[140] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
This leftist rant
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael E Rolish)
Fri Apr 20 23:48:47 2001
Message-Id: <200104210347.XAA21019@scrubbing-bubbles.mit.edu>
To: mit-talk@MIT.EDU
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 23:47:30 -0400
From: Michael E Rolish <merolish@MIT.EDU>
Ah, more leftist rant from Smith & Co.
Mmm mmm, what to say to them?
1) If you have a problem with Harvard's wages, go
set up a fund to supplement the workers' wages.
Better yet, give them jobs yourself. It's not
your place to force Harvard to increase the
hourly wage...you should be happy that they give
people jobs in the first place.
Of course, helping the workers isn't your goal.
In truth, you just want to see the wealthy suffer
because they're wealthy...to destroy the good
because it is good. Disgusting.
2) Ah, the Horowitz ad returns. Tell me how a
single one of Horowitz's points is wrong. And
please, how is he a "racist" or "hate-monger?"
I can't believe you people are essentially
advocating stealing money from innocent people.
Oh wait, I forgot, this is the basic premise of
socialism. And by the way, calling people who
point this kind of stuff out racist hate-mongers
is not an argument.
Of course, Smith and co. would probably dismiss
Horowitz's points as "proof by rhetoric" (i.e.
logic) as opposed to her favored methods of proof
by irrationality, name-calling, and destruction.
And while I'm shooting my mouth off to 300+ people,
why doesn't someone justify affirmative action to
me? Finally: Am I, because I was born white, an
intrinsically evil person? That would really suck.
3) Welcome to the concept of private property.
I know you find this "greedy," "selfish," and all
that, but then again I don't see you giving all
your worldly possessions to the needy.
You see, people can do what they want with their
property (as long as they don't violate the rights of
others, of course). Until the day that you succeed
in turning this place into North Korea, the people
in control of newspapers can print or not print things
as they please. This is not censorship, which is
government interference in media.
This kind of talk reminds me of an old director of
the FCC, Newton Minow, who said that essentially any
use of discretion in publishing media is censorship.
Of course, HE didn't have a problem, as a gov't
bureaucrat, dictating to people the "public good,"
i.e. censorship.
Anyway, in today's issue of the Tech I saw both an
article on that FTAA "teach-in" and the Harvard
living-wage protesters. So much for censoring the
activities of left-wing thugs.
...
Leftist scum...they think they can force their
corrupt ideals on the US, one of the few semi-free
nations on this planet. Oh right, at this point
someone can talk to me about how there's not
necessarily causality between economic freedom
and wealth. I guess wealth must be produced by
governmental fiat or the "will of the people,"
and not hard work and ingenuity free from
interference.
Final thought: how can people so vocal against
a man violating a woman be for the state violating
its citizens? Sheer hypocrisy...
-Mike Rolish, who won't be a servant to the
left's "public good."
