In 2005
Michael Savage wrote a bestselling book entitled “Liberalism is a Mental
Disorder.” A lot of people probably
dismissed it as right-wing hyperbole, just a bit of mean-spirited name calling
to attract attention for the book; but anyone who’s listened to Savage even
once understands that there was no facetious intent in the title
whatsoever. He was dead serious and furthermore,
he was dead right.
Though I
have never read the book, the title struck home with me because it finally
answered the question that conservatives have been asking each other for as
long as I can remember: Why?
Why do
liberals do the things they do? Why do
they hate the U.S. but love Cuba? Why do
they encourage behaviors that create dependency? Why do they deprive themselves of critical
water for the sake of an inconsequential fish? Why were they outraged by
accusations of sexist jokes by Clarence Thomas but unmoved by allegations of
rape and molestation against Bill Clinton?
The inconsistencies and
self-destructive positions have left us scratching our heads for decades, but it
all makes sense when you understand that liberalism is a mental disorder. Then the question becomes, what is the nature
of this disorder and how did they get it?
I don’t know what Mr. Savage ascribed it to in his book but I have my
own theory and to understand it we need to go back to grade school.
There is
probably not a day that goes by when I don’t witness the misbehaviors of
liberals and I am transported back in time to my grade school days where
memories of similar behaviors by long lost classmates evoke disturbing
parallels. As I watched the recent riots
in Baltimore and Ferguson, for instance, I remembered the senseless - albeit
less viciously destructive - vandalism that was the plague of every school when
I was growing up. It seems the ability
to destroy what others have built gives some children a sense of power and that
mentality carries through to adulthood.
I recall the
physical and psychological bullying that went on in school. Now I see leftists hang Sarah Palin in
effigy, I see shop owners chased out of business when they won’t bend to the
Left’s will, I see leftwing news editors posting the home addresses of
law-abiding gun owners in their newspapers to intimidate them, and I see a supposedly
good-hearted liberal (Joy Behar) taunting conservative Sharron Angle with the
words, “Come here, bitch! Come to New York and do it!" on national TV. Yet it is conservatives, we are always told,
who are the bullies. As a student I
watched with dismay as the teachers and administrators - all liberals - ignored
bullying while giving phony lip-service to how “bullying won’t be tolerated;” And
as an adult it’s Déjà vu
all over again as the leftwing media pays no attention whatsoever to an endless
parade of liberal bullying even while they wring their hands and wrinkle their
brows over bullying in our schools.
Today, when
I see gaudy gay pride parades, “environmentalists” protesting to save the Delta
smelt or Dennis Rodman flying his entourage to North Korea to show us he can make
nice with tyrants, I remember my school days when some kids would do just about
anything for attention.
When I hear liberals
like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton loudly proclaiming that they “accept full responsibility”
for failures occurring on their watch but then they subsequently bristle at any
suggestion of actually accepting blame
or consequences, I am reminded of
school kids who were quick to embrace the more rewarding aspects of adulthood (dressing,
smoking, swearing, sex, etc.) but disinclined to accept the responsibilities
that go with it. Children often know how
to say things to sound like adults,
but rarely do they know how to actually be
the adults.
When Barbara
Streisand swooned to Oprah about how “swell” Bill Clinton was and when record
millions of Democrats converged on D.C. for the privilege of witnessing the
coronation of the “first black president,” I recalled my school days when elections
rewarded personal popularity and outer image over substance and achievement.
When I
recall the cruel peer pressure in grade school and the punishment of non-conforming
kids who were labeled “geeks” and “nerds,”
I am immediately reminded of today’s battle over “climate change,” and
how scientists and others who won’t conform to the Left’s agenda are ridiculed
and stigmatized as “deniers.”
I remember
how some kids would receive poor grades, and rather than take an honest assessment
of their own failures, would declare that their teachers “hate them.” Fast forward to the adult world where liberals
blame their failures and bad behaviors on racism, homophobia, sexism or partisanship.
