Full Fathom Five
It’s hard to account for the cheap shots that thoughtful observers have leveled at Jonah Goldberg since the Whitewater and Lewinsky follies brought him before us. By this I mean that no, it’s easy to account for them, because Jonah’s career as a public intellectual suggests a Crank Yankers puppet that calls people up pretending to be George Will. His kulturkritik suggests a guy up past midnight watching Dark Side of Oz, smoking a bong with no pot in it. We should what, waste on him the expensive shots?
But in a world such as this one, befudged as it is with Crittendens, with Donald Douglases, R.S. McCains, Höfte, Althäuser, Hinderåkern,1 and Yoshida-tachi, Jonah seems to attract abuse disproportionate to the amount of human spirit that his work forever consumes, for reading him leaves us relatively less bleakened and dust-blown, less incrementally lost to mercy and self-reflection, than the work — not to name-drop too thickly — of for instance Victor Davis Hanson, whose late career resembles a series of crank calls from Allan Bloom pretending to be Squidward.
All this is by way of saying that Jonah has sometimes been unfairly singled out for wedgies because of his intrinsic wedgability, which has made it incompletely satisfying, these days, to see him tossed from a helicopter with a parachute attached to the rear waistband of his Stormfronts.2 And alas, in one post at The Corner, Jonah has managed to produce five separate things that are each the stupidest thing ever said, including the other four things.
Shorter Jonah Goldberg:
- Liberals complain that our apocalyptic screaming about Nazi communist death-camp tyranny is overwrought. Some is, but if the government confiscates 37% of your money, it is like being in 37% of a Nazi communist death camp.
- Liberals complain that our cry of ‘taxation without representation’ is really just about losing the election. Maybe so, but not if ‘taxation without representation’ also includes people not born yet — plus, the socialist conspiracy to loot America is irksome.
- Liberals say these protests are unpatriotic Astroturfing by plutocrats. I find it amazing that leftist groups can openly organize protests while ordinary Americans, lobbyists, and TV networks can’t even get together covertly.
- Liberals complain that we are hypocrites for suddenly caring about deficits. Maybe so, but they are hypocrites for caring about Bush’s tiny deficits for wars, and then wanting to fix health care.
- Liberals say that our populist anger is the real face of America’s homegrown fascism. This is silly because certain elements of our radically inconsistent ideology are quite unlike the notorious misreading of fascism in the book I wrote that blames fascism on liberals.
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™
1 Apparently from the Swedish, meaning “obstacle field,” but also translatable, as though God had gotten tired of hanging out in the golden ratio and the repeating decimal and started inhabiting the petty humiliation of conservatives, as “butt slip-and-fall.”
2 This is a term for ‘tighty whiteys’ that doesn’t have any specific joke attached to it yet, but seems very promising.
Just before I read anything else – “Althäuser” is genius.
But I think the plural of “Yoshida” is “Yoshidatachi”.
…a parachute attached to the rear waistband of his Stormfronts…
You can tell they’re Stormfronts because they’re tight and white, as you say, and soaking wet.
Jonah has managed to produce five separate things that are each the stupidest thing ever said, including the other four things.
Quite a feat – I’d read somewhere, very likely here or over at Edroso the Magnificent’s – that everything Pantload writes is the stupidest thing ever written until the next thing he writes. Achieving simultaneous out-stupiditizing like this is a major advance for him.
Did Jonah come up with this thing where “taxation without representation” means “taxation while the representative you do actually have isn’t the one you voted for?” I kind of doubt it, because it’s a bit of wingnut jiu-jitsu that seems out of his league for cleverness, even though it’s really dumb.
Excellent post.
I LOVE that the only link in the entire column is to the wiki on the Mos Eisley cantina.
No one online has ever seen Star Wars.
Holy Hell, Gavin, even the most faithful of your shortenings make him sound more intelligent and thoughtful than the actual multi-letter-phoneme-conglomerations he haphazardly strung together in that worthless piece of script.
Jonah: Ventriloquist’s dummy? Reminds me of the Far Side cartoon, where a doctor is bandaging a man’s hand and telling him: “You’ll be ok, fella, but your friend over there is a gonner.” The “friend” the ventriloquist’s dummy.
Righteous Bubba’s post had graphics. I guess Brad has the day off today.
Oops, wrong Goldberg taxes are tyranny post. His still had graphics, which only strengthens my point.
But I think the plural of “Yoshida” is “Yoshidatachi”.
Thought it was Bügfuknützim, myself, but YMMV.
For Jonah, as inspired by Gavin
Full fathom five thy Mother lies,
Of her bones are blue dresses made:
Those are pearl necklaces that were her eyes,
Nothing of her that doth fade,
But doth suffer a brain-fart
Into something fat & pudgy
Like a redneckked Horror from Wal-Mart
Harke now load your pants, ding-dong, fudgy.
Needs more cigar.
What synchronicity! I was just now musing that we hadn’t seen Jonah in these parts lately. I speculated (since I do not wish to visit his slimy little corner) that he had been somewhat lost in the noise due to the recent 12 octave increase in the noise floor.
Thanks Jonah, for disproving the myth of peak st00pid.
Thought it was Bügfuknützim, myself, but YMMV.
I think that’s a broader term for wingnuts in general.
I don’t recognize that writing, it’s missing something along the lines of “I haven’t had time due to the enormous time pressures put on our work by the NRO editors…” or “as soon as I finish watching the three part history of the sandwich ….” There does not seem to be any stated condition preventing a full unveiling of brilliance and insight, the sine qua non of any truly Goldbergian post.
Call me crazy, but that Mos Eisley reference is not only silly and redundantly linked, but doesn’t it smack of racism? “That ANSWER rally just had a strange bunch of really weird-looking aliens who, by the way, could play a mean tune. They got rhythm, at least!”
But government money only pays for the “liberties” the government thinks you should have, and therefore it can determine how you exercise them. That turns liberties into privileges dispensed at the whim of the state.
In Jonah’s tax-free universe you’d have the “freedom” repair your own broken limbs and perform brain surgery on yourself using inexpensive pliers in an unsanitized environment; and drive pot-hole filled roads and cracking bridges, if they exist anymore cuz hey no taxes I get to keep all my money and isn’t it fun to be liberated from the tyranny of government services.
I think “Stormfronts” would be an excellent brand name for absorbent briefs designed for men who suffer from urinary incontinence.
Did Jonah come up with this thing where “taxation without representation” means “taxation while the representative you do actually have isn’t the one you voted for?
Whatever happened to the old “get over it” and “sore loserman” thing?
Little Pig, that deserves some sort of prize. I hearby award you this award, suitable for framing.
You wouldn’t believe how many horrible pictures I had to look at before I found one of the two of them together. You’d think they were the same person or something. Creepy, man.
how many horrible pictures I had to look at before I found one of the two of them together
Note it’s at a public function, judging from the microphones. It would be irresponsible not to speculate on whether they ever see each other in private life.
Jonah does come in for a goodly dose of abuse. However, when you combine his spectacular stupidity with the fact that we would have never heard of him if he weren’t the son of one of the most loathsome conservative maggots in history, I think it’s fair to say that he is still a long way from receiving his fair share.
Jonah exists so that parodists and satirists will remain gainfully employed. Never has anyone plumbed such depths of stupid and inane with such care and in such depth.
pantload’s writing is a möbius strip of stupid.
Judge not, lest ye be judged.
(Keep in mind. this only applies to liberals. Jonah’s kind of exempt (as are most conservatives) because he doesn’t judge so much as make shit up.)
But we can no longer be sure that this has issued from the butt crack of Jo Go after the mix up with K.Lopez that recently occurred. It is boilerplate wingnut, after all.
The fact he has a column in a nationally syndicated newspaper probably has something to do with it.
Plus he’s a fuckwit. Also.
Truly, the Japanese plural was wrong. People are counted in the unit, ‘ri,’ but beyond that, I don’t remember the chain of reasoning.
[redoing it]
Oh, okay, no, apparently you can form that plural with ‘-ra,’ like Yoshida-ra, although -tachi seems to be more correct. [?]
We can thank the (Chicago) Tribune Company and the concentration of media ownership generally for Jonah the Pantload’s employment at the L.A. Times.
Robert Scheer, who was let go to make way for the JLoad, is still writing.
No pot, but plenty of exceptionally foul cultural bongwater ready to spill out and soak deep into the shag carpet.
Whatever happened to the old “get over it” and “sore loserman” thing?
That was for us, back when the Redoublechins had Won Everything Forever and history ended and stuff. They honestly didn’t expect they’d ever lose an election, so they dismantled any Butthurt Shields they might have constructed in the past.
Oh, okay, no, apparently you can form that plural with ‘-ra,’ like Yoshida-ra, although -tachi seems to be more correct. [?]
Actually I know only the tiniest smidgeonlet of Japanese, so if I was right, I’ll be pretty surprised.
You motherfuckers clearly have a much better weed connection than Comrade PhysioProf.
a Crank Yankers puppet that calls people up pretending to be George Will
That, my friend, may be the funniest thing every written.
We are all going to die because Obama just surrendered to Hugo Chavez. Only Glenn Beck’s forces and the Red State Strike Force can keepusafe now.
“Jonah has managed to produce five separate things that are each the stupidest thing ever said, including the other four things.”
Oh, come on. You can’t run a story about the Pantload without the Lopez wig. Where’s the graphics department?
You know, if you did have a Crank Yankers puppet of George Will, and it had no human puppeteer, and were left in a box, you would still get more valuable public commentary from it than from George Will, much less Jo’berg Goldbutt.
Oh, okay, no, apparently you can form that plural with ‘-ra,’ like Yoshida-ra, although -tachi seems to be more correct. [?]
I lived in Japan for most of the 90s. . . Yoshida-tachi sounds a bit off but “the Yoshida-tachi” would be OK. -tachi is a pretty good plural ending for a class of nouns.
