNN", you user name, or ANYTHING about *you* specifically or even indirectly. Can you prove that I did?

Answer: NO

You have made an accusation that I am a Government Snitch and a Government Informant.

Prove it, or retract it.

Thus far, you haven't proved jack shit. *edit* beyond me inquiring about the legalities of a member of the USMC posting on an officially designated "hate" site (per SPLC and ADL) as a full member - and if that was against Article 134 of the UCMJ.

If anything, you should be banned from this site, because what you are doing is actually ILLEGAL and breaking the laws that you are governed by.

Well, let's review some of your posts on this topic. You allege that I am violating the UCMJ here, and should be prosecuted for this.

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

LOL, no lawsuit, just a friendly reminder to a supposed marine about his obligations and limitations under Article 134 of the UCMJ. One that he completely ignores because he thinks he is smarter than the people that wrote the laws that govern him. Restrictive laws that he freely volunteered, through his supposed enlistment, to adhere to. Of course, if he actually isn't a Marine, then he really has nothing to worry about. Either way, meh, he's in violation of the UCMJ, period, and could (and should be) prosecuted for such.

You imply that I could be reported to my command if someone had my command information for this alleged violation of the UCMJ.

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

He's a bitch ass punk who acts all tough, but when push comes to shove, he knows he is in violation of Article 134 of the UCMJ. That is why he's too much of a pussy to post his command information.

You say that reporting my comments on VNN Forum to the Attorney General could result in me being dishonorably discharged.

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

All it would take would be a few pissed off Whites, copy, clip, paste some of your rants - even if they are out of context, and publish them in the editorial section of local newspapers - then send those newspapers off to the AG. Bye-Bye, Tonto, enjoy the Dishonorable Discharge.

You then publicize your government informant activities, which include conversations with military legal officers, while Anal Rammer insinuates that I could be incarcerated in a federal prison as a result of this snitching.

Unless you have a recording of your phone conversation, there's no way to verify its contents, but after your allegation that I am committing a crime for which I should be prosecuted, your allegation that reporting this to the government could result in my dishonorable discharge, and your description of your phone calls to government authorities regarding that topic, it's quite accurate to describe you as the government informant that you are, snitch.

[N.M. Valdez]

Originally Posted by Brenna Wolf

You most likely presented a reasonable position, because I know damn well there is no way you could pressure Jack Boot into anything.

I consider him a friend of mine, have made no bones about it here and there are very few in that category in WNist circles.

If my position is reasonable and he's a friend of yours, why don't you ask him to unban me and grant me the same unmoderated status on the open forums?

The fascists can chat away to their hearts' content on their "white" section of the forum; I just want to post in opposing viewpoints without having to wait three days for a post to appear, if it ever does.

Originally Posted by Kelley

It's a facepalm because what you are doing is not debating, but simply making retarded statements. It's pretty hard to debate a person that has no clue what they are talking about.

You've done nothing to refute anything I've said about your pseudo-libertarianism. But that doesn't matter to me. I'm more interested in why you simply ignored my proof about the hypocrisy of my ban.

Originally Posted by Kelley

I vote libertarian. I am registered libertarian. It doesn't matter what you think I am. I'm libertarian.

The Libertarian Party might call itself "libertarian," but as with the "Democratic People's Republic" of Korea, is anything but that.

Originally Posted by Kelley

As for capitalism... I am no more capitalist than any other artisan. So unless you are going to walk into the artisan district of Seattle or Portland and call all of the liberals fascist... you might want to get a new thought into your head.

I never said that you were a capitalist. I said that government is not the only source of hierarchical authority.

Originally Posted by Brenna Wolf

There are many Pro-White American 'Libertarians' on the internet, Valdez.

Pseudo-libertarians, you mean.

[Mr A.Anderson]

Originally Posted by N.M. Valdez

blah, blah, blah

Nowhere can you prove that I ever mentioned *you*, your username, or ANY detail about *you*. In fact, YOU have proven that I posed a theoretical discussion, about a person who is not you with a JAG officer to find out if in fact, posting on an officially designated "hate" site (by the SPLC and ADL) would be a violation under Article 134 of the UCMJ. I never mentioned VNN, your username, or any other information about you or this site, directly or indirectly, in any way shape or form.

As a service member of the USMC, you are breaking the laws that govern you by being a member and posting here. All I did was research the LAW that governs you, nothing else. As there is no information in print (such as a Wiki entry or peer reviewed study), I had to go to where I could get an answer, the USMC Judge Advocate General's office.