I recall how
in grade school teachers had to continually monitor the halls, the cafeteria
and the playground because too many kids still lacked the maturity to be
trusted to follow the rules. Now I see
that the rules still don’t apply to liberals
like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
In school I
remember being puzzled by the kids who were mean and rejecting to many of their
classmates but who would anxiously raise their hands to give smiling, text-book
perfect answers on how to ‘make the world a better place.’ The teacher would pat their little heads and
give them their gold stars, after which these same kids would go to recess and
resume their mean-girl (or mean-boy) ways, oblivious to the gross contradiction. Fast forward to adulthood, and I see the very
same behavior acted out over and over by the Left, who are always given the
presumption of being kindly, big-hearted, open-minded supporters of free speech
despite the reality of their behaviors. Actress
Julia Roberts sneeringly quipped that, “Republican comes in the dictionary just
after reptile and just above repugnant,” and yet a drooling reporter from The Washington Post tells us, “…there's just something
about Roberts's infectious enthusiasm and spirit that defies dislike.” Isn’t that special? Martin Bashir called Sarah Palin "America's
resident dunce" and a "world-class idiot" and suggested she
should have to eat feces because she had the audacity to compare saddling our
children with massive debt to slavery, but if you ask him why he’s a liberal he
will tell you it’s because he believes in free speech and conservatives are
mean. Oh, and we should see no irony in
kindhearted, feminist-supporter Ed Schultz calling Laura Ingraham a “right-wing
slut,” or in how much his insult amused those righteously liberal ladies of
“The View.” The inability to see the disconnect
between what they say and what they do is a trait some liberals just never outgrow.
Back in
school we rebelled against our parents, dismissing their experience and advice
in the mistaken belief that defiance equals independence; but when we played
with matches and were burned, had sex and became pregnant or drove recklessly and
hurt others, we learned the value of their experience and guidance. Now, conservatives are the adults and liberals
are the rebellious children who balk at the traditions and rules that evolved from
generations of experience and hard-learned lessons. Like children, they insist on being burned
before they will believe that playing with fire is dangerous, only now we all
get to feel the pain.
Liberalism
is the absence of mental maturity. It
requires that one’s ego be gratified at any cost. A century ago the disease of liberalism had
difficulty spreading because there were natural deterrents in the form of logical
consequences to liberal behaviors and because Americans believed in their
rights and wouldn’t allow those consequences to spill over onto them. Over time, however, little by little, liberals
have managed to change that, and the disease has spread like any other disease
that thrives when it learns how to get past the body’s natural defenses. The cure is the same as it is for the spoiled
child who has become a brat. You stop
spoiling him and make him suffer the consequences of his actions as nature
intended. The question is, are we too
late to stop the epidemic?
~CW
"Dem durn libruls!"
ReplyDeleteApparently this is what is taught at the Lew Rockwell School of Debate, since it’s a favorite tactic of all pseudo libertarians. Even in your childishness you can’t be genuine or original.
DeleteThose who are capable and who can score points will always debate. Those who aren’t capable and can’t formulate a worthy rebuttal will play the kind of games that you play. As I’ve said before, you are the intellectual equivalent of Commodus, the weak and child-like emperor from the movie, Gladiator, who mortally injures his chained opponent before facing him in the arena in an attempt to insure his victory. It didn’t work for him and it doesn’t work for you, because your need to misrepresent what I said, complete with a redneck accent, is in itself an admission that you have no rebuttal.
The voice of opposition past, Justice Kennedy (appointed by 'conservative' god Reagan) may save Obamacare now
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/voice-opposition-past-justice-kennedy-may-save-obamacare-130512452.html
The 'conservative' judges on the scotus have been Obamacare's best friends, LOL…first Roberts (appointed by "strict constructionist" GW Bush) saved it now Kennedy might…you Cons are really something...
And who helped elect the "conservative god" Reagan? None other than the libertarian god, Ron Paul.
ReplyDeleteLOL yourself.