If you’re going for a small tribe of Yoshidas, then Yoshida-zoku would work. A gang, Yoshida-gumi, a familial clan.
sorry, a familial clan would be Yoshida-shi. But that also just means Mr. Yoshida in written Japanese so needs the “the ” too.
Gavin, I’m pretty sure you can use “-tachi”, if you mean it in the way I think you do.
Of course, all the Japanese I know I learned from anime, so YMMV
What is that Jonah quote that you used to make fun of him for? The nonsensical one regarding how any evidence that contradicts his thesis only strengthens his point? It seems like it’d tie in nicely with his logic on that 5th “shorter”.
“Indeed, it is central to my point.”
“Narrowly factual objection” is pretty good too, though not used as much.
Jonah has sometimes been unfairly singled out for wedgies because of his intrinsic wedgability
1000 quatloos to the photoshop wizard who first comes up with a poster to accompany the slogan “Beat the Whities with the Red Wedgie!”.
Holy crap. I think Lonny Martello has finally met his match.
Gavin, I’m pretty sure you can use “-tachi”, if you mean it in the way I think you do.
I like linguistic-nuance problems like this, and this one makes me wish I knew Japanese a lot better than I do. It’s hard enough to really clearly express the intent even of the original English, sometimes even for a writer as talented as our Mr. M. In this case the intent seems to be “a class of wingnut writers exemplified by Yoshida”.
Yoshida-tachi sounds a bit off but “the Yoshida-tachi” would be OK. -tachi is a pretty good plural ending for a class of nouns.
I’d gathered that Japanese allows the usage “(the) X-tachi” to mean a group of people that includes or is led by X; for instance, you might refer to the bloggers at Sadly, No! as the Gavin-tachi. Is that the kind of usage you’re talking about? Again, I’m asking as a learner and realize that the impression I just described could be completely off in the tall grass.
Um, sorry that wasn’t funny.
It’s hard enough to really clearly express the intent even of the original English, sometimes even for a writer as talented as our Mr. M.
…and I’m not saying he was unclear about anything, but that in general it can be hard to talk about these things in sufficient detail to get a good translation going.
Lonny is one awesome poster, Simba B.
Merkin Patriot, also.
Liberals say that our populist anger is the real face of America’s homegrown fascism.
Somebody needs to give these losers a dictionary with the word “fascism” dog-eared, highlighted and followed by a bunch of exclamation points.
Somebody needs to give these losers a dictionary with the word “fascism” dog-eared, highlighted and followed by a bunch of exclamation points.
Sadly, I doubt it would work. I double-triple doubt it for Jonah, who with a mighty grunt hauled a whole new definition of fascism directly out of his massive hinder and asserted that it was meaningful.
I realize we have a nepotic winger hereditary system in this country, but people like Jonah is why it needs continual propping up.
“Fascism” is just what I say it is, no more, no less. Don’t try to confuse me w/ your “dick-shun-airy defnishuns.”
OT, has anyone noticed if Great Gizoogle™ subsidiary Bugger™ is down? Or know why or how long?
Gavin: shorter attribution should be used four more times.
Never mind.
FYWP & your little dial-up too.
“-Tachi” is more polite than “-ra,” so to get the right measure of contempt, “-ra” might work better. The whole issue of politeness levels in Japanese is worth a couple of books, and even then most experts, including Japanese specialists, will surely be wrong in multiple particulars.
so I got a robocall in support of the Tea Party gatherings. For real. For surreal, actually.
to see him tossed from a helicopter with a parachute attached to the rear waistband of his Stormfronts
This made me think of that scene in Scarface, which in turn made me think: Columbian butt-tie.
Florida weathermen are always warning about that warm, moist air from stormfronts and what happens when it meets up with a dry environment.
LOL WUT
If those “shopworn action items” are able to help fix the crisis then the only “duplicity” is in your pointy little head, honeybuns … & emo teens are totally justified in going on hunger-strikes if their Moms make them clean their rooms. Then there’s the trivial little tautology that none of your Teabagger comrades would have jack-shit to say about any of this if it was President McCain doing it, beyond the odd murmur of softball criticism.
Your wife is presumably getting necessities like food or clothing – you, on the other hand, are just being an irresponsible dickhead … much like engaging in economic masochism by attacking the WRONG FUCKING COUNTRY on credit, versus spending Fed funds on things &/or activities that real people actually benefit from in the real world. Utilitarianism – you fail it.
Shrink that nasty government away! Taxes are for pussies! Get Teh Man off your back once & for all! Liberty was never this EXCITING!
Some conditions apply. See Somalia for details.
When ACORN pays their ragamuffins to protest, or when Rainbow/PUSH shakes down businesses through racial extortion…
Ragamuffins? I guess we should be grateful he didn’t call them pickaninnies.
These people are barely even trying to conceal their racism any more.
These people are barely even trying to conceal their racism any more.
I think that they have completely quit trying, but are simply so incoherent that it is not always obvious to the actually sentient members of the public.
You wouldn’t believe how many horrible pictures I had to look at before I found one of the two of them together.
Maybe Jonah has a kooky Norman Bates thing going with his mother.
so, yeah, that jonah goldberg. what a douche.
there’s low hanging fruit, then there’s a peach that has been dropped on a VERY long string into a bottomless pit, itself part of a series of bottomless pits that have dropped inside each other recursively like some kind of escheresque pit BBQ from hell.
that’s a really low hanger, is my point.
So Doughy Pantload is OK with anarchism and secessionism? Both at once, or in succession? If Texas can secede from the U.S., can Austin secede from Texas? Eventually we will get to anarchy, small steps, small steps. My house will secede from the block and I’ll get paid to allow the storage of nuclear waste in a shoebox in my basement. And what care I if my neighbors rent a room to a biologist aiming to create and release hybrid roach-cobras into the environment? Nothing worse than marching in lockstep, nothing worse, nothing worse.
I love how they conveniently forget that the following are a-ok with them when done by Big Daddy Government:
* Warrantless wiretapping
* Holding people without charges/habeus corpus
* Torture
* Guantanamo
* Forced pregnancy
* War profiteering
* The Ten Commandments in public buildings
* Resisting gay marriage.
And every other government intrusion they demand. Just as long as they don’t have to pay for any of it!
One of the most amusing things about the “socialized medicine” wingnut meme, or what would be amusing if not for the real-world consequences of the insanely fucked-up for-profit system we now have, is that these champions of “free markets,” “individual liberties,” and “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” do-it-yourself boosterism find themselves by default supporting a system that a) costs more; b) allows large corporate interests to determine an individual’s career options (you can’t be self-employed if you have a pre-existing medical condition unless you have a spouse with a health plan you can leech off); c) allows large corporate interests with a profit motive to decide who lives and who dies; and d) they’re paying for uninsured people already via ever-increasing premiums with ever-decreasing benefits, except they’re paying 30% more for profit plus a several hundred percent premium since the uninsured typically only get health care via emergency rooms.
Of all of these, I have to say b) is the most ironic and insane. Ironic because it so contradicts their blather about free markets and opportunity blah blah; insane because what the fuck kind of system allows fucking private for-profit health insurers to dictate where you’re gonna work? The bottom line is, if you’ve got any type of chronic or pre-existing medical condition, you have 3 choices: work for someone who offers a group health plan; marry someone who has a group health plan (if you’re gay, make sure first that you live in Iowa, Vermont, Massachusetts, or New Hampshire); or go without insurance. As we all know, option 3 is not an option if you want to have such luxuries as a home or a retirement account – just one illness can take all that away.
And so we allow a handful of corporations to dictate the career options of the 100 million or more of us who are neither too poor for Medicaid or yet old enough for Medicare. Self-determination, rugged individualism? Don’t make me laugh.
Signs to be seen at the July 4th events: “Shining A Flashlight Through A Teabag Makes A Party Brought To You By The Illuminati”, and “MMM, that Bilderberger teabag sure makes cupping my hands around its warmth”. I can’t think of anything about the Trilateral Commission. Its like that section of my brain has been shorted out.
Matt Taibbi: Questions I’d like ‘Teabaggers’ to answer
But it’s the priceless comments…always the comments, for example, irasciblechef’s
I don’t get it. Republicans didn’t care enough about the deficit when it went up a “little” under Bush (to pay for a war), therefore they can’t complain when Obama sends it through the stratosphere (to pay for socialized medicine)?
When Bush took office (notice lack of verbiage signifying “elected”), we had no deficit at all. Instead, we had a lively debate over how fast we were paying down our debt. Bush and his enablers in Congress then passed tax cuts that were (a) too large, and (b) directed at the wrong people. (Having the future Codpiece McFlightsuit
tending cattledrinking heavily on hisranchdisused pig farm didn’t help us to mobilize against Al-Qa’eda, neither, thus costing us another $80B or so in property damage, and probably several times that in economic loss from the deaths of highly productive workers.) Yes, pissing away hundreds of billions of dollars ito bring sharia law and Iranian influence to Baghdad couldn’t make our boy-chasing, bribe-taking, diaper-wearing, bathroom-trolling disgrace of a Republican Congress care, but that’s not really something in your favor, bubeleh. (Even if you do mistakenly believe it is central to your point.)Poor W. Even in the only category he could ever really hope to dominate: “Who Best Exemplifies the Ugly Face of Nepotism?”, he still comes in second.
and this doozy, a blue ribbon champion from the same person:
So wait, let me see if I get this right.
George Bush – eight years of fucking up, and the wingnuts were silent.
Barack Obama – three months of initiating programs that haven’t been proven one way or the other yet – and they’re ready to impeach him?
