FOR LIBERTY & PATRIOTISM
From the Editor:
As voted on by LR readers during the month of December.
Out of 568 votes cast, 58% of LR readers chose Sarah Palin as the "Best Libertarian for 2010." Runners up included New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Kentucky Senator-elect Rand Paul, and Florida Sen.-elect Marco Rubio.
Out of (approximately) 120 votes cast, 45% LR readers chose Geert Wilders, Member of Parliament in the Netherlands and leader of the Dutch Freedom Party, as the "Best Libertarian Internationally" for 2010. Runners up included Conservative Party MP in the United Kingdom Daniel Hannan, Nigel Farage - leader of the UK Independence Party, and Benjamin Netanyahu - Prime Minister of Israel.
Thanks to all those who participated.
86 Bloviations:
Sarah Palin and Geert Wilders as the 2 best Libertarians in 2010; I have no objections.
How long will it be before objections are raised? I wonder.
I didn't see Eric in that list. WTF?
I'll be the first to raise my objection to Palin. She is an intellectual light-weight who just happens to have celebrity appeal..
I have no problems with anybody else on the list.
*Cueing Chuck to start calling me Scum of the Earth*
52 minutes; that's pretty fast! Not really, I'm just trying to be funny.
Anyway, I find it funny that people are looking for intellectuals to lead America. Didn't electing an intellectual result in the ballooned state our government is in today?
As for Sarah, explain intellectual light-weight to me. Words these days are thrown around so freely, especially on this site.
Actually Morgan, more correct would be a more ballooned state of our government. It already was ballooned, but Barry accelerated it.
You're right, Right Guy, thanks for the clarification.
Neither Geert nor Sarah are libertarians, and in fact I think Obama is more libertarian than either of them.
The fact that they won the polls shows how stupid most people on this blog are.
Neither Geert nor Sarah are libertarians, and in fact I think Obama is more libertarian than either of them.
Judging by that comment, I'd say there's one person on this blog who is stupid, Lofo.
Lofo:
It's against the law to be an unlicensed pharmacist, let alone one that self-medicates. Whatever you are taking, stop it. MaoBama has given us the current TSA, AKA T$A and lest we forget his FCC that wants to regulate the internet. Libertarian? At best he's a fabian socialist. Palin has no designs on any of that. As far as Wilders goes, he's just trying to save his country from the toilet bowl. If he becomes PM, then you can judge. Same for Plain. When she becomes president, then judge. MaoBaMao is a socialist. plain and simple and no socialist can really be libertarian as socialism requires the force of government to work. It also takes liberty to work too as opposed to affirming or protecting liberties. Some of the Farm Animals® over in europe are starting to figure that out. It's too late though...
"If we loose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth." - Ronald Reagan
Pretty damn much Ronnie.
Judging by that comment, I'd say there's one person on this blog who is stupid, Lofo.
Sarah Palin would start a war with Iran if she were in power, and as all real libertarians know, war is the health of the state, and war will diminish our liberties much more severely than Obamacare. So yes, Obama is more libertarian than Sarah Palin.
How the fuck do you know what Palin would do for any given situation? It's wishful thinking on your part because you do not like her. Fine, but leave the prognostications for John Edward and the like.
War isn't the defining moment for a libertarian. There is a time and place for war, just not all the time or over trivial matters for sure. Your reasoning is faulty and self-serving. If you added up positions and actions of palin and obama, I think you would find that Palin is more libertarian. Instead you pick a need out of a haystack and thick you can feed a horse with it.
The only poll I would care to note would be one asking Palin and Wilders if they support the immediate and unconditional legalization of marijuana. Until they support legalization you can call both of them libertarians all you want but that doesn't make them one.
Ah yes another defining issue, pot legalization. So, if we aren't peaceniks and we don't support pot legalization we aren't libertarian. Let me guess which activity you've been doing before posting here?