LOL…so which is it? Is Ron Paul "an irrelevant kook" or someone w/enough power to single-handedly elect presidents?
DeleteThank goodness for those conservative scotus judges (one of Cons' most common rationalizations for lining up behind the likes of Reagan/Bush/McCain)!
LOL…you missed the point again, Einstein. The fact that RP didn’t “single-handedly” elect Reagan is irrelevant to the fact that he (according to YOU) made an error in judgment by supporting him. By your own standard Paul should be held accountable for his error and would be the object of your scorn and disdain if you weren’t such a hypocrite.
DeleteBTW, presidents aren’t “single-handedly” responsible for scotus judges either, Einstein. LOL.
Like shooting fish in a barrel...
LOL…the tiny difference being that Ron Paul withdrew his support of Reagan after Reagan proved to be a total fraud and RP isn't delusional like Cons who still think Reagan cut govt. and who casually dismiss Reagan's awful record (Amnesty, EMTALA, making record-breaking deficits the norm, massive tax increases, massive increase in the size/scope of govt., horrible scotus picks, and an unnecessary military build-up/boondoggle which set the stage for USA being global cop)…but don't let this little difference stop you from making a fool of yourself!
DeleteAs Conservative stalwart GW Bush said, "Fool me once shame on…shame on…won't get fooled again!"
LOL…are we talking about the same Ron Paul who said in the above-mentioned speech in 2004?:
Delete“Ronald Reagan was one of the most eloquent exponents of the freedom philosophy in modern American politics. One of his greatest achievements is the millions of Americans he helped convert to the freedom philosophy and the many he inspired to become active in the freedom movement.”
“While many associate Ronald Reagan with unbridled militarism, he was a lifelong opponent of the draft. It is hardly surprising that many of the most persuasive and powerful arguments against conscription came from President Reagan.”
Doesn’t sound to me like RP thought of Reagan as a “total fraud,” so I would suggest those are YOUR sentiments, not his.
There’s no doubt RR made some mistakes as POTUS and there is also no doubt that it is far more difficult to have your own way in a divided government than simpletons like yourself can appreciate. I can only assume that is why a man of principle like RP, who strongly disagreed with some of the things RR did as POTUS (as do I) nevertheless still sincerely appreciated RR and recognized him for what he did achieve. I would bet my life that RP would volunteer to give no such speech for Obama if he suddenly passed away tomorrow. But then RP is a man. You are still a child, and a very silly one at that.
Ron Paul Classic: Tribute to Ronald Reagan
ReplyDeletePOSTED BY Norm Singleton February 06, 2015
“Following President Reagan’s passing in 2004, Dr. Paul made the following statement in the Congressional Record:”
“Mr. PAUL. ‘Mr. Speaker, all Americans mourn the death of President Ronald Reagan, but those of us who had the opportunity to know President Reagan are especially saddened. I got to know President Reagan in 1976 when, as a freshman congressman, I was one of only four members of this body to endorse then-Governor Reagan's primary challenge to President Gerald Ford. I had the privilege of serving as the leader of President Reagan's Texas delegation at the Republican convention of 1976, where Ronald Reagan almost defeated an incumbent president for his party's nomination.’
‘I extend my deepest sympathies to Ronald Reagan's family and friends, especially his beloved wife Nancy and his children. I also urge my colleagues and all Americans to honor Ronald Reagan by dedicating themselves to the principles of limited government and individual liberty.’
You can read the full article here:
http://www.campaignforliberty.org/ron-paul-classic-tribute-ronald-reagan
Smart man, Ron Paul, eh?
Smart, principled, committed to expanding liberty and promoting a small-govt. interpretation of the Constitution, and gentlemanly as his kind words for Fraud Reagan prove…but Cons didn't want that, they wanted McCain and Romney, LOL...
DeleteRon Paul’s inability to articulately defend himself against the charges of isolationism and sell Americans on his vision made him his own worst enemy. It didn’t help him that he had ranting nutcases like you singing his praises either.
