So you’re saying that in Libertania, unless you’re one of the “the best,” you can be compelled to work as a glorified prostitute?
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
My apologies. I thought a little light humor was permissible in GD.
Pretty much. One of the common conceits of the libertarian is that they are one of the elite, so such little drawbacks will never happen to them.
Humor is fine, but in touchy threads where the participants are already close to losing their cool, the particular expression of humor might need a bit of caution.
Okie dokie, understood. You know how sometimes umpires warn baseball teams to lay off the beanballs? I suggest some sort of flagging of threads to indicate that the temperature has risen to the point where this sort of humor is inappropriate. Just a suggestion.
I think we should give Rand Paul quite a bit of credit for one thing.
While the rest of the right wing world has been slamming Maddow for “gothcha” journalism, Paul himself was quoted later as saying the interview was fair. He then attacked the rest of the media, and especially msnbc (her station as he called it) for distorting what he said, and he did have some justification for that claim.
So, while he’s pretty much a loon, I think he’s an intellectually fairly honest one. I think the TN voters are going to have a reasonably clear picture of who he is and what he stands for, which is an improvement over what you can say for most politicians, liberal and conservative.
But I still hope he loses.
I pretty much agree, with the nitpick that it’s the KY voters, not TN.
Oh, crap! Has anyone told him?
According to the Washington Post, Rand Paul has betrayed the party’s values, and is not a Libertarian. The party is considering running another candidate for the same senate seat in the general election.
This was an interview with Vice Chairman Joshua Koch of the Libertarian party.
Here’s a part that I don’t get:
What is this guy saying? I thought Paul’s criticism of the CRA was the most Libertarian thing he’s said. Is he saying Libertarians support the CRA, or that Paul just should have kept his mouth shut, or what?
He’s saying that opposing the CRA got really bad press, and if people think that being libertarian means you oppose the CRA, that’ll hurt the party, so Paul should have kept quiet.
That would make sense on Planet Libertaria, where we aree all free not to answer any questions we want. But on Earth, running for a big-time public office, some questions will be asked again and again until answers are offered.
So while this guy’s complaining that Paul has betrayed Libertarian ideals, he’s also complaining in the same interview that Paul is too honestly portraying Libertarian ideals?
well, yes. He wants people to support libertarianism, and knows that people like the CRA, and you don’t get people to support your party if it’s linked with unpopular views.
All I can ask is, have any of these knuckleheads ever gotten elected to anything?
No Libertarian has ever been elected to nationwide office as a Libertarian, but a number have been elected to state and local offices.
It’s certainly becoming much clearer why that is.
You guys know it’s been mentioned in this thread about 9000 times that libertarians only oppose 1 provision out of 9 or 10 of the CRA (and even that’s not universal nor is it any sort of priority), right? So quit with the “libertarians all oppose the CRA” crap.
Hey, just explain to me what the Libertarian guy meant. Paul clearly WAS liimiting his answer to only the provisions restricting private businesses, and this guy seems upset with his answer. As I said in my post about this – I don’t understand why he was complaining about what Paul said. It did not seem to me in any way a betrayal of libertarian principles – though obviously the guy thought some other of his positions are.
The media is doing what you guys are doing here, saying “he opposes the CRA!” - so I would guess that the guy, seeing that that’s the political soundbite, decided to distance himself from the idea even though it’s an incorrect portrayal of it. Ironically, this thread started out with everyone being so dismissive of Rand’s evasive answer, but even with his non-soundbite evasive answer it still turned into the simplistic and incorrect notion that he was trying to avoid.
How about actually reading what I wrote?
I said he criticized it, which he certainly did. Nowhere have I said he opposed it.