Morgan - someone who had had the Saudis outright pay for a degree at Columbia and then full-ride tuition at Harvard is an "intellectual." Someone who put herself through college is a "lightweight." Get with the program, dude.
Thane - not all libertarians agree on legalizing pot. It's indicative of libertarian orientation, but it's hardly a reliable litmus test. Then there's the difference between "legalizing" pot and liberating pot... the difference between government monopoly and free-markets. No, dude. Your standard doesn't apply here. All boils down to "how." There are a lot of liberals pretending to be "libertarian" on pot in an effort to have Big Guv grab ahold of yet another monopoly. Legal, but so fucking what? As a "libertarian" you might want to look hard at that.
Palin a libertarian?
Maybe I missed something. Could someone post the article she wrote or interview she gave where she advocated:
----Abolishing the MARXIST income tax and its re-distribution of income.
----Selling AMTRAK.
----Abolishing the Food and Drug Administration.
----Abolishing the Federal Communications Commission.
----Abolishing the Department of Education.
----Abolishing the Department of Labor.
etc., etc. etc.
I want to see HARD PROOF of Classical Liberalism and/or Libertarianism. Far too many so-called "Conservative" hacks are nothing more than pimps for the Big Brother State.
If Palin would spell out a solid and true libertarian platform then I would back her.
Palin was Libertarian long before Libertarian was cool.
Her roots with the libertarian movement in Alaska go way back to the 1980s.
You're obviously ignorant of her background.
I was there in Alaska when Frank Murkowski was running radio ads accusing Palin of "not being a real Republican," but rather a "libertarian."
I was there in Alaska in 2006 when the whisper campaign was going on about "Sarah wants to legalize drugs."
I was there in Alaska and saw with my own eyes all those establishment Republicans calling her an extremist Alaska Independence Sovereingty nut.
TRG: You don't have to smoke marijuana nor put "Imagine world peace" stickers on your car to be a libertarian. I don't smoke marijuana nor do I have any "Imagine world peace" stickers on my car. The day you can be accepted as a Libertarian without publicly advocating for the legalization of cannabis will be the day I need to find a new word to describe my political philosophy.
ED: I believe as much in second hand whispers about Palin being a closet MJ legalizer as I do about whispers that Richard Nixon was a closet Ayn Rand fan.
It is pretty much a pre-requirement (at least in my book) that before you are a libertarian (irrespective of capitalization) you at least call yourself a libertarian. With respect to Sarah Palin that day hasn't dawned on planet Earth.
Palin calling herself strictly a "libertarian" would not be to her benefit.
Rand Paul even backs away from the label.
I would prefer the both of them saying straight out "I'm a libertarian Republican." But I'm happy with "Constitutional Conservative" or "libertarian streak," both of which both Palin and Paul have associated themselves with.
More important than calling yourself a libertarian is to closely affiliate yourself with the libertarian movement.
Palin gave Billy Toien a big bear hug when she won the Governor's race in 2006, in front of all the Alaska media. She publicly thanked the Libertarian Party for her win in her acceptance speech.
Of course, all that has been long forgotten cause it doesn't fit the template of left-libertarians.
Palin can call herself whatever she wants. But if she runs I want to see HARD POLICY statements.
No more will I accept the glittering and meaningless political bull crap speeches like Reagan's "shining city on a hill".
I want a candidate who looks me in the eye and says he will close down the God Damn fucking Department of Labor and personally toss the overpaid union hacks out the front door into the snow.
The nation is on the brink of disaster. NO MORE LIES. We need action.
My point was those two issues don't define a libertarian. I could give a crap about Libertarian.
As much as I am not an interventionist, I would say it's naive to believe in "world peace". Peace is the absence of opposition. If you figure out a way to make it happen that doesn't include totalitarian regimes and drugs, let me know.
Palin can call herself whatever she wants. But if she runs I want to see HARD POLICY statements.