DeleteBTW, this will be the last comment from you that allow if it contains “LOL.” You’ve exceeded your limit as well as repeatedly proving yourself unworthy of the constant giggling. Grow up or go away.
Yeah, its Ron Paul's fault that Cons are too dumb to reason with [EYE ROLL]…as well as Cons re-defining the word "isolationism"…
DeleteWe know who the real nut-cases (hint: the people who still think Iraq-Af and neoconism were/are swell ideas) are now, don't we?
I'm gonna have a filed day w/Cons if Reagan's scotus appointee (who originally said ACA was unconstitutional) saves Obamacare…you people just make it TOO easy...
>>”…Cons re-defining the word "isolationism"…
DeleteWhines the hypocrite who repeatedly throws around terms like “war lovers” and “war mongers” to describe all conservatives. Looked in the mirror lately?
>>”We know who the real nut-cases (hint: the people who still think Iraq-Af and neoconism were/are swell ideas) are now, don't we?”
My definition of a nutcase is someone who can see the experiment of an “anti-war” president playing out in real time right before his eyes and he still thinks THAT’S a swell strategy. After 6 ½ years of management under the Nobel Peace Prize winner the world looks so much better, eh?
>>”I'm gonna have a filed day w/Cons if Reagan's scotus appointee (who originally said ACA was unconstitutional) saves Obamacare…you people just make it TOO easy...”
Yeah, because Superman president Ron Paul would have found the perfect, strict constitutionalist (putting aside the contradiction of your disdain for the Constitution) AND would have persuaded democrats in the senate to go along with his perfect choice, because we all know how great he is at persuading people to his point of view. Who was it who wisely said, “The fool with no accomplishments of his own comforts himself by laughing at those who try and fail”…? Oh yes, that was me.
You think Democrat neocon Obama is "anti-war"?!
DeleteHoly cow you're insane...
Well, being Ron Paul was strong enough to stand firm against every pressure group/person (including President Reagan) who tried to get him to violate his principles…I'm guessing he would've found a way to get his scotus nominations thru (unlike Con Republicans who always seem to cave to Dems). I'm also guessing he wouldn't've nominated a liberal woman scotus member just for the sake of his legacy (like Reagan). One things for sure…a RP scotus judge would NEVER have approved of ACA.
DeleteThat said, I give Cons a hard time about Reagan simply because you guys are totally delusional about him and his legacy…most of you still act as if he was some kind of govt.-slashing hero…and y'all defend this lying politician despite the fact that he hoodwinked you, effectively destroyed your ideology, and his Amnesty and keeping the DOE is as responsible as anything for Democrat electoral success today.
No, I don’t believe Obama is “anti-war,” hence the reason I put that descriptor in quotes, but that’s the way he sold himself, there’s NO doubt whatsoever about that, and his desire to be seen as the anti-war potus is at the heart of many of the dumb things he’s done (such as announcing precisely when our troops will be leaving). BTW, didn’t you tell me you voted for Obama because he was preferable to the neocons???
DeleteTo be fair, I don’t consider RP in the same league with Obama. I credit RP for sincerely caring about this nation. But what’s happened under Obama ought to be a lesson to those who think having peace is a simple matter of withdrawing our military presence from their stations around the world. It’s just not that simple, which is why the child-king Obama withdraws here while ramping things up over there.
>>”I'm guessing he would've found a way to get his scotus nominations thru…”
DeleteIt must be nice to live in Fantasy land.
>>” I give Cons a hard time about Reagan simply because you guys are totally delusional about him …”
You guys? Would you care to show me which posts of mine led you to conclude that I’m delusional about Reagan?
There’s been some martyrdom of Reagan that’s not entirely justified, I will willingly concede that; but he is certainly not the evil dunce that you persistently imply he is as evidence by the esteem in which he is held by you own beloved Ron Paul. Your own views on Reagan are just as deluded, if not more so, than those of the ‘cons’ you so despise.