Shorter wingnuts:
WAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
My Dream Republican 2012 team: Sarah Palin and Norm Coleman, with campaign manager Doughy Pantload. I would forgo my virgin sacrifice to the Dark Lord Soros to see this happen. “Opportunism, Entitlement, Ignorance macht Frei!”
he agreed that Bush was shit, voted for him just the same, twice, screamed against his spending, but not in a protest because the liberals took care of that.
He’s a wingpretzel.
Dear Jennifer,
They don’t understand that under our present insurance scheme, they’re only as safe as their next insurance policy. One of my Republican friends just went Galt (OK, he hated his bosses and quit). Only last night did he start to faintly glimmer the truth that whatever his next insurance is, it won’t cover his wife’s breast cancer. He’s always had full coverage, but they’ve both always been healthy. I hope he’s home today realizing he’s just fucked their future health coverage. Maybe then he’ll turn his anger from Obama to the health insurance industry.
It is rare that in real life I do a double-take so great in magnitude that you can actually hear the ‘wagga wagga wagga’ noise my head makes from halfway down the street.
Is this zeeb really claiming that he was really against Bush but it was the election of a black dude a deficit-inflating socialist that was the final straw?
Dammit. My HTML strikethroughs don’t work here. I blame the librul conspiracy!
I’d suggest yoshidaPOItachi. Poi is a suffix meaning ‘similar’ so it becomes ‘those who resemble Yoshida.’
I can only vouch for this on the basis of conversations on Japanese music involving Stooges-poi, Burt Bacharach-poi…
What synchronicity! I was just now musing that we hadn’t seen Jonah in these parts lately.
He’s been busy with k-Lo, as she dressing him up like a fireman, and gets ‘rescued’.
This is, of course, rather the point. To take Goldberg’s claims of pretentions to liberty seriously, we have to assume one or more of the following:
a) he did not think these infringements to liberty were serious
b) he has a different conception of “liberty” to you and me
c) he is ignorant of these infringements
d) he is actively dishonest.
To take his claims of not following a “statist” ideology seriously, we have to assume one or more of these:
a) he does not consider these infringements to liberty “statist”
b) he has a different definition of “statism” to you and me
c) he is ignorant of these infringements
d) he is actively dishonest.
I’m sure Goldberg, if pressed, would answer “a”, with possibly a dash of “b” if he is being more honest than usual. Pressed for an explaination why this it is the case that some infringements which he loathes are tyranny, whilst others that he endorses are simply the product of a healthy state, he would not reply with anything substantial, except to reference the Simpsons and tell you what an obvious liberal moron you are.
It’s also the point about the conservative movement in general. They cry liberty but their ideal state has the whiff of necessary draconian policing about it; a state in which you could buy whatever you want but if you were expressing sympathies for the poor in a public forum, you could expect a swift water cannon, and what do you expect, you lousy hippy. They lionise a lost golden age that never was; they want the liberty to do what they want, even if it infringes upon other people’s liberty. They want the liberty to be utterly selfish; they want the key to the candy shop, to stuff their faces and gorge themselves and not only have no-one stop them, but have no-one tell them to stop, since it would focus their mind on the growing ache in their bloated, heaving abdomens, and their own role in making themselves this way.
Personal responsibility is nothing to do with responsibility for anything; it’s a tribalist phrase that simply means that the poor should realise they’re poor because they’re losers, and so they should suck. on. it. You think any of these yahoos would ever suggest that a single trader on Wall Street should take responsibility for the mess? Rich people are rich because they’re winners. And winners get to do what they want; this is the rich people’s justification and mentality as well, apart from a few worthies. This is probably one of the reasons why they’re so scared of Obama; he’s a winner, and now he can loot with Nixonian (or Bushite) rapacity.
It was telling that in David Neiwert’s exchange with Goldberg, he never addressed the simple fact that modern fascist organisations are located squarely, and share many members with, the wingnuttiest of the wingnuts. Modern American conservatism, even if it shares no other characteristic with fascism (a stretch, I know), shares the fact that both are philosophies of indulgence. People used to getting their own way cry foul when things turn against their position, and they will fight any invisible enemy to keep it, except those which are simply the processes of the world we live in. They’re not personal enough, and so the people fighting a losing battle lash out at the Jews, or the liberals, or the left, or democracy, or anything that’s “failed”, by which they mean “failed to keep them in their rightful position”. It’s personal. And that’s why they’re foaming so.
Damn. That was a bit serious. Dick jokes coming soon!
Percyprune,
Don’t know why, but you actually have to spell out “strike” rather than just using “s”.
Just one of the various triggers for the ubiquitous “fywp”.
Like this?Maybe then he’ll turn his anger from Obama to the health insurance industry.
Sounds like you haven’t read enough of the Shorters here.
Shorter Meta-Shorter Of All Wingnut Rants: Everything is the fault of the evil libs.
Could be worse. I wrote a long and, dare I say it?
brillianthalfway decent post, full of strikeouts, at Orcinus recently only to discover upon previewing that strike tags don’t work there. I tried it multiple ways but they simply disappeared in the text upon hitting preview. (And I have to say that as much as I fywp the instant preview rocks.)I do not know why I am defending wp this morning. It must be backwards day or something. Oh, well, I’m off to my last full week at my unpaid job. Cheers.
Obama is a super-naive surrendercrat who wants to let Iran and Hugo Chavez run the world. So say the kinder conservatives.
The stronger righties contrast the stupid, naive Obama with the wise policies of Bush Jr. As usual, they focus on the America-destroying surrenders which the rest of us miss:
Presumably Chavez rigged the book so that a sign would pop out and say “We Surrender Ha Ha I’m A Dumb Kenyo-Hawaiian” and that is why Texas has to secede to protect us from the Venezuelan-Iranian-North Korean forces on the march.
I also just think they’re insane partisan hacks who will cheerlead for the Republicans/”conservatives” (and against anyone else) regardless. Look at their selective outrage over the DHS report. Also, I read last night that Jane Harman (sp?) was spied on by he NSA. What would they do if the NSA wiretapped (sans warrant) a Republican during Obama’s term? The wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments (h/t Digby) would never end.
Dude blinded me with science. Of course, only government employees actually work FOR the government, serfs directly worked for the lord. Of course, the time spent is an average based on 100% salaried earnings. Of course, after all his wanking he never comes up with an optimal level or a way to determine an optimal level. Dude spends all his time debunking a metaphor.
Wow – I hadn’t really read the Harman story. There is some serious crazy going there, with her: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/20/harman/index.html
Sorry, this comment isn’t funny. I should probably never come back.
Leaving aside issues of grammatical correctness, as I am entirely ignorant of Japanese grammar anyways, I would argue that Yoshida-ra has an aesthetic correctness to it.
Mothra was clearly the most ridiculous of the giant movie monsters, and Yoshidara the most ridiculous of the giant, Cheetos-stained, tightly whitey wearing wingnut horrors.
Obama certainly doesn’t help convince us he’s not a socialist by smiling and hugging a petty dictator. A strong leader wouldn’t do that, Reagan certainlyo wouldn’t!
Reagan reserved his hugs for real tyrants, like Soviet leaders and Guatemalan genocidal generals.
Jonah Goldberg is to punditry what George W Bush is to politics.
Fudgie got borned on third base thinkin’ he hit a triple.
Reagan would never hug a petty dicatator; he would wait until the dictator died and then hold a memorial and lay a wreath on his grave.
Obama certainly doesn’t help convince us he’s not a socialist by smiling and hugging a petty dictator. A strong leader wouldn’t do that, Reagan certainlyo wouldn’t!
Ya mean like Ferdinand Marcos?
Reagan reserved his hugs for real tyrants, like Soviet leaders and Guatemalan genocidal generals.
Don’t forget that he metaphorically hugged Osama bin Laden by funding Al Queda.
And who can forget the hearty metaphorical hug he gave Iran by selling them missiles?
Actually the closest hug that Raygun made is when he was pooping into his Adult Huggies during the last 7 1/2 years of his reign.
Or Noriega?
What mean “us”, white man?
Nobody thinks Obama is a “socialist” except the 20% or so of the wingnut brigade who hate him. So the rest of “us” don’t need any “convincing” in the first place.
Obama’s doing exactly what he said he would do when he was running for the office. He won by a large margin, and now he’s doing what he was elected to do.
You see, my pride in my country doesn’t depend on the president doing some useless, faux-tough guy kabuki posturing on the world stage. A “strong leader” gets things done, and leads the way he promised he would lead when he ran for the job.
Samoza?
Pinochet?
No, Reagan never embraced a dictator, ever.
A Soviet leader was the leader of a Superpower, not some pissant socialist from a country of zero importance like Venezuela.
It’s a sad day to be an American when our President can’t turn his back on a petty dictator, who is also one of the most anti-American leaders in the world.
But of course, Obama sat through Rev. Wrights sermons for 20 years, so I’m not really surprised. He also “sought out” Marxist professors according to his book, so being buddies with Chavez is just a form of that, too.
How is sucking up to a guy who said “Go to hell you shit yankees”? getting things done?
“Obama certainly doesn’t help convince us he’s not a socialist by smiling and hugging a petty dictator. A strong leader wouldn’t do that, Reagan certainlyo wouldn’t!”
He’d just sell shit to them.
Just amit Chavez is a scumbag. Are you so in the tank for your guy you can’t even do that?
Our Republican presidents are better because they hug dictators that kill a large percentage of the poor citizens of their respective countries. We Republicans approve of this because of the high value we put on killing people we don’t like or whom we consider poor.
In contrast, that icky Obama hugged a dictator who was re-elected in a landslide election and helps the poor people in his country.
As we Republicans know, Jesus said in the Bible that this is the kind of thing that he hated.
Hugo Chavez isn’t anti-American. He’s not anti-me. He actually helps regular Americans with heating oil — you know, old and poor people that Republicans don’t give a sh*t about.