And I bet if she doesn't pass your litmus test exactly 100%, then she's unacceptable in your eyes.
I predict you'll be voting for the Boston Tea Party's Presidential nominee.
Look, this is all moot. Sarah is not going to run. She knows better than anyone that she's way too controversial and too much of a lightening rod.
She'll have a very big role in the presidential campaign, but not as a candidate.
Now the VP spot? Cabinet post? Maybe, just maybe.
Right Guy, this is the only peace I think we can achieve:
"To be prepared for war
is one of the most effectual means
of preserving peace."
Spoken by George Washington in 1790.
And btw, if a Kenyan can become President of the United States of America, why they hell can't we elect a Dutchman?!!!
I'd rather wait, Eric, until later next year when Sarah decides to run or not.
Everybody's talking about who is running or who isn't running, and I get annoyed whenever Sarah is described as too controversial (too polarizing, actually) and unelectable.
At this point, 2012 is nothing but speculation.
A Dutchman, Eric? Do I need three guesses as to who you have in mind?
"I think Obama is more libertarian than either of them"
Of course you do, squirt, because you and little lord brakabama agree that the Cold War was won by the wrong side...because you're a libertarian. Staunch even.
Yeah, I'm fucking serious.
Why the hell not Geert Wilders for US President???
We've already thrown the Born in the USA requirement out the window with Barack Muhammed Hussein Obama.
Why the double standard? Why is it the Left gets to run non-citizens for President but us Righties can't do the same?
And as much as a wonderful country Kenya is, the Netherlands far more matches our American values.
Nothing personal against Geert Wilders, Eric, but I'd rather like somebody born here to take the top spot.
Let Geert lead the Netherlands in the right direction, and We the People can put Sarah in the White House and have her lead America in the right direction.
Kenya is a shit hole.
As to Peace, talk softly but carry a really big stick.
Wilders could be secretary of state.
"Why the double standard? Why is it the Left gets to run non-citizens for President but us Righties can't do the same?"
Eric, with all due respect, that is pure, pharmaceutical grade bullshit. Such statements only serve to make brakabama's opposition look like a bunch of drooling retards.
Natural born citizen is not a geographical term. There is no dispute about that. Quit making the rest of us look like fucking fools by association.
"The only poll I would care to note would be one asking Palin and Wilders if they support the immediate and unconditional legalization of marijuana."
Yeah. Because there exists no calling higher than getting fucked up on dope. Being stoned is the essence of civilization. Yeah.
Fucking dipshits. Why don't you assholes just start a Dope Party since it's the only issue you care about?
Chuck:
Did your momma ever wash your mouth out with soap? Evidently not!
I bet you impress all the girls with that sort of talk, right? Are you proud of the example you set for youth that happen to hear you?
No wonder this country has lost its way!
You have no right to type my name, you gutless turd.
There is a very good reason you don't ask anyone else here that asinine question,you shitbrick. It's because you don't disagree with them.
Grow a pair of balls and dispute the accuracy of anything I've said, wee one.
Come on in. The water is fine. Give it a shot. I'm here all week.
**** "Chuck. Did your momma ever wash your mouth out with soap? Evidently not!" ****
Chuck is typical of most modern Americans: a lot of grunting and "F" bombs to cover up for a lack of rational thought or meaningful ideas.
The offer is open to you as well, "gary" (whatever you are).
The water is fine. Come on in. Show everyone here what a liar I am. You are really smart and I am really dumb, so this should be a cake walk for an honest, sane genius such as yourself.
Ready. Go.
Good luck, sport.
"I want a candidate who looks me in the eye and says he will close down the God Damn fucking Department of Labor"
Thus spake "gary".
Preach on, midget. Preach on.
Grunting. hehe
Gary, I thought you were talking about yourself for a minute.
Chuck:
Lighten up. It's just another stupid blog.