Yeah, BHO absolutely sold himself as the antiwar candidate (and the idiotic Left believed him). In a way I guess he was the Peace Candidate--relative to that insane old man the GOP nominated in 2008. Probably the PC relative to Romney as well, tho they were probably far more alike than not war-wise.
DeleteFantasy land, or…an educated guess based on RP's stellar record of integrity and courage in the face of all odds?
The situation in the middle-east is incredibly convoluted and complex (in some part thanks to the USA)…neocon intellectuals (and Cons who foolishly listened and still listen to them for some reason) have been proven utterly incompetent and wrong in thinking the US military could impose some kind of Western-style democratic order there. The Muslim nations are almost all artificial constructs and there are deep schisms in Islam…ignorant and arrogant Americans have no clue…Muslims are gonna have to fight/figure it out for themselves just like Christianity and Western Europe had to.
Libertarians don't think much of Cons' foreign-policy ideas, but even we're surprised at how little they've learned from their own mistakes…in fact most of y'all haven't learned a damned thing.
>>”Yeah, BHO absolutely sold himself as the antiwar candidate (and the idiotic Left believed him).”
DeleteWho’s the bigger idiot: someone who votes for Obama believing he’s anti-war and who likes his socialist schemes or a libertarian who despises socialism and votes for him knowing what a liar he is?
>>"Fantasy land, or…an educated guess based on RP's stellar record of integrity and courage in the face of all odds?"
I’ll take Fantasy Land for $2,000, Alex. Observing RP’s persistent failures to sell his ideas to the public and concluding that he will be able to persuade democrats to consent to a Supreme Court justice with a record of upholding a strict interpretation of the Constitution doesn’t sound very “educated” to me.
I
>>”The situation in the middle-east is incredibly convoluted and complex …ignorant and arrogant Americans have no clue…”
That includes you. If it were simply a matter of keeping to ourselves and saying “live and let live (or live and kill each other) we could ignore what happens in the M.E.; but that’s not the reality at all. The world is a small place these days, and what happens in other places around the world has great potential to affect us. The notion of spreading democracy as a means of reigning in radicalism may be a pipe dream, but is it so evil that some might entertain the idea as an alternative to having large regions of the world controlled by tyrannical zealots? This is what I don’t understand about you and your kind. I don’t agree that turning a blind eye to the M.E. is the best strategy for us, but I understand why some might want to try it and I don’t hate people for suggesting it.
>>”Libertarians don't think much of Cons' foreign-policy ideas, but even we're surprised at how little they've learned from their own mistakes…in fact most of y'all haven't learned a damned thing.”
The fool with no accomplishments of his own comforts himself by scorning those who try and fail.
My vote is moot. Calif is a Democrat stronghold thanks to Reagan's amnesty. That said I'm proud to have helped prevent Insane McCain (wanted to go to war over GEORGIA--nucking futs!) from starting WWIII against Russia. I know neocons are incapable of learning from history, but the LAST regime (NAZI Germany) that messed w/Russia got totally destroyed…it'd be fitting if Russia ended up saving the world from the current incarnation of NAZI Germany (NEOCON America).
DeleteAgain, its not RP's fault that Cons (and Libs) can't tell a good idea/policy from a bad one. If you know the words libertarians can use in order to convince Cons to stop being useful idiots for Israel, Saudi Arabia, the military-industrial complex, and oil companies by all means tell me what they are!
Yes, I am pretty ignorant (tho the ignorance of non-libertarian Americans makes me look like an expert) about the history/complexity of the middle-east…but at least I know I'm ignorant and don't think the USGovt. is capable of centrally-planning its affairs. Bottom line: we've seen the results of neocon-inspired foreign-policy, but the fools who cheer-led for the wars remain blinded. Funny how the USA never had problems w/the Islamic World until it stuck its big, fat nose into the middle-east's business post-WWII…amazing how when you meddle in others' affairs and take sides in conflicts that have nothing to do w/you they tend not to like it, eh?
