Previous 21 - 30 Next
When I read the headline, I wondered why Mick Jagger et al would want to write an absurd anti-gun article. Reading the body of the story, I am comforted to find that, drug-addled though they may have been, they did not perpetrate this particular foolishness. Apparently, Rolling Stone is also the name of some sort of publication.
I had no idea chickens were so noble!
You should probably watch an episode of John Stossel's show before declaring him a flaming closet liberal. You should probably also not listen to Democrats who declare themselves to be libertarian. You can't believe in government programs to fix everything from hurt feelings to hurricanes, and actually be a libertarian.
I don't see how it is possible to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Socially liberal means you want to expand government spending for social programs. Fiscally conservative means you want to limit government spending to reduce and eliminate the federal debt. The only way it is possible to support both of these mutually exclusive views is to be a tax-and-spend politician, but there is no way to ever raise enough taxes to support the spending these social programs would involve.
As I said, you outnumber us, so you are right, the point is moot. I admit that freedom is terrifying, and life without Social Security, Medicare, and a justice department that can detain and search you at will looks a lot like anarchy these days. As long as you people keep calling the political system that took less than 150 years to build a handful of scattered settlements into a continent-spanning nation who led the world in power and prosperity a "wierd offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism," there is nothing I can do for you.
See what I mean? Don't want to hear it, so lie about it. I give up.
Liberals appear to believe that government power should be expanded until it can enforce safety and prosperity upon every person it can control. Conservatives appear to believe that government power should be expanded until it can enforce its approved brand of freedom upon every person it can control. Libertarians believe that it is impossible for government to enforce safety, prosperity, or freedom, and it should get out of the way so the people can maintain all of those conditions for themselves. Both liberals and conservatives appear to believe that as long as there are a group of people claiming to be the Government of the United States, those people are the sole embodiment of the United States, and may do as they please. Libertarians believe that the citizens of the United States, mutually agreeing to live and work togetherunder the guidance of the Constitution of the United States, are the embodiment of the United States of America. Libertarians further believe that the government is the hired help who do the dirty work of maintaining courts and armed forces, and dealing with those who are not citizens of the United States of America, under the supervision of the people of the United States of America, and in accordance with its Constitution. Since most people who style themselves "Americans" have forgotten what life under the Constitution was like, neither conservative nor liberal Americans want to hear from libertarians, so you make stuff up so you can ignore us. Since you all outnumber us by quite a margin, it doesn't really matter anyway. We wish you luck with your bloated, meddlesome government, but remember that we told you so. We also wish we didn't have to go down with the ship, but there it is.
Everything Heretic said is true, but only if you substitute "liberal" for every instance of "libertarian." I seriously doubt that either Heretic, or Ransom, has ever met an actual libertarian. The similarity in the sound of the names is the only point of confluence between these polar opposites.
For such an intelligent man, Ransom can say some incredibly stupid things. Please, somebody, tell me he doesn't really think libertarian is just another name for liberal. Please, I beg you, give me some hope that he can see the difference between choosing our fights and hiding under the bed!
In response to:

Spending and Morality

Steven668 Wrote: Jul 09, 2014 10:37 AM
Mr. Boehner is Speaker of the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives exists primarily to control the spending of the federal government. Look it up, it is in the Constitution. If Mr. Boehner is negotiating spending with the President, then he, or the House of which he is Speaker, is dodging responsibility. The President may request spending, but if there is already a spending problem, it is up to the House of Representatives to say, "No!" until there is no longer a spending problem. That is not happening, for one of two reasons. Either the House of Representatives is too lazy, or it is too cowardly, to do its job.
Apparently, Mr. Tanner has never been stopped for a traffic infraction. If he had, he would know that we are already a country where the first thing a police officer demands is to "see your papers."
Previous 21 - 30 Next