[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
politics and politicians Title: Judge tosses Libertarian Frank Tamburri from U.S. Senate ballot Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Hannah rejected arguments that Libertarians are subjected to unfair requirements for signatures on their nomination papers, and determined the naturopathic doctor lacked the required 3,034 signatures. However, Tamburri is filing an appeal with the Arizona Supreme Court. If the lower-court ruling holds, there will be a primary only on the Republican ballot. Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick is running unchallenged. If he's successful, Tamburri would be the sole Libertarian on his party's primary ballot, which means he would be on November ballot as the Libertarian standard-bearer. Arizona Republican Party Chairman Robert Graham filed the complaint against Tamburri. Republicans suspected Tamburri was recruited by the Democrats to run, figuring he could pull votes away from the GOP nominee in what is expected to be a tough general-election race. But Tamburri has maintained he is a genuine Libertarian, not a recent recruit to the party ranks. His defense in the petition challenge revolved around what he maintained were unfair signature requirements for minor parties. But Hannah cited a Georgia case in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a signature requirement of 5 percent of registered voters in a given party. In Arizona, the requirement is one-quarter of 1 percent of voters — and that can include independents. Remainder of the story is here. Additional Comment: The term “Libertarian” has long been synonymous with “Asshole” in my estimation, and I think it’s safe to say that Jacobin magazine editor Connor Kilpatrick probably feels the same way. Today is the centenary anniversary of the birth of Libertarian icon, economist Milton Friedlman, so what better day for the publication of the most viciously hilarious takedpown of the Libertarian position that I think I’ve ever read? Excerpted from the much longer “It’s Hip! It’s Cool! It’s Libertarianism!” which was cross-posted today at both Naked Capitalism and The Exiled:
Standing ovation! http://dangerousminds.net/comments/class_war_for_idiots_libertarianism_assholism Read more of Connor Kilpatrick’s “It’s Hip! It’s Cool! It’s Libertarianism!” at either The Exiled or at Naked Capitalism. Trust me it’s a fantastic, totally worthwhile read. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 43. A strong welfare state would give us the power to say Fuck You to our bosses—this is the power to say “I’m gonna work odd jobs for twenty hours a week while I work on my driftwood sculptures and play keyboards in my a chillwave band. And I’ll still be able to go to the doctor and make rent.” Sounds like leftist horseshit to me - their typical distortion of "freedom" to mean "freedom from reality and from the consequences of one's own actions." THIS is the "takedown of the Libertarian position" you elect to embrace?
#15. To: ConservingFreedom (#14) THIS is the "takedown of the Libertarian position" you elect to embrace? I am presenting their viewpoint ... juat being "fair and balanced." Surely you don't have a problem with fair and balanced ... or, do you?
#16. To: Gatlin (#15) juat being "fair and balanced." Braying leftist morons have the same First Amendment rights as anyone else - but that doesn't obligate you, me, or LF to give them equal time.
#17. To: ConservingFreedom (#16) juat being "fair and balanced." You are absolutely correct, there is no obligation.
#18. To: Gatlin (#17) there is no obligation. So why do it? Are you "fair and balanced" between God and the Devil?
#22. To: ConservingFreedom (#18) … there is no obligation.That’s a “fair” question and I have often wondered why I have never been asked it before. While I appreciate your right to ask the question, you will need to respect my right to decline to answer. Are you "fair and balanced" between God and the Devil?That is an improbable analogy and I will explain why. I use of the term “fair and balanced” to mean that fair is in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate … while balance is taking everything into account, meaning fairly judged and equally presented. To be fair and balanced between God and the Devil, I would need to fairly state the good and bad things about God and balance those with the good and bad things about the Devil. Since I see God to have been conceived as being incorporeal, yet a personal being for the source of all moral obligations to the greatest conceivable existent … I therefore can only find good things about God. While on the other hand the Devil is merely a name, among many other names, given to a supernatural entity who is the central embodiment of all evil … consequently, I can only find bad things about the Devil. Ergo, there is the basis for your improbable analogy.
#31. To: Gatlin (#22) While on the other hand the Devil is merely a name, among many other names, given to a supernatural entity who is the central embodiment of all evil … consequently, I can only find bad things about the Devil. Interesting - you believe in the existence of Satan, but you refuse to believe that there are evil people in high places, those with unlimited wealth and power who do his bidding. How does one live with that kind of cognitive dissonance?
#32. To: Deckard (#31) (Edited)
Interesting - you believe in the existence of Satan, but you refuse to believe that there are evil people in high places, those with unlimited wealth and power who do his bidding. I do NOT refuse “to believe that there are evil people in high places, those with unlimited wealth and power who do his bidding.” I need only to look no further than Obama, Hillary and Kerry to be fully aware that they have unlimited wealth and seemingly unlimited power to do, and are doing, the Devil’s bidding. One of the many shortcomings you self-righteous Paultard shitheads have is that you not only try to tell people what to think, you believe you posses magical innate power to read someone’s mind and determine what they believe ... then become smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior or others.
How does one live with that kind of cognitive dissonance? Oh, my sides … I cannot stop laughing at the irony of how you of all people can judge someone to have cognitive dissonance when your hyper tense anxiety constantly holds such a contradictory and incompatible attitude to the norm and lets you think you can decide what is right for all Americans and control how they think. I have lived through a world where Obama leads and controls … I have survived. I could never live in a world where you Paultard libertarians would try to control all actions and thinking by free people. You Paultards can take your libertarian belief that you can determine when someone cannot think well and that you will do their thinking for them and shove it up your liberal asses. Hmmm … I just remembered that someone the other day asked me why I have such great disdain for libertarians.
#36. To: Gatlin, Deckard (#32) your libertarian belief that you can determine when someone cannot think well and that you will do their thinking for them When has Deckard or any libertarian proclaimed an intention to do anyone's thinking for them?
#37. To: ConservingFreedom (#36) your libertarian belief that you can determine when someone cannot think well and that you will do their thinking for them "Proclaimed - announce officially or publicly." It is not necessary for someone to publically announce something in order to do it. Get real ... I know ... here comes the "rephrased question."
#38. To: Gatlin (#37) here comes the "rephrased question." There went the semantic hairsplitting. When has Deckard or any libertarian stated an intention to do anyone's thinking for them?
#40. To: ConservingFreedom (#38)
"Words have meanings."
When has Deckard or any libertarian stated an intention to do anyone's thinking for them?If you expect me to go back to various posts to parse sentences and point this out, then I must inform you that I will not take time to do that. There have been instances where it was obvious to me that he was trying to channel my thinking. Being "fair and balanced" ... I will, however, have no dispute with you should you interpret his phraseology differently while reading his posts to me.
#41. To: Gatlin (#40) There have been instances where it was obvious to me that he was trying to channel my thinking. So you "believe you posses magical innate power to read someone’s mind" - as you were recently berating the "Paultards" for allegedly believing. Interesting.
#42. To: ConservingFreedom (#41) (Edited) There have been instances where it was obvious to me that he was trying to channel my thinking. That was not from my possessing some magical innate power to read his mind ... it was derived from the reading the wording content of his post. "Most interesting."
#43. To: Gatlin (#42) That was not from my possessing some magical innate power to read his mind ... it was derived from the reading the wording content of his post. And the "Paultards" who "believe they posses magical innate power to read someone’s mind" - they don't read the wording content of posts?
Replies to Comment # 43. There are no replies to Comment # 43.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 43. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|