Share in the libertarian love - Live from Kentucky...

[Surya Gayatri]

LIVE: Rand Paul to announce presidential bid in Louisville (15.00 GMT)

[malthaussen]

1. I'm waiting to see if he will violate the law and concurrently run for Senator.

And when he does (since Libertarians only follow the rules if they want to), will anything happen?

-- Mal

[Surya Gayatri]

3. That IS a rhetorical question, isn't it?

What do you think?

[malthaussen]

10. Eh, the rascals always get away with it.

Those GOP swine violate the law as often as they breathe, and nothing ever happens. It's depressing to watch. It's only a civilization of laws for me and thee.

-- Mal

[FSogol]

2. There are not enough puke smilies to give Rand the amount he deserves.

Rand Paul and his supporters = ( * ∞ )

[Surya Gayatri]

4. Smarmy, oleaginous creep, isn't he?

[FSogol]

5. Yup and that's not even taking the muskrat on his head into account.

PS. I was going to post a picture of a muskrat, but they all seem cuter than Rand's dumb head.

[malthaussen]

13. How dare you insult muskrats like that?

Hater.

I wonder, though, if there has been a poll to see whose hair is ugliest, Paul's or the Trump's? It's a tough call.

-- Mal

[HughBeaumont]

6. Paleo-Libertarian . . .

. . . . ecccccchhh . . . ..

Paleolibertarianism is an ideology within libertarianism that sees social conservatism as a necessary part of society, but does not believe in government intervention to enforce it.

The term was coined by anarcho-capitalist Lew Rockwell in 1999, wanting it to refer to pre-war, traditional libertarianism as opposed to the more socially progressive "Beltway libertarianism".[1] Ironically Rockwell stopped labeling himself a paleolibertarian when the term started to refer to socially conservative libertarians.

Keep in mind that though paleolibertarians are opposed to a large federal government by being strongly in favor of state's rights, many are in favor of social authoritarianism on a state and local level, meaning that they may be considered, like Ron Paul, more anti-federalist than "small government" libertarian. The degree of social authoritarianism they are in favor of varies from paleolibertarian to paleolibertarian, though some are even more extreme than some of the Republican Party by tolerating or even encouraging anti-Sodomy laws or being sympathetic to the Lost Cause of the South.

[Surya Gayatri]

7. Is that what this clown is?

[HughBeaumont]

8. Him and his old man are "have cake and eat it too" kind of guys.

They cling to the belief of their hetero-male dominance being installed somehow . . . without taxation or regulations or force . . . theoretically . . .

It's kind of like the guys who want all the benefits of taxation without, of course, having to pay taxes.

[Surya Gayatri]

9. What's worrying, is that they keep saying he has strong support

among young voters. (weed and all, ya know)

[HughBeaumont]

11. Starting to think the prospect of legalized pot is the only reason people gravitate to Libertarians.

It's a tempting surface package, for sure.

But you know what they say about "Too good to be true" . . .

* Swaths of them are anti-choice.

* The philosophy itself is a logical bollocks.

* Swaths of them are economically more hyper-right-wing than Republicans.

* Their anti-war stance is insincere. War shouldn't happen because it's immoral, counterproductive, barbaric and just plain wrong. They're only against it because it's just "another thing government meddles in". They have no noblesse oblige towards the soldiers; their stance on dismantling SS, Medicare, the VA and Veteran's Benefits belies it. Anyone ever find it just a tad funny that the Paulistines or Libertarians or whatever were nowhere to be found during the Failure Fuhrer's reign of war and corporate corruption . . . not a peep?

* "States Rights", a libertarian tenet, is rooted in discrimination.

[Surya Gayatri]

12. Interesting reads, thanks. Pot does look like the big draw.

[malthaussen]

15. I just call them bastard feudalists.

The benefit of schooling in British History. Bastard feudalists are like regular feudalists in that they all are interested only in their own benefit. They differ from regular feudalists in not having an overlord (except the king), and in maintaining retinues of paid mercenary followers rather than inconveniencing themselves with the legal encumbrances of serfs. While the feudal contract was honored more often in the breach than not, lords still had some legal obligations to their subjects, and the serf did still have some legal protections against the lord. This would be anathama to the modern Libertarian.

-- Mal

[HughBeaumont]

16. Niiiice one.

Never thought of it that way.

[malthaussen]

17. It's especially fitting because they're bastards. n/t

[tjwash]

14. Hey - he has the added advantage of having his running mate stapled to his head

Hey Rand - Marv Albert thinks your toupee looks all jacked up.

Looking forward in breathless anticipation to the parade -