Republicans are too busy sucking up to Communist China to need to worry about Hugo Chavez. Besides, their love of lower fuel economy standards helped Hugo Chavez enormously, so, if anything, Hugo Chavez probably secretly appreciates the dumbass moron thieves DBA the “Republican” Party.
You stupid libs and your “facts”. I don’t answer any of them, nor do I try to refute the evidence you bring that shows I am a brainless idiot.
Shorter El Cid:
I hear Mussolini makes the trains run on time! How bad can he be?
OH MAN THIS GUY HAS TOTALLY SHOWN ME THE LIGHT
BRB VOTING REPUBLICAN
some pissant socialist from a country of zero importance like Venezuela.
As opposed to some pissant despot from a country of zero importance like Saudi Arabia? Venezuela is the fourth largest exporter of oil to the US right behind Saudi Arabia (Canada & Mexico are 1 & 2). Really want to do some fact checking before making a total ass of yourself.
You know, Mussolini never actually did make the trains run on time.
The world is black and white, consisting of these two groups:
*) the people that Rush, Glenn, Sean, etc tell me to hate
*) the people that I hate on my own, like my neighbor with the Obama bumper sticker or my commie pastor who tells me to donate to the poor
Silly me. I forgot. China good, Venezuela bad.
Just amit Chavez is a scumbag.
When you admit that Reagan created the Taliban and Al Qaeda, funded genocidal maniac despots in Guatemala, El Salvador, & Nicaragua, embraced every fascist tinpot despotic dictator in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, and illegally sold arms to both Iran and the Nicaraguan Contras, while facilitating the expansion of the cocaine trade and the rise of crack, then I will consider it.
DrDick—
I wasn’t a big fan of Obama meekly bowing before the Saudi King, either. As for your ignorant Reagan comments, he did what he had to do to win the Cold War. You must be too young to remember what it was like.
As for your ignorant Reagan comments, he did what he had to do to win the Cold War
The old “ends justify the means” excuse, beloved of every fascist apologist since repigs made fascism so fashionable among the low-income/low-intelligence/high-hate-filled segment of the US population.
As for your ignorant Reagan comments, he did what he had to do to win the Cold War.
Sit around and eat jellybeans while the Soviet Union self-destructed?
Reagan couldn’t just sit idly by and let Communism take over the hemisphere. If he had done that we’d still be living in a world with the Soviet Union and imperial Communism intact, or worse, a world in which the Soviet Union is the only Superpower.
I wasn’t a big fan of Obama meekly bowing before the Saudi King, either.
Cue Teh Great Gazoogle.
Reagan couldn’t just sit idly by and let Communism take over the hemisphere.
raygun had nothing to do with the fall of the USSR.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090120222745AAly6Mk
…he did what he had to do to win the Cold War. You must be too young to remember what it was like.
I remember! It was sheer hell, that’s what it was. Why I spent the first 20 years of my life underground, paralyzed with fear. Thank god for St. Ronnie. He saved us all.
Your hero FDR had to ally with Stalin, one of the biggest mass-murderes of the 20th Century, to defeat the Nazis. Sometimes you have to ally with unsavory people to get rid of a worse enemy, and that’s what Reagan did in Latin America. No different than FDR being allies with Stalin in WWII.
You must be too young to remember what it was like
American-style Capitalism (with a boost from Japanese High Tech) was producing Macintoshes, the PC AT, 286, 386, while the Soviet planned economy was struggling to copy Apple IIs with 1970s technology.
I remember exactly what it was like. Communism was fucked. It was obvious to everyone with a brain, which included Gorbachev.
Yahoo answers? Real scholarly source there!
What DrDick said.
Troy– You must be smart enough to be against Obama’s Soviet-style economic policy, then! It will have the same end result for us–strangling of innovation and new technology by the heavy hand of Big Government.
Libertarian Republican is obviously a Royal Libertarian.
The distribution of ownership of natural resources — who owned the land and the mines vs. who just worked them — was mind-boggingly unjust in 20th Century Latin America, and of course American interests had a lot to do with establishing that condition.
strangling of innovation and new technology by the heavy hand of Big Government.
Do you know what the NIH and the NSF are? The government pays out billions and billions of dollars to people doing innovative research every year.
wasn’t a big fan of Obama meekly bowing before the Saudi King,
But you had no problem with George W. Bush strolling with his *family friend*, the Saudi King, through the bluebonnets.
We get it. You don’t like Democrats. You have no real reasons why, other than you think you’ll be top dog in a dog-eat-dog world (not an uncommon delusion amongst spoiled brat Republicans these days).
What is a “Libertarian Republican”? Is that like a Jew for Jesus?
Yahoo answers? Real scholarly source there!
But too hard for you to refute. My facts stand. Your precious raygun had nothing to do with the fall of the USSR.
trangling of innovation and new technology by the heavy hand of Big Government.
FUD, that’s all Republicans got these days.
I’m actually a left-libertarian, so I want to see more government involvement in that which is required to become and remain a productive member of society — education, medical care, transportation. The recent train infrastructure initiative is a good start.
A pure economy is an economy of the 19th century. The bulk of the American rise of the 20th century was done with class-warfare -level of progressive taxation in place. Didn’t stop us from kicking the world’s ass in technology R&D.
The fact is that the inventors don’t worry about high taxes, only rentiers do. Free market laissez faire capitalism has just as many rentiers as the worst Communist model. Rentiers — people profiting not from labor but from wealth or sociopolitical position — are what kills an economy.
You must be smart enough to be against Obama’s Soviet-style economic policy, then! It will have the same end result for us–strangling of innovation and new technology by the heavy hand of Big Government.
Actually, shitferbrains, most innovations come out of publicly funded research. Big Pharma, for instance, spends virtually nothing on innovation, just on getting drugs past the FDA. The world doesn’t work the way you think it does, and you are so insulated in safety by the very government you despise that you don’t even realize it.
N.C.–
The government had nothing to do with th e innovative technologies of Steve Jobs and Bill
GittlePig–
The Saudi King was treating President Bush as an equal and friend. Obama signaled that he is INFERIOR to the Saudi King by meekly and humbly bowing before him.
“Reagan couldn’t just sit idly by and let Communism take over the hemisphere.”
Then, by this argument, dealing with what you consider to be a tyrannical dictator (!) in Chavez to get oil means we don’t have to import as much from the states which support (for a given value of support, but hey we’re playing by your rules here) Islamic terrorism. Or vice versa.
So which is worse, and so which should we ally with, Lib Rep? Chavez or Islam?
There’s no such thing as a “left libertarian”, libertarians are right wingers.
“So which is worse, and so which should we ally with, Lib Rep? Chavez or Islam?”
Chavez is ALREADY allied with Islamofascists, like Ahmadinnerjacket or however you spell his name.
The government had nothing to do with th e innovative technologies of Steve Jobs and Bill
Bullshit. Gate’s government contracts contributed quite a bit to his bottom line.
The Saudi King was treating President Bush as an equal and friend.
Now I know how you stupid repigs greet your “equals” – you tongue them.
Go away, idiot. You’re ruining this thread.
“The government had nothing to do with th e innovative technologies of Steve Jobs and Bill”
Dude, ARPAnet.
“Chavez is ALREADY allied with Islamofascists, like Ahmadinnerjacket or however you spell his name.”
So, then, by your suggestion, we should try and split off the least worst of these so they can help us defeat the other. Least worst option, after all.
So which is worse, Lib Rep, and which should we ally with? Chavez or Islam?
The government had nothing to do with th e innovative technologies of Steve Jobs and Bill
The government sure helped out a lot. For example, Bill Gates’ Microsoft was the first to push an Internet-enabled operating system to consumers, and we all know who created the Internet.
And of course, all American entrepreneurs benefit from public services provided by the government, like education, transportation and law enforcement.
The government had nothing to do with th e innovative technologies of Steve Jobs and Bill
Silicon Valley was funded with NASA and DOD programs. No Silicon Valley, no Steve, no Microsoft in the 1970s.
You evil libs have refuted all my statements again, so I’m about to move the goal posts again.
Mind you, this is the guy trying to start up an Obama Death List, so, y’know.
There’s no such thing as a “left libertarian”, libertarians are right wingers.
Because Civil Liberties are an exclusively right-wing concept.
Because nothing is more libertarian than demanding ideological purity.
Because you’re all dirty fucking hippies, that’s why.
I can hear the goalposts grinding as we speak!
As for your ignorant Reagan comments, he did what he had to do to win the Cold War.
Reagan nearly lost the Cold War we’d been winning for forty years, asshat.
And Lib Rep, tell that “there’s no such thing as a left-libertarian” stuff to Kevin Carson.
Dude could use something funny to giggle at.
I can hear the goalposts grinding as we speak!
Oh so that’s the squeaky noise? I thought my chair needed some tightening.
As for your ignorant Reagan comments, he did what he had to do to win the Cold War.
I must have missed the part where Reagan rode into Moscow with the 3rd Armor Division.
Guys like LibRep give real Libertarians like me a bad name.
90 percent of Libertarians give the other 10 percent a bad name.
On a related note, Breitbart always lines up a “gimme” every Monday in the MoonieTimes. Today is no exception -complete with his take on the “TeaParties. http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/20/question-democratic-authority-not/?page=2
My favorite part:
So the “Wars” officially were resolved on Jan. 20, 2009, I presume.Good to know… and carry on.
90 percent of Libertarians give the other 10 percent a bad name.
It does seem to collect the self-indulgent and most puerile sectors of the greedy capitalist collective.
Is this not just the dreamiest picture you’ve ever seen? What I wouldn’t give to be sandwiched in between Hugito and Mahmoud.
Venga a camaradas, unen este grupo glorioso conmigo.
Like I was saying above, a hell of a lot of these “libertarians”, at least the ones who are just Republicans who hate taxes even more that usual, have a philosophy of total indulgence and absence of responsibility.
