Thursday, May 20, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Recent Posts
Popular Posts
-
Julian Assange is in jail in UK facing deportation to Sweden on charges of rape. Many people, otherwise sympathetic to Assange and Wikileak... -
Octopuses are smarter than they should be. Every other invertebrate registers as static on an EEG. An Octopus generates the kind of slow l... -
For the comic book fans, hat tip to Andrew Sullivan : Frank Miller is the comic book artist and writer behind The Dark Knight, a bunch of gr... -
Tragic News For Albertans You bastards. You lousy bastards. The Alberta provincial government has outlawed $1 drink specials and limited Ha... -
The pathologically sadistic and demented Harper government has now gone so far they managed to shock the conscience of Saskatchwan's rig...
-
Ottawa Police officer Steve Desjourdy appears to have a serious problem with any woman who gets 'uppity' with him. On Wednesday, ... -
Spotted at Scott's Dia Tribes : Rachel Marsden , serial stalker, Anne Coulter wannabe, former Fox News personality fired for being too... -
The context: Ezra Levant spits venom at the doctor who brought attention to increased cancer rates downstream from the tarsands. Antonia... -
More evidence that many police officers extend their 'us and them' attitude to all of us not just criminals. A woman who was bound ...
3 comments:
...and fuck you in return, you don't understand diddly shit.
You can disagree with Paul if you wish, but don't mischaracterize what he says, like the other Dipper guy `dalmaxmoron' or whatever he or she is.
For a guy who claims to be a `libertarian', you sure don't know shit about liberty.
I love the automatic assumption that disagreeing with Paul means 'I don't understand diddly shit.' Like most right wing Libertarians and Mr. Paul in particular, your immediate, extraordinarily arrogant and condescending assumption is that fully informed and knowledgeable disagreement with your position is by definition impossible - anyone who disagrees just doesn't understand the fine philosophical point.
In fact of course I understand Rand's point precisely, I'm a left leaning libertarian a proud and longstanding tendency in libertarian thought, I just disagree with him. Vehemently.
And its interesting how selective Pauls' Libertarian absolutism is:
He supports Medicare and wants no reduction in Medicare payments (He plans to continue his career as an ophthalmologist despite being elected Senator) has lately said he would not leave abortion to the states, he doesn't believe in legalizing drugs like marijuana and cocaine, he'd support federal drug laws, he'd vote to support Kentucky's coal interests and he'd be tough on national security.
So he's quite willing to bend his absolutist Libertarian philosophical beliefs to support public healthcare, drug laws and other massive state intrusions into citizens personal physical autonomy, a huge military industrial complex and massive state subsidies for the coal industry in his state - but the state intervention in the private sector that is one step too far for him is legislation forbidding racism.
Interesting priorities.
Also interesting to note R.B that you come up as coming from a Conservative Party of Canada IP - so your Libertarianism is a little situational too isn't it?
Post a Comment