This is in NO way being a government "snitch" or "informant" as I did not tell on anybody, or inform the government of any specific person's actions or where those actions (specifically) are taking place.

You have made a libelous accusation against me, without factual basis, and IMO, are in violation of the rules of this forum for doing so. (not to mention, once again, breaking the LAWS that you are subject to under the UCMJ).

You accused me of being a Government Snitch and a Government Informant.

Prove it.

Who did I snitch on? Who did I inform the government on? How is asking a simple legal question being a "snitch" or an "informant"?

Answer:

It isn't.

[N.M. Valdez]

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

Who did I snitch on? Who did I inform the government on? How is asking a simple legal question being a "snitch" or an "informant"?

Who can say? We don't know the details of your conversation. We just know that you were conversing with a government official after making remarks that I was breaking the law, should be prosecuted for breaking the law, and would be dishonorably discharged if I was reported to the Attorney General.

We have Anal Rammer's description of your informing and insinuation that I would be incarcerated in a federal prison.

In that context, I choose to refer to you as the government informant that you are.

[Brenna Wolf]

If my position is reasonable

I said your position must have been reasonable to have ever been granted access to the main forum.

and he's a friend of yours, why don't you ask him to unban me and grant me the same unmoderated status on the open forums?

Because I consider him a friend I don't interfere with his job, especially for someone who has implied he caves under pressure. I may ask out of curiosity but I certainly do not suggest what he needs do.
That's why we remain friends. Must be a White thing.

The fascists can chat away to their hearts' content on their "white" section of the forum; I just want to post in opposing viewpoints without having to wait three days for a post to appear, if it ever does.

We aren't all fascists.

[Mr A.Anderson]

Originally Posted by N.M. Valdez

Who can say? We don't know the details of your conversation. We just know that you were conversing with a government official after making remarks that I was breaking the law, should be prosecuted for breaking the law, and would be dishonorably discharged if I was reported to the Attorney General.

We have Anal Rammer's description of your informing and insinuation that I would be incarcerated in a federal prison.

In that context, I choose to refer to you as the government informant that you are.

So, you are making a serious allegation, without proof to support that allegation, as you admit that you don't know. What you do know, as you have quoted, is that your name was never mentioned, and in fact, the conversation was about a fictional relative of ours, and based purely on the legality of the below.

Regardless, a member of the USMC posting as a member on an officially designated "hate" site (by the SPLC and ADL) is, in fact, punishable under Article 134 of the UCMJ (which you are subject to), and that punishment can carry a sentence that includes incarceration and dishonorable discharge.

Don't blame me, or the Mrs, for merely attempting to educate you on the LAWS and penalties that you are subject to.

I don't care what you prefer or want to call me, as long as it is within the boundaries and guidelines for posting on this forum.

You have made a serious allegation towards me, calling me, specifically, a "Government Snitch" and a "Government Informant".

You have failed, thus far, to provide ANY proof to back up your allegations, and once again, IMO, are violating the rules of this forum (not to mention the LAW that governs you, Article 134 of the UCMJ).

Prove that I "snitched" on anyone or "informed the government" on anyone's actions.

Results:

You can't.

[N.M. Valdez]

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

What you do know, as you have quoted, is that your name was never mentioned, and in fact, the conversation was about a fictional relative of ours, and based purely on the legality of the below.

I don't "know" that my name was never mentioned at all. I just know that you claim that, but given the context provided by your other quotes, which all directly state or imply that I'm breaking the law, should be prosecuted, could be dishonorably discharged, and that you've spoken to government officials about this, and Anal Rammer's insinuation that I could be incarcerated in a federal prison, I simply identify you for the rat that you are.

[Kelley]

Originally Posted by N.M. Valdez

You've done nothing to refute anything I've said about your pseudo-libertarianism. But that doesn't matter to me. I'm more interested in why you simply ignored my proof about the hypocrisy of my ban.

The Libertarian Party might call itself "libertarian," but as with the "Democratic People's Republic" of Korea, is anything but that.

So you admit to not understanding what libertarianism is.

I never said that you were a capitalist. I said that government is not the only source of hierarchical authority.

/facepalm

I don't believe in any hierarchical authority, nitwit. If people leave me alone, I don't care what they do.

For example, Valdez.. if you want to bang that chicken.. more power to you. I don't care.

[N.M. Valdez]

Originally Posted by Brenna Wolf

I said your position must have been reasonable to have ever been granted access to the main forum.

And it hasn't changed.

Originally Posted by Brenna Wolf

Because I consider him a friend I don't interfere with his job, especially for someone who has implied he caves under pressure.