First two are just rehashed Paultard bullshit. Three is maybe teh ultimate stoopid for the Professor of Sophistry, but four…oh my.
Accepting a book –”The Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent,” by Eduardo Galeana [sic] – may seem inconsequential. But it’s an indication that Obama can be rolled by America’s adversaries.
He should instead have looked deep into Chavez’ eyes and seen his soul. That always works great for making accurate assessments of heads of state so as to avoid being tricked by them.
Someone quoted Kim Stanley Robertson (?) the other day with a clearer version of what has always been my observation: Economic libertarians (which is what our retarded friend is, since “no left libertarians” means no social libertarians in his world) want anarchy with police protection of their money.
Screw that. If you want anarchy, that’s fine, but if you get the right to screw little old ladies out of their money then I want the right to filet you like a trout.
The left isn’t even social libertarian.
Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, smoking bans, etc, all “social” aspects of the Nanny State supported by liberals.
if you get the right to screw little old ladies out of their money then I want the right to filet you like a trout.
You’d have it – you just have to offer the police more money than he does.
Here’s the ultimate “test”” to see if you’re a “social” libertarian:
What do you think about laws banning cockfighting?
“What do you think about laws banning cockfighting?”
Hey, what two men get up to in the privacy of their own home is no business of mine.
What do you think about laws banning cockfighting?
Your unspoken assumption is that non-human animals have no rights. I wasn’t aware that that was a plank of libertarianism. That sounds more like a position on religion to me.
But, joking aside, it’s pretty weird for the litmus test for libertarianism being cockfighting.
If we were to say, ending the war on drugs, or stopping wiretapping, or yeah, stopping all this smoking ban nonsense, then yeah, fair enough, I’m down with that.
But I’m nonplussed as to the true standard of liberty being two chickens fighting each other to the death.
I mean, it’s not as if Patrick Henry said “Give me cockfighting or give me death”
Shorter Libertarian Republican:
Waaaaah! He talked to the girls on the other side of the school cafeteria!
And I have no problem whatsoever with taking away helmet laws, AS LONG AS THE RIDER AGREES TO PAY 100% OF ACCIDENT RELATED MEDICAL CARE.
See, there’s that bit you always forget – I’m having to pay for someone else’s stupidity though public emergency rooms. That’s not libertarian, that’s “I want a free lunch”, which is the true name of your particular philosophy.
I moved the goal posts and you libs continued to argue with me!
I’m about to declare victory and leave. Soon, very soon. Let me move the goal posts one or two more times first.
I’m trying to think of what the angle on this will be. It’s un-libertarian to ban cockfighting because … it infringes on someone’s right to make roosters fight each other for profit? Is this an entrepreneurial thing?
”
But, joking aside, it’s pretty weird for the litmus test for libertarianism being cockfighting.”
It’s the perfect test! It involves property rights, freedom of association, and the defense of an unpopular activity that nevertheless doesn’t hurt anyone except maybe the people involved in it.
But I’m nonplussed as to the true standard of liberty being two chickens fighting each other to the death.
Makes total sense when you realize that the stupid repigs worship chicken (hawks).
Republicans didn’t care enough about the deficit when it went up a “little” [!!!!] under Bush (to pay for a war), therefore they can’t complain when Obama sends it through the stratosphere [!!!!!] (to pay for socialized medicine)? How does that work? If my wife spends too much on a shopping trip, does that mean she can’t complain if I lose our house on a trip to Vegas?
Heh, no. It means if you lose a ton of money gambling in an unwinnable game, you don’t get to complain when your wife starts buying fabric to make her own clothes for the new job she had to get to pay your debts.
AND NO HATING ON MOTHRA!
Nothing brings out the nanny stater in a leftist like animal “rights”.
I”m “pro-choice” on animal rights. It’s a personal belief whether or not they have rights, and should be left up to the owner of the property to decide.. Much like abortion.
“property rights”
One is assuming that all libertarian thought involves the curiously ultra-Lockean contracturalism that right-libertarians use. One is incorrect.
“doesn’t hurt anyone except maybe the people involved in it.”
I wasn’t aware the cocks involved had either signed a contract or given their free consent to being hurt. Of course, they can’t, but I think you can see the germ of a problem here, even under ultra-Lockean contracturalism.
nevertheless doesn’t hurt anyone except maybe the people involved in it.
Then you don’t mind if I put a cock-fighting ring in the house right next to yours, do you?
You yourself said it doesn’t hurt anybody.
You stupid repigs are even stupider than Pantload. Now I understand how he got a writing gig (well, anyway, that and his mother giving blowjobs to all the editors)
Bring up animal “rights”, or “public health” and watch the liberals try to outdo eachother on being the most totalitarian.
“Then you don’t mind if I put a cock-fighting ring in the house right next to yours, do you?”
Nope.
I”m “pro-choice” on animal rights. It’s a personal belief whether or not they have rights, and should be left up to the owner of the property to decide.. Much like abortion.
So I can kill you consequence free?
“I wasn’t aware the cocks involved had either signed a contract or given their free consent to being hurt.”
You know who else doesn’t?
“Fetuses. So I guess you’re pro-life now?
LittlePig–
All humans hae rights. Whether chickens or fetuses, etc, have “rights” or not is very much up for debate.
You thought I was going to move the goalposts, but I just went out and got me a whole new set of posts! Take that, libera;lz!
It’s not the chickens fighting he’d object to; it’s that most of the cockfights are attended by Mexicans and other Latin American / Caribbean types.
Last time I checked, dogs and cats don’t give their consent to being owned. Or being neutered, etc.
Against pet ownership, too?
Nope.
Bullshit. You’d be the first idiot whining to the police about all the “undesiraeable
wetbacksillegals congregating.There is the one constant with you stupid repigs: whining.
“It’s not the chickens fighting he’d object to; it’s that most of the cockfights are attended by Mexicans and other Latin American / Caribbean types.”
Another reason it’s the perfect test! The right of ethnic minorities to carry own their cultural practices here even if they are unpopular.
“Fetuses. So I guess you’re pro-life now?
I’d have no problem with that as long as contraception was given the full support of Pharma (i.e. brought up from 40 years behind, as it is now) and was consequence free. I don’t see that happening, so no, the need of people to hold Bronze-Age superstitious beliefs trumps the fetus “right to life”.
Pick-up lines I have learned from wingnuts:
I imagine there are others. These are the ones I know.
You can’t be pro-choice on one hand, and then believe chickens have full rights on the other.
You’re not being consistent, then.
All humans hae rights. Whether chickens or fetuses, etc, have “rights” or not is very much up for debate.
Sperm is just as much a “future baby” as fetuses are. When are you going to stop beating off, you killer of billions?
I still haven’t gotten anything close to a straight answer.
Should cockfighting be legal, or not? Why?
All humans hae rights. Whether chickens or fetuses, etc, have “rights” or not is very much up for debate.
GOALPOST CHANGE! Last paragraph you said it was “personal decision”, now it’s “what everybody believes”. Sounds like you (suddenly) believe in democracy now, i.e. President Barack Obama won, you lost, get over it.
When your rules change post to post, give up saying you have any kind of principles. You want a free lunch. Everything else is rationalization on your part. Man up and own it, Nancy, the world owes you a living!
They’re not chickens. They’re cocks!
Come visit the plaza de toros I have in my backyard.
“You know who else doesn’t?
Fetuses. So I guess you’re pro-life now?”
again, one assumes I am an ultra-Lockean contracturalist like yourself. This is incorrect, and because I’m not is another reason I don’t give a toss about the issue either way.
It’s the perfect test! It involves property rights, freedom of association, and the defense of an unpopular activity that nevertheless doesn’t hurt anyone except maybe the people involved in it.
I think cockfighting hurts the birds involved a lot more than the people.
LittlePig–
Someone who believes fellow humans have no rights is called a “sociopath”/
But it’s perfectly normal to debate whether non-human beings (animals, fetuses, etc) have rights or not. So itwe leave it up for personal debate!
I still haven’t gotten anything close to a straight answer.
Probably because your definition of “straight answer” means only “one that agrees with me”.
Cockfighting violates libertarian standards of “when your rights end” – you don’t get to impose suffering on chickens for entertainment.
“Should cockfighting be legal, or not? Why?”
I have given you a straight answer. I. Don’t. Care. The issue holds no interest for me whatsoever. It is inconsequential to me. If most people want cockfighting legalised, then ok, I’ll go along with them. But I could not care less about any political issue than the legalisation of cockfighting.
You’re not being consistent, then.
How about if I make a totally unsupported blanket statement about how you’re being inconsistent and 100% wrong? Then we’d be even – kind of.
Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, smoking bans, etc, all “social” aspects of the Nanny State supported by liberals.
Yea. Funny thing about us lefty libertarians: we want people to choose life.
“Cockfighting violates libertarian standards of “when your rights end” – you don’t get to impose suffering on chickens for entertainment.”
What about killing a fetus because you don’t want to be bothered with a child? Hmmm?
Logical consistency, people!
All humans have rights.
Yea. The right to remain silent.
Anyway, from what I could glean, before that adbrite shite crashed my browser; the ‘libertarian’ part is just window-dressing. It’s the same tired GOP stuff the powerliners peddle.
Someone who believes fellow humans have no rights is called a “sociopath”/
Yep. And George W. Bush is a sociopath by your definition. A person you freely defend, so you have no inherent problem with sociopathy.
You are picking and choosing what is a “natural right” and what is a “personal choice” based on how it effects you and only you. I think you can join George and I in the sociopath set.
Cynic–
If there was a ballot initiative to legalize cockfighting, would you vote “u”yes” or “no”?
Tell you what, pal. Let’s cram a rooster into your stomach and tell you the only way to get it out live again is to pull it out through your ass. Then you can talk about how cockfighting is so very much like abortion.