My point, many will stop listening when the speaker must use filth in his/her choice of words. I've said before I understand since after all you and some others here are "Libertarians" and "Libertarians" say what they want regardless whose ears may be within hearing distance as if common courtesy has no place.
It just goes to show man has regressed rather than progressed in his ability to communicate. may as well just "grunt".
Not singling you out Chuck. Evidently vulgarity is welcome in this party. Is vulgarity the 'way" of the "libertarian"?
"Not singling you out Chuck"
Hehe
It's everyone whose name happens to be Chuck. Yeah.
You people are blinded by your own dishonesty. You really do think you can outsmart the truth.
I often wonder if Jackson Pollock ever wanted to kill the people who called him a genius. He liked to make pretty things. He did.
Now they say he said things when he said nothing.
Parasites abound.
"Lighten up. It's just another stupid blog"
I'm given this counsel by the fart odor in an elevator. By the piss on a toilet seat. By the sound of two dogs fucking in a garbage can.
And it gives orders. What a nifty piece of shit it has made of itself.
It awards itself authority and then proceeds to give orders.
Someone is going to have a broken jaw Monday Morning.
"Is vulgarity the 'way" of the "libertarian"?
Is cowardice the way of the critic?
Explain, asshole.
A poll for "best libertarian of 2010" that doesn't include Julian Assange is like a poll for "favorite food" that doesn't include pizza.
Knapp suggests we create a poll for Best Nazi of the Year.
But I suggest that would be useless since Julian Assange would get 100% of the vote.
Sorry Knapp.
And as far as Chuck's mouth, this website is run by an ex-Sailor who cusses like the fucking ex-Sailor he is.
We have one and only one fuckin' rule here: DO NOT POST AS ANONYMOUS!
Obey the Rules PLEASE!
Eric - The Management
Eric. These gutless maggots who complain about my use of language are simply trying to win argument without engaging in it. They are gutless cowards. They are just like the scum who call me a racist.
It's a method. The method of dickless cowards. It works on most people. It doesn't work on me.
Notice how they never respond to any challenge about actual facts.
"A poll for "best libertarian of 2010" that doesn't include Julian Assange is like a poll for "favorite food" that doesn't include pizza."
Ahh. The mark of a true leftist. People who despise America are heroes. People who love America are evil...and simple-minded. So goes their sick pathos.
Fucking vermin.
Quoth Chuck:
"Yeah. Because there exists no calling higher than getting fucked up on dope. Being stoned is the essence of civilization. Yeah."
On the one hand, I'm not going to deny that there are quite a few pot-smoking libertarians. You might or might not be surprised at some of the people I've seen blazing up at (for example) Libertarian Party event venues.
On the other hand, no, it's not the only issue (most) libertarians care about. I've never been particularly fond of marijuana. It just really doesn't do anything for me.
Marijuana legalization is a good litmus test for whether or not someone is a libertarian not because marijuana is so great, but because the war on drugs in general, and the war on marijuana in particular, is so insanely fucking stupid by every worthwhile measure.
I haven't looked at the numbers in awhile, but the last time I did look the US was at something like 800,000 marijuana arrests per year and $40 billion in annual direct federal drug war funding, with nothing verifiable and/or significant to show for it by way of statistically reduced drug use ... and all of that over a ubiquitous plant that George Washington raised, that Queen Victoria used, that has some positive qualities and no negative qualities of anything close to the same order as alcohol, and for which the entire historical known number of overdose deaths is either zero or one (there was a claim of an overdose death in Australia a couple of years ago, but I don't know if it was ever proven out).
There may be nuance to some political questions, but there isn't to that one. If you don't favor marijuana legalization you're either authoritarian, or retarded, or both.