Like I said, even WE'RE surprised by your refusal to learn, but by all means, keep sticking your head in the hornet's nest and wondering why you pull it out w/welts all over…I for one will enjoy seeing Cons' oh-so-dear military continue being torn to shreds by the Islamic militias and/or Russia and/or China…nothing like seeing a bully (USA) get his comeuppance! And if you DON'T think a major comeuppance is on the way if a major shift in policy isn't initiated, then you're as clueless as the "Durn Libruls!" you're always ranting about.
After already-sick-of-war [non-neocon] Americans become REALLY fed up w/your wars they'll increasingly turn to more extreme Leftists in order to get peace…then you fools can have a heavier dose of socialism domestically to go w/your failed overseas wars.
Remember: libertarians have been nearly 100% right all along…we'll be right on this one too. Then again, Con fools who still think Vietnam was a good idea can never be expected to learn a damned thing...
>>“My vote is moot. Calif is a Democrat stronghold…”
DeleteOh, well since the country went for Obama then my vote was moot too.
“I'm proud to have helped prevent Insane McCain…from starting WWIII against Russia.”
Make up your mind. Was your vote moot or did you stop McCain?
“I know neocons are incapable of learning from history….”
Says the anarcho-libertarian who ignores the entire history of human behavior.
>>”…the LAST regime (NAZI Germany) that messed w/Russia got totally destroyed…”
You’re an ignoramus. The army of one regime or era may or may not have any resemblance to the same country’s army 75 years later, as evidenced by the defeats Russia suffered at the hands of the Japanese and Germany in WWI.
>>”If you know the words libertarians can use in order to convince Cons to stop being useful idiots for Israel, Saudi Arabia, the military-industrial complex, and oil companies by all means tell me what they are!”
Maybe since our military strength and alliances that gave us access to oil at affordable prices were part of what made the U.S. the most powerful, successful nation in modern times “cons” are having trouble understanding why attacking the military and oil producers is anyone’s number one priority – just sayin’.
>>”Yes, I am pretty ignorant …but at least I know I'm ignorant…”
No, I don’t think you do. Someone who sincerely recognized his own ignorance wouldn’t constantly talk about how stupid everyone else is.
>>”…we've seen the results of neocon-inspired foreign-policy, but the fools who cheer-led for the wars remain blinded.”
Oh yes, because every single military campaign is the same - not. We’ve seen the results of pacifism and appeasement too, but some people are blind to those lessons.
>>”Funny how the USA never had problems w/the Islamic World until it stuck its big, fat nose into the middle-east's business post-WWII…amazing how when you meddle in others' affairs and take sides in conflicts that have nothing to do w/you they tend not to like it, eh?”
No doubt about it - bullies and tyrants don’t like being messed with.
>>”I for one will enjoy seeing Cons' oh-so-dear military continue being torn to shreds by the Islamic militias and/or Russia and/or China…nothing like seeing a bully (USA) get his comeuppance!”
You’re an idiot and a traitor. I hope you get hit by a bus.
>>”After already-sick-of-war [non-neocon] Americans become REALLY fed up w/your wars they'll increasingly turn to more extreme Leftists in order to get peace…”
Hahahahahaha! Good luck with that, Einstein. Sounds like you need a refresher course on the history of wars in this country. BTW, you think you don’t like living in a strong, forceful country that gets involved in conflict? Wait until you live in a weak, passive country that no one is afraid of.
>>”… libertarians have been nearly 100% right all along…”
Prove it, Einstein.
Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for president in 2012, called for the immediate removal of the Confederate battle flag from outside the South Carolina Statehouse
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/confederate-flag-sets-off-debate-gop-2016-class-190435917--election.html
[Eye-roll]…there's your PC pansy Conservative standard-bearer...
Darn…guess CW isn't gonna tell me the magical words which can convince Cons to stop being useful idiots for Israel, the military-police-state-industrial-complex...
ReplyDeletePatience, donkey, patience.
DeleteI've been busy. You'll get a response when I get around to it.