Posting a thread asking a question isn't interfering with anyone's job. They can choose what they want to do. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the ban and the reason that it should be reversed.

I cannot post this myself because I don't have an unmoderated account, so I need someone who does to post it for me. If rae kiley AKA momofthree was here, I would ask her to do it.

[N.M. Valdez]

Originally Posted by Kelley

So you admit to not understanding what libertarianism is.

I suspect that my understanding of libertarianism is far superior to your own, inasmuch as its rooted in the actual historical traditions of the term.

Originally Posted by Kelley

I don't believe in any hierarchical authority, nitwit.

The Scumfront administrative structure is a form of hierarchical authority. Since you don't believe in it, you can post a thread advocating that my ban be removed.

[Kelley]

Originally Posted by N.M. Valdez

I suspect that my understanding of libertarianism is far superior to your own, inasmuch as its rooted in the actual historical traditions of the term.

The Scumfront administrative structure is a form of hierarchical authority. Since you don't believe in it, you can post a thread advocating that my ban be removed.

If you think libertarians aren't libertarian.. then no.. you don't. Libertarians are not all the same... just as there are different statists. Just as you can have many different kinds of moderates.

I always COULD post a thread to do so. But I WILL NOT. Simply because I DON'T CARE enough to. You also haven't given me a real reason to do so.

[N.M. Valdez]

Originally Posted by Kelley

If you think libertarians aren't libertarian.. then no.. you don't. Libertarians are not all the same... just as there are different statists. Just as you can have many different kinds of moderates.

I think that actual libertarians, along the lines of Noam Chomsky, are real libertarians. Pseudo-libertarians, along the lines of Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul, are not.

Originally Posted by Kelley

I always COULD post a thread to do so. But I WILL NOT. Simply because I DON'T CARE enough to. You also haven't given me a real reason to do so.

A real libertarian would have a greater interest in freedom of speech and expression, I would think. Are the white supremacists in the OV section afraid of debating me without me being moderated?

[Kelley]

Originally Posted by N.M. Valdez

I think that actual libertarians, along the lines of Noam Chomsky, are real libertarians. Pseudo-libertarians, along the lines of Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul, are not.

A real libertarian would have a greater interest in freedom of speech and expression, I would think. Are the white supremacists in the OV section afraid of debating me without me being moderated?

Again, not all libertarians are the exact same. It is not a monolithic group. that would defeat the purpose of liberty. /facepalm

While I believe in freedom of speech and expression... I have nothing to do with who gets banned... nor do I think a private website needs to allow every Floating-With-Fish, Chicken-Fucker & Poops-On-Floors to post.

Being a libertarian doesn't counteract the belief that private groups are private.

If a statist went to a libertarian meeting to spout his statist nonsense, do you think it would be allowed? no.

[Armstrong]

N.M, you are OWNED by the US Government if you're a Marine....you're there to enforce the laws of this Nation and the flag for which it stands, defending it against all enemies, both foreign an domestic. And you call someone a snitch for perhaps implying you could get in trouble for posting here?

[N.M. Valdez]

Originally Posted by Kelley

Again, not all libertarians are the exact same. It is not a monolithic group. that would defeat the purpose of liberty.

Not at all. However, Rothbard, Paul, and that camp are not libertarians.

Originally Posted by Kelley

While I believe in freedom of speech and expression... I have nothing to do with who gets banned... nor do I think a private website needs to allow every Floating-With-Fish, Chicken-Fucker & Poops-On-Floors to post.

Being a libertarian doesn't counteract the belief that private groups are private.

Libertarians don't believe in private property, i.e. private ownership of the means of production. A forum can be private, although it's more a matter of being disingenuous and claiming to allow the free expression of opposing viewpoints when for all intents and purposes this is not true.

Originally Posted by Kelley

If a statist went to a libertarian meeting to spout his statist nonsense, do you think it would be allowed? no.

Wouldn't it? Couldn't he be debated with, or would he simply be expelled?

[Armstrong]

When I was in, I once went to a John Birch meeting. The Captain knew I'd been to it before I got back to the ship.

And I was told to never go to such a thing again.

[N.M. Valdez]

Originally Posted by Armstrong

When I was in, I once went to a John Birch meeting. The Captain knew I'd been to it before I got back to the ship.

And I was told to never go to such a thing again.

Prohibiting someone from merely attending political meetings is in many cases illegal.

[Kelley]

Originally Posted by N.M. Valdez

Prohibiting someone from merely attending political meetings is in many cases illegal.

No it isn't.