"I haven't looked at the numbers in awhile"
I doubt you've ever looked at numbers that weren't cooked up by the doper lobby. I'm pretty ambivalent about pot. I don't think it would be the end of the world if pot were decriminalized or even outright legalized. Thing is, I don't have my head up my ass on the issue the way you people do. You've bought into this idiotic fantasy wherein legal dope is going to make the country drastically better off. (and of course, not one bit worse)
Getting fucked up on dope is the touchstone of the modern libertarian movement. This is why, as a movement, it will never amount to more than a fart in a windstorm. Hell, the number 2 issue after dope for most "movement" libertarians is legalizing prostitution.
There are much more important things to be achieved. Self styled libertarians barely make a peep about those other issues, though. Instead, the focus is on the celebration of vice...degeneracy for it's own sake...as a "right".
You lack a leg upon which to stand. The primacy of that one issue is not based in anything noble or principled even, yet it is the far and away the number one issue among the "libertarian class" as it were.
You could do yourself a favor and analyze the reason for that being true instead of trying to tilt at windmills in a vain attempt to make believe the truth isn't true. If you were right, I would agree with you. You aren't so I don't.
Best,
CHU
Chuck said:
"Notice how they never respond to any challenge about actual facts."
I've not read anything from you that was factual. lol
As for your statement about truth with your hot headed tough guy attitude I doubt you know what "truth" is.
Bob
Chuck said:
"I'm given this counsel by the fart odor in an elevator."
You sure are a fart smell...I mean smart feller Chuck!
Bob
Great. Another mindless adolescent with a hard on for me.
Even the mighty Bent Alabama couldn't fell Chuck, now we have anonymous Bob? What about Bob?
KN@PPSTER said:
"Marijuana legalization is a good litmus test for whether or not someone is a libertarian not because marijuana is so great, but because the war on drugs in general, and the war on marijuana in particular, is so insanely ******* stupid by every worthwhile measure".
I think that is more in order in describing a "Libertarian" in regards to marijuana. It's not the number one issue. Anyone that thinks advocates of legalized marijuana use is rather dense. The issue is as noted above the absurdity of the "war on drugs". How about Iran/Contra...government "sponsored" drug trafficking was it not? And of course we know that our troops in Afghanistan are guarding poppy fields. Seems like mixed messages to me.
Let's face it, people in political power are profiting from drug trafficking. Why does the U.S. bother giving tax payer money to Mexico for assisting in the "war on drugs". How effective is that turning out?
I have the answer. I believe Governor Rick Perry was in the running for Libertarian of the year? Something like that. Let's do as he says send U.S. military into Mexico , with their "permission" as Pecos Perry says, and root out all the drug cartels. Perhaps the U.N. will help out also. What an absurd comment by the "Libertarian", one of doofus Palin's buddies.
Bob
Chuck,
Even if I ignore the exact number I still know that it takes plenty of money to imprison marijuana traffickers and users. The cost of caging people to keep them from smoking marijuana is far in excess of the benefits gained by putting them in a cage.
What if I agree with you when you say "There are much more important things to be achieved."? These important things take time, energy and money all of which are destroyed by the wasteful and futile pursuit of marijuana prohibition.
If Palin can't see the waste of human capital inherent in marijuana prohibition why should any American have faith that she can identify and eliminate other wasteful government programs?
Chuck said:
"Great. Another mindless adolescent with a hard on for me."
Chuck please! I know how you "Libertarians" are with your "platform" of "tolerance". Homosexuality is an abomination Chuck!
Bob
People don't go to jail for smoking marijuana. Not for very long, anyway. That is one of the big lies of the doper lobby. The notion that there are millions of people languishing in prison because they got high at a party is utter bullshit. And if any of you think that trafficking marijuana would ever become legal after "legalization", you are high off your ass.
This is my main problem with the pro-dopers. You people only speak in hyperbole. Just like the abortion nuts, you have to invent these ridiculous theoretical scenarios to justify your arguments.
I'm quite comfortable not giving a shit one way or the other because I'm intellectually honest. I wish people on the militant pro-dope side could be honest. It would make for a more reasoned conversation.