I mean, it’s not as if Patrick Henry said “Give me cockfighting or give me death”
Patrick MCHenry, however, might.
I still haven’t gotten anything close to a straight answer.
That’s because the goal posts, your questions, your premises, and your totally evidence-free posts keep moving all over the map.
If there was a ballot initiative to legalize cockfighting
…this country would have sunk lower than a snake’s armpits.
Stop it, just stop it. You’re embarassing yourself.
How old are you, Libertarian Republican?
Bitter–
“Animal rights” people have a lot in common with the pro-life movement and evangelicals. They both want to impose their personal moral beliefs on others using the power of the state. That’s what I’m getting at.
“If there was a ballot initiative to legalize cockfighting, would you vote “u”yes” or “no”?”
I wouldn’t vote on it because I am simply not interested in the matter.
What about killing a fetus because you don’t want to be bothered with a child?
A libertarian who opposes freedom of individual choice. Interesting.
I still haven’t gotten anything close to a straight answer.
Should cockfighting be legal, or not? Why?
The straight answer is that only insecure straight men who “think” with their dicks have cockfights. G. W. Bush, JiSM, John Boner, et. al. are good examples.
My kind of cockfight – this would be the not straight answer – are “fights” only in name.
Nice how you evade the issue, cynic.
I think this thread has aptly illustrated why the left wing cannot be considered “socially” libertarian. They’re just as authoritarian as the social conservatives they claim to hate, just on different matters.
Show of hands: Who thinks LibRep showed up at a teabagging last week with a fresh supply of condoms and was sorely (pun intended) disappointed?
“Animal rights” people have a lot in common with the pro-life movement and evangelicals. They both want to impose their personal moral beliefs on others using the power of the state. That’s what I’m getting at.
The state also imposes your “natural rights”. So again, no state and I’m free to kill you. You both want and don’t want the state at the same time – depending on whether that choice gives you a free lunch.
You, sir, are a spoiled brat.
So the right to inflict pain on animals for the purpose of entertainment is a libertarian talking point? Who knew?
actor212–
I’m pro-choice on abortion.
A libertarian who opposes freedom of individual choice. Interesting.
As the idiot troll stated above, consistency tests are for dirty libs. IOKIYAR
Actually, human fetuses very much do resemble roosters, little womb roosters to be precise, when they pass through the chick phase. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, duh.
Look! I got through an entire comment – about cockfighting even – without once saying PENIS!!
I’m pro-property rights, period, which is why I’m pro-choice. You own your body.
I
I think this thread has aptly illustrated why the left wing cannot be considered “socially” libertarian. They’re just as authoritarian as the social conservatives they claim to hate, just on different matters.
Horseshit. Your ideas on cockfighting are inconsistent with libertarian ideas of force. There’s noting “libertarian” about your codswallop.
Your a “Freelunchian Republican”. But then that’s redundant.
I’m thinking the troll is Michael Vick.
Please don’t forget the point of Lib Rep’s argument:
In terms of “liberty”, being against cockfighting is much worse than warrantless wiretapping. Being pro-animal rights makes you against liberty whereas, the no-fly list for example, protects your liberty.
I’m pro-choice on abortion.
You should carry a sign – large! – at the next teabagging party stating your beliefs.
I’ll bring the popcorn for all the S,N! folks that come to watch the festivities after you do this.
How are the inconsistent with ideas about “force”?
non-aggression principle only applies to human beings. Not fetuses or chickens (which are PROPERTY)!
So, are you the same guy from the Libertarian Republican website that’s featured here?
Careful what you say, everyone, or you might get hit with a head-spinning liable lawsuite!
I’m pro-choice on abortion.
I’m not interested in the opinions of a self-involved, self-indulgent puerile knucklehead with delusions of being some “god opf vengeance”.
The only reason I bother mocking you is your making the clam dip turn sour, so shut up and move along, mmmmmmmmmmmmK, Sheila?
“In terms of “liberty”, being against cockfighting is much worse than warrantless wiretapping.”
I’d say its about equal.
Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, duh.
Yes and no. The original theory has been discredited but as recently as the 1970’s my Embryology prof. was beating the idea into our heads.
“Nice how you evade the issue, cynic.”
…Um, I didn’t. I said the issue of whether or not to legalise cockfighting is not an issue I’m interested in, on either side, and I’m thus prepared to leave it to other people to decide. I don’t see why it’s so terrible that I might just not care about this issue.
“They both want to impose their personal moral beliefs on others using the power of the state. That’s what I’m getting at.”
You believe it is right and moral to have absolute property rights. Others may disagree. I’m quite sure you would use the power of the state to enforce these absolute property rights.
St. Doc–
No, I’m not, I only read the site.
non-aggression principle only applies to human beings. Not fetuses or chickens (which are PROPERTY)!
Says who? is that one of those “natural rights” the state has to impose for you?
non-aggression principle only applies to human beings.
Note that George Bush did not subscribe to this belief.
I don’t see why it’s so terrible that I might just not care about this issue.
Horrors! How could you not care about the glaring social problem of cockfighting????
Oh! Oh! I do believe I am having an attack of the vapors! Where is my fainting couch????
No, I’m not, I only read the site.
Ah, well you’re clearly getting your information from an intellectual heavyweight.
Um…. yeah.
Well yes LittlePiug. The state (the ONLY purpose of the state) is to protect life and property and liberty.
“In terms of “liberty”, being against cockfighting is much worse than warrantless wiretapping.”
I’d say its about equal.
Now you’ve REALLY convinced me of your intellectural cojones. I bow in your direction. No repig has ever been as stupid as you. You win the Idiot Of The Day contest.
The state (the ONLY purpose of the state) is to protect life and property and liberty.
So then you agree that OSHA, the EPA, the FDA, and FEMA are all good things and need to be fully funded and even expanded?
And you will see that my moral philosophy is entirely consistent, unlike liberals who pick and choose.
No rights for fetuses, but full rights for chickens!
No intervention in Iraq, but intervention in Sudan!
Anyway I think I’ve done a pretty good job of exposing your internal inconsistincies and pointing out at the same time why leftists aren’t “socially” liberal. Later, motherfuckers!
What is your definition property? What liberty? From where do these natural rights come from?
Not that I’m necessarily disagreeing on all matters. I’d like to see what answers you would come up with for these questions. From a philosophical perspective.
I am pro-cock fighting: penis fencing should be an Olympic sport. I am pro strap-ons to allow women to compete as well.
Okay, cockfighting and abortion.
I am pro strap-ons to allow women to compete as well.
Fucking nanny state Title IXer…
I’d say its about equal.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAH! Phail, buddy. Epic. Phail.
Disallowing cockfighting is the about equal to unlimited centralized state surveillance.
Give my stuff liberty or give me death!
Nobody who owns a rooster faces the choice of either making it fight or having it pass through his body in a profoundly painful and possibly catastrophic biological event. That’s why it’s an asinine analogy to compare cockfighting laws with abortion, unless you’re operating on the infantile level of “anyone who prevents me from doing something I want to do is oppressing me.”
Well yes LittlePiug. The state (the ONLY purpose of the state) is to protect life and property and liberty.
And property is whatever you say it is? See, that’s where the wiggle room comes into the argument. You want “a state”. Since there is no such thing as a state in the real world, what you really mean is a bunch of people that agree on certain rules. Right now the majority of people want “the state” to be more intrusive….so, you lose.
More people care about the welfare of old folks and little kids rather than the right of a few *true* sociopaths seeing how much of the local fiat they can collect before they croak. That’s “the State” as it is today. Get over it.
“anyone who prevents me from doing something I want to do is oppressing me.”
That is the level we’re talking about, of course. Like I said before – a philosophy of pure indulgence.
I love our adorable little glibertarian trolls. Keep fighting the good fight, you rosy-cheeked sweetheart.
And you will see that my moral philosophy is entirely consistent, unlike liberals who pick and choose.
That reminds me of a famous saying of one of our late Governors, a certain Orval Faubus: “Just because I said it doesn’t make it so”.
Well then, tig, this NSFW one is for you.
That is the level we’re talking about, of course. Like I said before – a philosophy of pure indulgence.
What “Libertarians” often forget is that the father of individual liberties, John Stuart Mill, never spoke about property:
“The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right…The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns him, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
I am pro-cock fighting: penis fencing should be an Olympic sport. I am pro strap-ons to allow women to compete as well.
In sabre one can score with the point as well as the edge of the blade. In épée and foil, only the point counts. Remember that when you’re practicing at home!
Cockfighting is legal in Venezuela. Score one for the Bolivarian Libertarian Republic!
It worked on preview, dammit. Yeah, yeah, I know the code.
It’s the same tired GOP stuff the powerliners peddle.
Yup. Same bozotic tripe brought to you by the people who built a cult of personality around George W. Bush.
Cockfighting is legal in Venezuela. Score one for the Bolivarian Libertarian Republic!
But remember, Venezuela is anti-American, because their leader insulted George W. Bush, who is the same thing as America.
The problem for Libertarians, alas, is that John Stuart Mill was a utilitarian, and thus could be convinced quite easily of the necessary trade offs between differing and competing rights, and that it wasn’t quite so morally simple as YAY LIBERTY. This, for yer basic Libertarian who’s read 400 years of people misunderstanding Locke’s contract theories, is difficult to understand. And is thus eeeeeeeeeeeevul.
Later, motherfuckers!
Declare victory and run away!!!!
Okay, you stupid little ignorant piece of shit – I will wallow into your unsound and ridiculous world. I will address your stupid fucking nonsense.
