Libertarian screwballs run amok!

The BBQ Pit
1

:: bangs head against desk ::

So we’ve got a psycho claiming to be a Libertarian (Rick Stanley) running for Senate. He was on the radio with Colorado’s Idiot Morning Guy yesterday and Stanly point blank said:

  1. Bush, Gephart…EVERYONE in the Executive and Legislative branches (except two congressmen…one from Texas and one other) who voted for the Patriot Act were traitors and should be hung by the neck until dead. (partial cite…3d paragraph from the bottom.)

  2. Anyone who approves of any law restricting ANY weapon (up to and including nuclear missles) is a traitor.

  3. Any court that flies an American flag with that gold fringy stuff is showing that they’re part of a conspiracy (dunno what kind, I got to work and turned off the radio at that point)

I shrugged and assumed that he was about as representative of the Libertarian Party as Lyndon LaRouche was of the Democrats (until I learned that he was picked as their candidate on Sunday. :rolleyes: )

So anyway, after that “interview” and today (the day after), the idiot morning guy (who has contempt for anyone who’s in favor of ANY kind of freedom (he’s anti-free speech, anti-gun, anti-drug, anti-tax reform). In short, he’s an idiot.) ranted about how “THIS is what the Libertarians believe! FEAR THEM!” gets a call from Dave Bryant, head of the Information department of the Colorado Libertarian party who wants to discuss stuff. I’m thinking “C’mon Dave: this moron’s a hostile host. Be careful of your phrasing, 'cause he’d love to rip you a new asshole. Talk about non-coersion, increasing freedoms, restricting government, etc! AND distance the Colorado Libs from that moron Stanley! (even though he’s their official candidate). Show everyone that Libertarians can be thoughtful, insightful people with real-world solutions!”

Uhm.

Nope.

What we got was psychotic conspiracy theory stuff.

Did you know that we’ve probably been living in a dictatorship since 194x? (the War Powers act removed all freedom!)
Apparently so!

We shouldn’t have a military. But it was appropriate to respond militarily to the events of Sept. 11.

Some coercive taxes were ok, but he really didn’t know which ones were coercive. But maybe 10% would be fair.

Court systems are OK, but cops? Not so much.

Building infrastructure isn’t really an appropriate role for government.

What he didn’t do is distance the party from the psychotic loonie who’s running for senate, and what he didn’t do is discuss non-coersion and/or the non-initiation of force and what (most of all) he didn’t do is dispell the idea that many people have that Libertarians are a bunch of wackos.

:: bangs head on desk again ::

Libertarians (and Libertarian allies), we have met the enemy and they are us.

Fenris

2

So sad.

My old home has fallen on hard times, and is at the mercy of the Loonies.

3

You mean the Libertarian Party is filled with nut cases? Who would have thought?

4

Careful, Fenris. You don’t wanna do that at work.

5

I agree, Fenris. I try to avoid hanging out with fellow Libertarians at every opportunity. There are some whacked-out nutjobs in our party. And even many of those who aren’t nutjobs but are in charge of the party seem to be a little too over-the-top at times. I’d probably be more vocal in my party support and more active around election time if it weren’t for a lot of the people in the party. :slight_smile:

6

Boy, it’s a good thing lissener didn’t say that; this thread would have turned ugly faster than you can say “blanket party.”

7

Fenris, Stanley was also claiming that the recent mailbox bombings were the work of the government. Even though he knows that the FBI arrested the actual bomber, he still is suspicious that the government did it.

What the fuck is the Colorado LP thinking?

8

Lissener, the difference between you and Fenris is that he is writing about actual quotes from a Libertarian cnadidate. You throw around reckless, cite-free generalizations and try to present personal opinions as concrete facts. In general, you are about as home in a reasoned debate as a lobster in the Sahara.

Numero Two-o–referring to yourself in the 3rd person is restricted to supervillains, arrogant pro athletes, and Bob Dole.

Numero Three-o–Self-pity and attention whoring are not as attractive as you might think.

9

Sorry, gobear; int he future I’ll try to remember to include a smileyface for the irony-impaired.

10

“irony-impaired”?

I do not think that means what you think it means.

11

Um, thanks for playing, Kamandi, but BZZZZT.

It means exactly what I think it means. Look it up next time, before you embarrass yourself again.

12

Say, huh?

“Irony”? Are we talking Socratic rony? Dramatic irony? Satiric irony? Pray explain.

Kamandi made a straightforward comment to which you made a snarky reply. Methinks the embarrassment is thine.

Oh, and the first sentence in your reply is rich. "It means exactly what I think it means. "–True Humpty Dumpty logic, your signature.

13

Demise: You’re right, and I can’t believe that I missed that point. He also said that on the air (his reasoning is that it gives the government (Bush and Ashcroft specifically) yet another reason to take our guns away. Um…how mailbox bombs help a generally pro-Second Amendment adminstration take our guns away went unexplained (and the Idiot Morning Show guy didn’t have the brains to ask the obvious follow-up questions). The Info guy from the Libertarian Party didn’t distance himself from that position. I was aghast.

Fenris

14

Well, Kamandi can’t exactly look up “irony-impaired”, because the term doesn’t appear in any dictionary I’m aware of. Literally the term would seem to mean “someone who is deficient in irony”, but “irony” isn’t usually used as a characteristic of people, so I’m guessing it’s more along the lines of “someone who is deficient in detecting irony”. But what irony is Kamandi failing to detect in your first post?

If there was irony in your post, I don’t think its presence is self-evident. Could you elaborate?

15

Would it be beneath Your Truly Massive Intellect to explain to the thick-headed here (meaning me, obviously) what is ironic about the above statement? Cause I don’t get it.

Please use small words.

16

[sub]Look.
It.
Up.[/sub]

17

Didn’t see Amok’s post.

The first dictionary entry, including all three subentries, should give a sense of the way in which I used the word “irony.”

18

Why, gobear, are you stalking me? I’m flattered, if a bit nonplussed, at how you seem to pounce on my every post. “Methinks” [ :rolleyes: ] you should maybe get out more.

And as to my first sentence, next time I’ll annotate: I’m sure most people who read it realized I was just echoing Kamandi’s PBism.

19

No, I’m not stalking you, so don’t flatter yourself.

PBism?

20

Nope. Still don’t get it. As far as I can see, lissener’s statement does not match any given definition of irony.

But I’m not interested in hijacking Fenris’ thread any more, so I’ll just update my opinion of lissener and drop the discussion.