The need to engage in wild-ass exaggeration is overwhelming evidence of the weakness of one's position.
"These important things take time, energy and money all of which are destroyed by the wasteful and futile pursuit of marijuana prohibition."
And that is a crystalline example of the sort of abject stupidity one can expect from the doper lobby. We can't repeal Federal laws because it costs money and time that "we" spend arresting potheads. One has to be stoned off ass to even imagine something that goddam dumb let alone type it out.
Don't smoke the stuff, but it is pretty pedestrian compared to other things. The drug war has largely been a failure. Lets start with that and work our way to what should be legal or not legal.
The other wars that are non-sensical are the war on poverty and the war on guns. Paying people not to work will not get them to work. Taking the right of self-protection away from law abiding citizens does not enhance their security.
Back to the drug war and organized crime in general: The government doesn't like competition, particularly when it comes to liberating money from citizens and sharing the authority it has over them, although many politicians and political structures have made a living out of talking from both sides of their mouths on these issues.
Some common sense needs to prevail. Meth is destructive as is heroin. Pot, not any worse than C2H5OH. Besides, I am sure the government would love to regulate it and take a legitimate cut for themselves.
That's my whole beef. Of all the places to "start", why dope? And what if it turns out to be a disaster(like it has all over Europe)?
Dope belongs at the very bottom of the list of priorities. But it has become the armband one has to wear in order to "prove" one's bona fides as a "real" libertarian. It is this stupid, kneejerk orthodoxy that has kept libertarianism a fringe goofball part of the political spectrum for a generation.
Wanna legalize dope? Fine. Do it after something much more vital has been taken care of.
Chuck,
You write:
"I doubt you've ever looked at numbers that weren't cooked up by the doper lobby."
I guess that depends on who the "doper lobby" is. The last time I tried to put together numbers for government spending, I got those numbers from searches of the ONDCP site and appropriations searches as thomas.loc.gov.
"Hell, the number 2 issue after dope for most 'movement' libertarians is legalizing prostitution."
I know a lot of libertarians. I know a few for whom ending the war on drugs is their stated top issue, but nowhere near a majority. Prostitution usually seems to come way down the list.
For the last decade, the enduring top issues for the American libertarian movement (the real one, not Dondero's imaginary one, which seems to either be a drug-fueled masturbation cult, or just possibly some kind of weird COINTELPRO operation) have probably been non-interventionism in foreign policy, ending eminent domain abuses, and, always, reducing taxes.
^ Simply "legalizing" marijuana by allowing an individual to cultivate for personal use requires no great effort on the part of legislators. And I'm betting doing so would relieve some of the issues with the black market drug trade. Californians are idiots for allowing greedy growers that continue to promote the black market trade of marijuana to dictate the outcome of prop 19.
The complications come when tyrannical government gets the idea they must tax something that otherwise grows naturally on the earth. Man did not genetically alter marijuana nor did he "invent" it.
Bob
Bob,
You write:
"Man did not genetically alter marijuana nor did he 'invent' it."
Man has certainly genetically altered it, mostly through selective breeding for maximal THC content, and for a long time.
There are a number of proprietary strains these days, most with much higher THC than the stuff widely available in the 1960s and 70s.
Going in the opposite direction, California's failed hemp initiative from a few years back called for capping THC content. Some of the medical marijuana growers opposed it for precisely that reason, fearing that pollen from low-THC legal hemp would screw up their high-THC plants.
Presumably as more is discovered about other cannabinoids in the plant, strains will be developed to maximize the ones that are useful for different applications.
"I know a lot of libertarians."
Congratulations. I know a lot of salesmen.
What I've said about libertarian priorities doesn't specifically apply to you or your bridge club. I was making a point about the movement at large and where it's going. Poll likely voters about the libertarian party and you'll find out which issues the Libertarian party has been the most vocal in expressing. Their reputation isn't an accident.