You argue that us crazzzyy libs who want to ban cockfighting (and nor the hawt ghey pr0n kind) should also be for banning abortion…
See, this is where you’ve lost us. Why? What the fuck do cockfighting and abortion have in common? It’s not like us crazy libs are suggesting that an arena be set-up so that aborted foeti can battle to the death for our hedonistically perverted pleasure. We’re not chanting for Extreme Foeti Championship Gladiator Matches, or Ultimate Third Trimester Fighter Events. We’re not saying that there should be PPV’s of placental blobs attempting to choke each other out with their own umbilical cords.
Your comparison is bullshit. Example: I had chicken at dinner last night. I’m not clamoring for LiberalFascism Death Squads to burn down the farm that chicken came from.
And in conclusion, PENIS.
It’s not like us crazy libs are suggesting that an arena be set-up so that aborted foeti can battle to the death for our hedonistically perverted pleasure.
Actually, that’s Fox’s next reality show.
this NSFW one is for you.
I expected full-face safety masks. And much, much less body oil… you couldn’t score a “touch” like so, just a “graze.” So to speak.
John Stuart Mill was a utilitarian
Yup. He opposed slavery, was pro-women’s rights and had a whole host of problems with capitalism, altho he was fundamentally a free market proponent.
The first rule of Foetus Fight Club is you do not talk about Foetus Fight Club…
The problem for Libertarians, alas, is that John Stuart Mill was a utilitarian, and thus …
The problem for libertarians is they’re both stoopid and deranged. It’s that simple.
An interesting guy, though I disagree with him on some points and find him a tad wishy-washy on others (his pamphlet on representative government starts strongly, then falters into elitism). The point is, I can understand that some issues are morally cloudy and you have to muddle along as best you can, and anyone who does have a “coherent moral philosophy” is either a) insane, b) performing insane mental leaps of faith, or c) a mixture of the two.
“The problem for libertarians is they’re both stoopid and deranged. It’s that simple.”
Well, that too.
So basically it says “haha! You don’t believe the same things I do!” and runs away?
Sheesh.
Y’know, “get a brain, morans” really does sum up the rank and file of movement conservatism perfectly these days.
Thank Jebus and his gay husband the FSM they utterly lack self-awareness. It’d be so much less funny if they’d responded to their utter failure with the kind of deep soul searching mature adult humans undertake in the face of utter wrongness.
Also, thanks for the screeching of “socialist”. You’ve almost devalued the word as an insult in the minds of everyone but your fellow travelers, like you rehabilitated the word liberal with overuse.
I was surprised and a bit saddened to hear from my wife that some of her friends went to the teabagging protest in Hot Springs.
I told her “You do realize that this is Arkansas, which recieves more federal money than we send out, right? Maybe your friends should pay their own fucking bills before they badger anybody else about fiscal responsibility”.
Heehee, I know I shouldn’t link to the troll’s site, but they’ve started the Obama death count over at libertarian republican’s place.
HOW MANY WILL HE KILL?!?!?!?!?!
“Your comparison is bullshit. Example: I had chicken at dinner last night. I’m not clamoring for LiberalFascism Death Squads to burn down the farm that chicken came from.”
Why not? Didn’t you violate the chickens “rights” by having it killed, deep frieed, and eaten?
If not how is this different from cock fighting?
The bottom line is that leftists are not “soclibertarian in the least.
Ex., they started the modern Drug War.
HOW MANY WILL HE KILL?!?!?!?!?!
MAYBE IT WAS HIM THAT SHOT VINCE FOSTER!!!!11!!!!!!!1111
doop de doop doop…..
Hey! anyone getting any early hits on how the Wing Nuts are responding to the Jane Harman story? It’s time for true cognitive dissonance, because they’d love to hate her, but it would confirm that Gonzo was unethical.
and this just in – the “agent” she was talking to is supposed to be the guy who created the Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers. Stranger than fiction.
True thing – I attended a sit-down dinner about 6 months ago, and Jane Harman was at my table – actually, she was seated just across from me. She checked her blackberry throughout the meal.
Didn’t you violate the chickens “rights” by having it killed, deep frieed, and eaten?
Roasted actually. And I didn’t violate the chicken’s rights. I violated the chicken’s middle, with lemon and garlic.
But in non-parody Lib Rep’s defense, I just finished eating grilled foeti sandwishes for lunch.
First teabagging, now cock fighting?
Better yet, diffbrad, they’re treating it like fresh news, when the WT article is from a year ago. I’m trying to get the Mr. DocMrs to put up a quick post to mock, but I’m not sure yet if he will.
Department of Redundancy Department: teabagging protest in Hot Springs.
The libertarian concept of “liberty” always sat wrong with me. They want to be free of government regulation when it suits them, but then base the rest of their philosophy on the assumption that government-granted property rights are fixed and inviolable, or that the sanctity of property is “natural law”, neither of which would be true if the government did disappear overnight.
Sandwiches. Geez, venturing into the world of miasma-tarianism fuchks oops mi tipnigs. Arrgghhhh, and “sandwich” is my second favorite word.
What is the “liberal” or “progressive” concept of liberty then, N.C.?
Why do Republicans spend so much time talking about cocks?
Mr. DocMrs
Isn’t that “Mr. Not-a-doctor-but-I-play-one-on-the-internet Doctor Mrs”? Sort of like (etymologically like, not morally or IQ-wise like) Not-Joe the Not-Plumber…
Just because you’re not licensed by the government doesn’t mean you aren’t a plumber.
Licensing laws–another violation of liberty supported by the left.
they’re treating it like fresh news, when the WT article is from a year ago
I can’t go to that site from here. But what are you saying, Doctor Mrs, that Obama killed someone in DC even before he came here?
I’m not surprised, given that he travelled back in time to forge his birth certificate.
Licensing laws–another violation of liberty supported by the left.
Yeah? Try having your house plumbed by an unlicensed plumber. A year later I can guarantee you’ll make an exception of your principles on this.
Libertarian Republican said, April 20, 2009 at 18:50 (unkill) (autopsy)
Didn’t you already win the argument and say “laters loony libs” or whatever?
Can’t stay away from a discussion about cocks, I guess.
Great! When can I come over and fix your plumbing? At least I have one customer.
Try having your house plumbed by an unlicensed plumber.
I’d almost prefer root canal from an unlicensed dentist.
And no, “root canal” is not a veiled PENIS reference.
Is he talking about licensing plumber’s cocks now? Or that he wants free rough trade in cocks? I don’t get it.
Leftists started the modern drug war because white people in Arizona and New Mexico wanted to use marijuana as an excuse to jail Mexicans?
Uhhhhhhh.
I’d almost prefer root canal from an unlicensed dentist.
True, the damage is more easily confined.
What is the “liberal” or “progressive” concept of liberty then, N.C.?
Either a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow or a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad. Been a while since I’ve seen that episode.
Woodrow Wilson ( a liberal and “progressive”) was the first person to outlaw drugs federally. F
Franklin Roosevelt and his Democrat congress outlawed marijuana in in 1937. Prohibtion was always a “progressive” idea.
re: the wretched hive of scum and villainy.
I’m guessing that Jonah is anti-Mos Eisley, since he’s likening it to the Act Now to Stop War and End Racism Coalition. Really it’s hard to tell since applying logical thinking to Pantloadian ejaculations is an exercise in likening cockfighting to abortion.
But from what I can tell, Jonah is using Mos Eisley cantina as an example of evil and frownies and rating zero on your YouTube mashup and “like Ra-ay-ay-ain, on your Wedding Day”.
In a post defending “Libertarianism”.
WHEEEEEEE!
And no, “root canal” is not a veiled PENIS reference.
It is now.
Who references veiled penises? Is that some ultra-modernist Islamic tradition? Or an obscure ancient one?
Licensing laws–another violation of liberty supported by the left.
Sounds like somebody didn’t get the RDA of rat poop in his Wheaties this morning.
Leftists started the modern drug war because white people in Arizona and New Mexico wanted to use marijuana as an excuse to jail Mexicans?
Uhhhhhhh.
This dude has Goldbergian logic down to a fine art.
And Woodrow Wilson was a racist sumbitch that loved him some KKK, so I don’t get the “liberal” “progressive” bit there.
“And Woodrow Wilson was a racist sumbitch that loved him some KKK, so I don’t get the “liberal” “progressive” bit there.”
So? Not much different from Roberty Byrd (D-WV). =)
Making opium illegal – aimed at Chinese immigrants
Making marijuana illegal – aimed at Mexican immigrants
Making cocaine illegal – aimed at (involuntary) African immigrants
Now, what party today is all het up about immigrants? Why, I do believe that would be the Republicans.
Who references veiled penises?
Hooded, um, something or others. Ask a doctor…preferably a doctor mrs.
So? Not much different from Roberty Byrd (D-WV). =)
Nope. What’s your point?
Meanwhile, in other “news”, Outrage promises to out a prominent republican. Rumors now swirling that it’s Charlie Crist.
Any of you NY folks planning on viewing?
Actually, the big difference is that Byrd apologized for and denounced his former racism, unlike avid racist Woodrow Wilson. That’s the only reason Republicans hate Byrd. They love people who never renounce their racist past, like segregationist + brown sugar lover Strom Thurmond.
But then, Wilson was a Southerner by birth and raisin’, with a good Confederate father, and as we know, Southern white conservatives have a thing for racism. To this day, Southern Republicans’ first love is for treason and secession, unless money gets in the way.
“Progressives” supported making drugs illegal for the same reason they want seatbelt laws and want to ban trans-fat and foie gras/.
See, Libertarian Republican, everybody here realizes that prior to 1968 all the racists went with the Democratic Party. After 1968 all the racists went to the Republican Party.
So that fact that Woodrow Wilson was a horrible racist while belonging to the Democratic party in the 1910s doesn’t cast aspersions on any modern Democrats. And as El Cid noted, Byrd chose to admit his fault and stay in the Democratic party rather than keep his racist leanings and become a Republican.
Republicans support treason against the United States of America. What’s your point?