How does it feel for Cons that their own scotus judges saved ACA and delivered a DEVASTATING Culture War loss to Cons w/the gay marriage ruling?
ReplyDeleteSince you voted for the guy who gave us Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, why don’t you tell me?
DeleteSince you voted for the guy (GW Bush) and supported warmongering policies which guaranteed a Democrat back-lash, you tell me.
DeleteOh, and the magic words which can convert Cons into sane people…don't forget those!
So I was supposed to let Al Gore or John Kerry be POTUS to prevent a Democrat backlash? I see. Oh yes, there was Ron Paul to save the day. But didn’t you tell me that if I support a candidate who can’t possibly win that means my vote is moot? Or is it only you who gets to hide behind a moot vote, because only your shit doesn’t stink? I hate to be crude but that pretty much sums up your whole philosophy, right? If my preferred candidate isn’t on the ballot and so I vote for the lesser of two evils, that makes me insane; but if your preferred candidate doesn’t make the ballot and you vote for a proud socialist, well you’re just doing the best you can do. I’m supposed to hang my head in shame because GWB appointed turncoat John Roberts to the Supreme Court, but you can proudly support Ron Paul even though he foolishly helped elect the evil Ronald Reagan. Conservatives are idiots because we can’t restore limited government, but Libertarians who can’t restore limited gov’t are just the victims of the statists. If a liberal progressive like Jeb Bush calls himself a “conservative,” then he’s a conservative; but if Juan Williams or Bill Mahr call themselves “libertarians,” they’re not. And we both know that if Ron Paul had become POTUS and had to settle for a less-than-ideal pick for Supreme Court nominee, that wouldn’t be his fault (or your fault for voting for him).
Delete>>” Oh, and the magic words which can convert Cons into sane people…don't forget those!”
Well if your straw-man arguments, juvenile smack-talk, inapt history references and generous doses of hypocrisy aren’t working, I don’t know what to say. Perhaps you’d like to try having an honest, respectful debate. Nah…..
Unlike most Cons, Ron Paul admitted (fairly early on I think) that he was duped by Reagan and acted accordingly. We both know most Cons still worship Reagan despite him and his legacy being complete mythology. And unlike Ron Paul, you Cons continue being duped by liars like Reagan every election cycle. "Fool me once shame on…shame on…won't get fooled agin!"
DeleteWhen Williams or Maher get the nomination of the watered-down-yet-still-decent (in order to try to pull Cons into the Party) Libertarian Party, then your point about them allegedly self-identifying (which I'm not sure they even do anymore) as "libertarians" will carry more weight. As long as turds like McCain and Romney continue sailing thru the Primaries w/Con support, my point still stands.
I've asked you this before and I will again now (maybe you'll answer me this time): How do you know which candidate is the "lesser of 2 evils" (or do you just assume its the person w/the "R" next to his/her name)?
I'm having a fun time setting the conservative blogosphere aflame w/Con judges Roberts and Kennedy saving ACA, Kennedy siding to make gay-marriage the law of the land, and the GOP/Cons folding like a cheap card-table over the Leftist-contrived ConFed flag 'controversy'…I must've caused a couple Cons coronaries from the hilariously outraged reactions I'm getting!
And the magic words…tell them to me…what can make Cons admit their foreign-policy ideas are idiotic and disastrous and how can I get Cons to understand the actual meaning of the word "isolationist"?
And, its not that libertarians "shit doesn't stink"…its that we're smarter, better informed, and have a superior moral-compass than everyone else…the bottom line, as much as you want to deny it, is we were right on foreign-policy and neocons were horrifically wrong.
DeleteSince the debate is now over and neocon idiots have been proven to be utterly incompetent (if not outright traitors)--yet the idiots are STILL being listened to (Israel and the Defense Industry own lots of congressmen!)--do you blame us for throwing it in your faces? Especially since you refuse to take responsibility for your idiocy? We're gonna keep on saying "I told you so" until it sinks in!
