Relax, 'cause this guy does!
A lot of young people in the early 'Aughties called themselves "Libertarians" because they knew Ron Paul was against the Iraq War and in favor of pot legalization and the Democrat party was full of squares like Mom and Dad.
It doesn't mean they didn't want to "help the little guy" with your money, though, and when they found out what a big pack of heartless meanies libertarians were, they shed the label like a high school class ring.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Did this douche ever understand what he was supporting with Ron Paul? The party is based on logic (or Reason) but he accuses us of "unquestioning religious fervor" - exactly what I think of the mindless support of the State in current leftist thinking.
After that it got worse.
Jeez, you need to read the comments over there too. The clueless smugness is astounding.
But he has a Master's Degree in CREATIVE WRITING. Of course he knows what's best for the rest of us.
He feels so strongly that the poor need his help that he is willing to vote to give other people's money to help them.
Clueless...
The reason I cannot stand modern liberals is the arrogant smugness.
Well, it's good to know that the Democrat Big Tent he ran to doesn't have any distasteful, flawed (racist) individuals under it - just the Libertarian one.
The cognitive dissonance in the article should be astonishing, I keep expecting contradicting sentences to flee off the edge of my monitor, as though pushed by magnetic force.
Many "Libertarians" adopt the label only to enable themselves in feeling superior to absolutely everyone, while doing nothing. Instead of solutions, they only talk about how nothing works. They are thus self-absolved of any guilt, responsibility or wrongness. Bill Maher comes to mind. -- Lyle
Talk about derp selling.
Salon.com can always be counted on for a massive display of arrogance and condescension.
Sadly, if marijuana were legalized across the US today, the Libertarian Party would probably disintegrate tomorrow. Many people think they're libertarian because they want pot. Once they figure out there's more to it (for example, "legal" doesn't mean "free") they lose interest.
Now I have to go kill a kitten...... Thanks, need to wash my brain after reading that one.
I'm still trying to figure out what beliefs he held that made him think he was a libertarian in the first place? I mean, I guess he wasn't for the statist realist wing of the liberal movement? Except for he likes Obama...
One thing I do think is true... you spend too much time around your own crazies, you forget how nuts they are. You walk into a room full of someone else's crazies and you can't stop staring at them.
God, do I enjoy your turns of a phrase. Thank you. Once you become a libertarian (and for what it stands)you will realize that you really are an anarchist. The view from up here seems to alternate between amusing and annoying; because of this you start to insulate yourself from lesser beings such as Republicrats.
He talks of self discovery, how humbling must it be to discover that your intellect is so feeble and stunted that you become a Democrat. Having a mind so befuddled that progressism is an option must surely hurt like hell.
I saw a picture of jesus the other day, over which a person had superimposed the statement:
"I told YOU to help the poor, not to force other people to help them!"
I'm weary of the "libertarians are all heartless nutjobs" meme. I align myself more closely with librtarianism than anything else, but I give until it hurts to charity every year. I gave over 2 grand to a little girl who died of cancer in August, in an attempt to help her parents pay the medical bills. I organized and participated in an event in October that helped raise over 20 grand for a little boy in our town who was dying of cancer (he's still alive and fighting, thank God).
I don't do these things because they make me feel good. I feel like shit being around dying children and grieving parents. It sucks.
I do them because its the right thing to do, and I have never, nor will i ever, utter the words "somebody should DO SOMETHING." I just choose to the be that somebody, and do it myself.
I'm not wealthy, so giving these funds and donating my time is expensive to me, but that's how I roll.
But I think that were i to begin coercing and forcing people to pay into these charities that i sponsor, I would be wrong. More wrong even than a child dying of cancer. I certainly would not feel like I'd done a good thing afterwards.
I'm not a heartless goon. I bled more this year for these dying children than I thought I could take sometimes. I cried when she died. I cry still when I think about it.
So if you think that because I'm libertarian that I'm heartless and would like to see people starve, you can GFY. Do what I do; walk a mile in my shoes. Then call me and tell me that I'm heartless.
I couldn't get ten words past the headline. It reminds me of Heinlein's advice to poets: do it in private and wash your hands afterward.
gvi
Anonymous 8:31: Anyone who thinks anarchy is a great state of being needs to go spend some quality time in a place like Somalia.
The anarchist's creed can most often be summed up as "no rules for me, but plenty of them for thee."
Post a Comment