Woodrow Wilson, the guy that created the FDA, The Fed, federal labor laws, and greatly expanded government power is now a conservative? Lol./
Who cares?
Who cares?
Joy-riding geese.
And no, that’s not a veiled PENIS reference.
My understanding is that the first attempts to regulate now illegal drugs came under Theodore Roosevelt, with the Pure Food and Drug Act(direct progenitor of the FDA), the first of the International Opium Commissions, and the appointment of Dr. Hamilton Wright as the first Opium Commissioner. By the time Wilson took office, 46 states already regulated cocaine.
And gues what?
TR was a “progressive”.
He was on segregation and race. He was a conservative like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond were on civil rights and racial equality. Everyone has their pet subjects.
Woodrow Wilson, the guy that created the FDA, The Fed, federal labor laws, and greatly expanded government power is now a conservative? Lol./
No, he was a racist, which you were using to imply that Democrats *are* racist in the present. Wilson’s racism is conservative, both in the traditional sense of the time and in terms of modern Democratic/Republican party alignment.
People are more complex than labels. Unfortunately your mental capacity doesn’t allow you to handle that idea.
The only racipromoted in politicxs today is Affirmative Action and racial quotas, advocated by liberals and “progressives”/
TR was a “progressive”.
Yep, he hated the big trusts that you are so valiantly defending today. Republican in 1910 doesn’t mean what Republican means today.
Meanwhile, in other “news”, Outrage promises to out a prominent republican. Rumors now swirling that it’s Charlie Crist.
Doesn’t the term “outing” imply that everybody doesn’t know it already?
Joy-riding geese.
And no, that’s not a veiled PENIS reference.
Ahem.
“The only racism promoted”.
The only racipromoted in politicxs today is Affirmative Action and racial quotas, advocated by liberals and “progressives”/
False, or else the monkey/Hitler/big pimpin’ signs at the tea parties last week wouldn’t have existed.
I’m sorry you are scared of having to compete with black folk on an equal basis (or will if they ever get there). Sorry, but your white privilege leg-up from the government has to go away. Man up.
<veil>PENIS</veil>
Libertarian Republican sounds like me when I was twelve. “No, the law has No Right to force southern restaurant owners to serve black people on their Private Property. Private Property trumps everything.”
Of course I had no concept of the complexity of government, society and the economy at that time. I thought every question could be answered by invoking Private Property like the name of God, full stop.
As soon as I began learning about environmental problems, it was revealed to me that no man is an island, even if he has a deed to one. You can’t put up a wall to keep your toxic waste out of other people’s air and water. You can’t leech off the protection provided by government, and enjoy all the benefits of schools that educate workers, infrastructure that allows delivery of the supplies needed to produce your goods, and laws that prevent someone from building a cockfighting venue next to your KFC franchise while refusing to honor the humanity of all your fellow citizens. We will forever be balancing conflicting rights among the creatures of earth. There is no escape from this very difficult task.
Someone upthread asked how old Libertarian Republican is. My guess would be about twelve.
Also, I think that whether or not to allow pit bull fighting would be a better challenge to separate the true Libertarians from everybody else. A lot of people don’t have feelings about the treatment of chickens, so it’s easier to be indifferent about cockfighting.
Apparently Ron Paul shares Libertarian Republican’s classification of animals as property and nothing but property, with no more rights than a used kleenex. He didn’t talk about that much during the campaign, did he?
http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2007/12/ron-paul.html
Apparently if all Congress had voted like Ron Paul on laws curbing cruelty to animals, Michael Vicks wouldn’t have had to serve federal time. If all state legislatures voted like Ron Paul, Michael Vicks could have opened up dog fight rings in every state of the union–at least wherever useless liberals didn’t pass zoning laws against it. Or are zoning laws also evil restrictions on my endless liberty?
I’m sure the neighbors would be ok with us raising chickens in our tiny city backyard for the eggs. Because they would be free to stage pit bull fights in their basement every Saturday night.
Ex., they started the modern Drug War.
Richard Nixon was a leftist?!?!?!?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Nixon was a moderate RINO.
Just because you’re not licensed by the government doesn’t mean you aren’t a plumber.
Actually, it does.
Just as not passing your (governmentally sanctioned and enforced) medical boards means you are not a doctor.
Nixon was a moderate RINO.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
*catching breath*
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
the guy that created the FDA
A libertarian dream. A way government can protect the individual’s life.
I’m suprised you are critical of this, LibRepPuppy
You stupid libs. I’ve proven all my points, which are as follows:
*) I love non-sequitors, and
*) changing the subject constantly, and
*) asking lots of questions but not answering any, and
*) declaring victory and running away.
Yes, Nixon was an Eisenhower Republican. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Nixon was a moderate RINO.
Because he didn’t fuck little boys?
Yes, Nixon was an Eisenhower Republican. Sorry to burst your bubble.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Stop! Stop! It hurts! I’m laughing too hard!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
He also had a Democrat Congress that pushed those drug laws through.
“Progressive” is not interchangeable with either “liberal” or “Democrat.” And it’s not like Taft moved the other way. Nor did Harding(signed law creating Federal Narcotics Control Board), Coolidge(created government hospitals at which to confine addicts), Hoover(created Bureau of Narcotics), all the way up to Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes. Not one Republican has been any better on this issue.
Ok Actor212, in what sense was Nixon a right wing conservative on domestic policy? Hmm?
In fact the libertarian party came into being in 1972 because Nixon was TOO MODERATE! Same reason Reagan cha ra
In fact the libertarian party came into being in 1972 because Nixon was TOO MODERATE! Same reason Reagan ran against Ford in ’76.
Simple, LibRep.
Apart from the fact that he was an out-and-out hawk in his prosecution of the Vietnam war until it was clear it was a no-win situation, Nixon used to blame the LEFT for his failures and even had a leftist enemies list!
My god, chump, how idiotic are you?
In fact the libertarian party came into being in 1972 because Nixon was TOO MODERATE!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Suddenly, Lyndon LaRouche was the more conservative choice to Richard Nixon???
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
We’re talking about a guy who instituted wage and price controls and created the EPA, for Gods sake!
created the EPA
Protection of life is sacrosanct for libertarians. Even you said so.
After all, you got on our cases for eating chicken!
One would think you’d support an agency who’s mandate is to protect life of all consciousnesses.
I, for one, have no problem with idly wondering as I board an airplane whether it was serviced by unlicensed mechanics or whether the pilot has been certified as capable of flying that kind of plane. It would be fascist to impose limits on the airline’s right to hire the cheapest labor by making them meet federally mandated hiring standards. After a few dozen crashes consumers will know which airlines are safer, and, voila! The invisible hand manages things much better than some FAA. Of course the same thing goes for brain surgeons.
created the EPA
Ergo, Nixon is a libertarian. Worse, he’s a conservative libertarian.
…and created the EPA
Hey!
Lib Repig-
My goodness what a mass of stupid you have managed to deposit while I was busy working. I cannot even begin to count all the factual errors in that load of tripe (well, actually I can, but I have much better things to do with my time). I will only address two. First, I am in fact old enough to have been drafted by Nixon, you on the other hand seem too brain damaged to remember what actually happened. Second, dogs and cats did in a sense volunteer to be owned, or at least their ancestors did. They are what are known as autodomesticants, that is they domesticated themselves in order to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by living with humans. Only two species known to have done that (if we exclude libertarians). If you had said cattle or sheep, you would have been correct.
Of course the same thing goes for brain surgeons.
Indeed the results of unregistered Plumber/airline pilots/ brain surgeons are on this page to see in the form of Libertarian Republican’s fine postings.
“Monkey wrench please, nurse”
Just wait. If an unlicensed surgeon leaves a sponge in LibRep’s chest cavity, he will be the first in line for OMFG TEH AMBULANCE CHASING TRIAL LAWYERS!!!111eleventy!!1 to file his multimillion dollar malpractice claim.
And trial lawyers have to be LICENSED!!!!
We’re through the looking glass here people
Ah but, quis licentiat ipsos licentias? Hmmm?
WOLVERINES!
“Monkey wrench please, nurse”
Now that is a veiled PENIS reference.
Now that is a veiled PENIS reference.
For a second there, I was pondering what an unveined penis must feel like.
And then I realized I was reading it wrong.
Yup. [JS Mill] opposed slavery, was pro-women’s rights and had a whole host of problems with capitalism, altho he was fundamentally a free market proponent.
The libertarian douchebag doesn’t realize it, but JS Mill championed the argument of Henry George that privatization of the earth and all natural resources was simple theft of the commons.
As a left-libertarian I’d like to think Georgism might work in the real world; hell, even WFB Jr. had something nice to say about it once, as allegedly did Milton Friedman.
Well, now at least I know where all the good BC weed is going.
Ronnie “Sidewinder Missiles For Ayatollahs” Reagan won the Cold War? Cockfighting is just like abortion? The Drug War was started by the left? Richard “Joe McCarthy’s Personal Teabagger” Nixon was a RINO?
If irony is dead, it’s sure one hell of a hyperactive zombie.
(in before “Pagan Lesbian Vegetarians Did 9/11”)
As a
lefttrue-libertarian I’d like to think Georgism might work in the real worldFixed your post.
Hooray! Jonah’s learned about the Soritiies Paradox.
Well, he’s sort of learned about it. In the sense that he learns anything.
Sorry for the thread necromancy, but is it possible your embryology prof was referring to von Baer’s laws?
Biogenetic law: fetuses go through successive stages resembling adult ancestral forms; this can be consistently used to map the phylogenetic ancestry of an animal. Discredited.
von Baer’s law: fetuses go through successive stages resembling fetal ancestral forms; this illustrates nothing more than conservation of change in fetal evolution and adaptation to the fetal environment. Not discredited.
That is, the ‘fish’ stage of fetal development resembles a fish embryo, not an adult fish.
</pedant>