>>”… in order to try to pull Cons into the Party…”
DeleteFunny how you can see (and apparently forgive) the watering down of the Libertarian Party as people attach themselves to it, but in the Republican Party where it’s infinitely worse because the odds of actually achieving something are so much higher, those of us who have been victimized by the hijacking get lumped in with the hijackers. Chalk that up to more of your hypocrisy and tunnel vision.
>>”… How do you know which candidate is the "lesser of 2 evils…?”
That’s a bizarre question coming from the guy who chose Obama the Tyrant as his own idea of the lesser of two evils.
I would have been more than happy to answer your question (although it ought to be evident from the posts on this blog) if I thought it was asked in the spirit of sincerely attempting to understand. Instead I know that your mind is closed, that you believe only you are entitled to decide who is the lesser evil (so much for freedom, eh?), and this is merely a rhetorical question from which you hope to regurgitate more of the same old diatribe. That won’t be happening.
>>”I'm having a fun time setting the conservative blogosphere aflame…”
Okey doke.
>>”…we're smarter, better informed, and have a superior moral-compass than everyone else…”
DeleteOnly a fool with the mind of an adolescent would be so grossly arrogant, particularly in light of your track record here where you’ve been proven to be a hypocritical ignoramus without one original thought of your own.
>>” …we were right on foreign-policy and neocons were horrifically wrong.”
The fact that you think that since things went “horrifically wrong” under GWB et al that this somehow automatically means everything would be perfect if libertarians had their way just further underscores your adolescent mindset. If we come across two paths in the road and learn that one path leads to hell, it does not automatically stand to reason that the other path must lead to heaven, unless you think like a three-year-old. For all you know, both paths might lead to hell. I will certainly give self-described conservative Ron Paul credit for any correct predictions he made about Iraq and Afghanistan, but correct predictions about someone else’s leadership do not in any way translate to success for Paul. He has to prove himself and his leadership just like anyone else. I know you’re too much of a blockhead to understand that but it’s here in case a rational person happens to be reading.
---------------
Barack Obama: "The debate [over climate change] is settled"
The Unknown Einstein: “…the debate is now over…”
Now I understand why you chose Obama as the lesser of two evils. You have a lot in common, as you both think and act like authoritarians who presume the right to decide when debates are over. Obama is saying that regardless of the law or the will of the people he is going to do what he wants. You? You’re just flapping your gums because you don’t have any power to decide when a debate is over.
I think we’re done now, Einstein. All you do is repeat your little tirades ad nauseum. If you’re having such great success setting the blogosphere aflame, good for you. You can take your business there, cuz you’re not even generating a spark with me.
It’s been real.
Your echo-chamber, your rules. I have to say talking politics/philosophy/history w/you is about as stimulating as playing chess w/a 5 year old--which makes you identical to about 90% of the other blogs I visit.
DeleteAmerica is now an Idiocracy…Democrats pander to idiots who want 'free' stuff and idiotic professional victims who think racism and sexism permeate American society…Republicans pander to nationalist-flag-waving-patriotard idiots and idiotic religious-nuts who think the Rapture is gonna happen any day now.
The idea of actual liberty (which is in STEEP decline) doesn't appeal to the idiots in the slightest and the ignorant cowards would rather fight ghosts manufactured by their rulers--like terrorism, racism/sexism, unrestrained capitalism, the evils of marijuana, etc.--rather than look at who's spying on their every move, taking 1/2 of what they earn, and generally treating them like serfs who have no rights.
IMO, it'd be a fitting sign of the USA's utter corruption and hopelessness if the Idiocrat electorate makes 2016 a Clinton VS Bush family affair…and the idiots will convince themselves that this is some kind of battle to the death between Good and Evil instead of two people from the same social-strata who are 99% alike on major policies...
I've got about 2 years to go on my foreign citizenship process…it won't get here soon enough…then I escape from the insane Idiocracy! Cheers, keep up the good work exposing "dem durn libruls!