Do you really doubt me on this? You seem more interested in winning an argument than in understanding the obvious. I want to see libertarian ideas become mainstream, but they never will as long as the term is synonymous with drug use.
I'm not even addressing drug policy here. I'm talking about what is better for the libertarian cause and what is detrimental to that cause. Americans don't want drugs to be legal. Thing is, there are a hell of a lot of other things they do want to be legal, and they don't see libertarians championing anything but dope.
Ya folla?
Chuck,
You write:
"Ya folla?"
Nope.
Absent evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that I've talked with -- and listened to -- an order of magnitude more libertarians, and more voters, than you have, over both the medium and long terms (over the very short term since I abandoned electoral politics five months ago, perhaps not).
When I first began to get involved in the libertarian movement back in the mid-1990s, the LP's reputation was definitely "those are the marijuana people."
I hardly ever hear that any more. Oddly enough, one thing I do hear more than I used to and much more than I'd expect to is "Libertarian Party types are just pro-abortion Republicans."
You are proving my point, Knappster.
The libertarian party gets the same 1 percent it always has. Your vantage point is myopic. Insular.
I could care less how many "libertarians" you've graced with your presence. That's irrelevant. The things I'm saying aren't about me. They aren't about you. This isn't a support group, and there is nothing for you to "win" in a back and forth with me, because you and I are complete strangers.
Proof. Pudding. Think about it.
"You are proving my point, Knappster."
Only if your "point" is that things are the way you say they are because that's the way you say they are.
My evaluation of what people think of the Libertarian Party is based on non-LP-member voters telling me what they thought of the Libertarian Party over a 15-year period when I ran for office on the LP ticket five times and worked on numerous other campaigns.
The fact that the LP is no more popular now than it was then is not necessarily evidence that people think the same things about it as they did then.
If I think someone's a burglar, but then decide he's actually a car thief, I'm not necessarily more likely to give him a good employment reference.
I do agree with you that most people are no more likely to vote Libertarian now than they were 15 years ago. Their reasons why, however, seem to have changed.
Sarah Palin a Libertarian? You got to be kidding. Either that or YOU are in someone's pocket..!!
If Eric is in someone's pocket, he owes some of us some walking money. :)
"My evaluation of what people think of the Libertarian Party is based on non-LP-member voters telling me "
And mine isn't. I'm not enough of a Narcissus to imagine that my meanderings through that slice of society I happen to inhabit is any relevant type of statistical analysis.
I'm sure you're wonderful and all, but that doesn't imply omniscience.
We aren't the world;
We aren't the children.
Europe hasn't legalized marijuana.
"I'm not enough of a Narcissus to imagine that my meanderings through that slice of society I happen to inhabit is any relevant type of statistical analysis."
You are, however, enough of a Narcissus to imagine that what you believe to be true is true because it's you who believes it.
"You are, however, enough of a Narcissus to imagine that what you believe to be true is true because it's you who believes it."
And you believe what's true is true because you don't believe it's true?
You cite what non-LP members say about the LP as the guiding force behind your conclusions, but how does that make your conclusions based on absolute truth?
You could cite statistics to back up your claims, but those aren't necessarily airtight, and you could cite studies, but they might not necessarily based on anything absolute either.
Bottom line, what is true to you will always be so because you believe it to be so.
Palin is not a libertarian. Clearly neither are the readers of this blog.
And what are your bona fides Frank?
Stupid poll is stupid. Neither Sarah Palin nor Geert Wilders are libertarians. Geert Wilders especially. Wilders is a fascist. I wouldn't be surprised if he had a portrait of Adolf Hitler hanging on his bedroom wall.
Palin? Libertarian? How can anyone conjoin those two words.
She's not as bad as our current misruler but libertarian she's not.
Don't follow Wilder enough to care but anyone who actually has the balls to decry his nation's descent into Islamic paradise is not all bad.
Post a Comment