Hung out with a libertarian last night

[Ovett]

He was a total dickhead. Told me to read Atlas Shrugged. All he cared about was his hard earned money and the government "garnishing his wages." The only thing we agreed on was Bush spending out of control, but he said he would always vote Republican because of taxes. He also said the tax rate used to be as high as 90% until "Reagan fixed it." I told him that we have the least progressive tax structure of any western country and he replied that Europe is collapsing from within because they are too socialist. How do you respond to this stuff? Any ideas to get through to these types?

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Ayn Rand peeps are "objectivists" not libertarians.

[EstimatedProphet]

3. Right, and they're famous for being corporate whores

[Ciggies and coffee]

106. Corporate welfare served up by congressional whores

Big business and big government are a match made in heaven. We gather around and fight each other.

[Marie26]

6. Yep

If someone tries to present you with an Ayn Rand book, run. I respect most Libertarians, but have zero respect for the Ayn Rand "objectivists". There is a difference, IMO - real libertarians seem to care most about freedom, while "objectivists" seem to care most about selfishness.

[zbdent]

18. Hand them Orwell

Specifically, "1984" and "Animal Farm" . . .

[chelsea0011]

13. Rand writes decent books but is completely nuts when it

comes to using her views as philosophy. She simply doesn't believe in altuism. She uses the point of someone falling in front of a train. If the person has no "love" connection with you, you are perfectly within your right to just let them die. You are under no obligation to help them not fall. Imagine her views these past years with 9-11, tsunami, floods, hurricanes, and all other distruction happening now. Her belief is fuck them all. Don't help. You don't even know them.

[insane_cratic_gal]

91. Wow!

There's a woman that was suffering in some major way. Makes you wonder if they locked her in a closet when she was 2 for naps or something.



"Our indifference to others is often the source of many forms of suffering."--- Dalai Lama

[Darranar]

78. Same thing, politically.

Objectivism and the right-libertarian version of classical liberalism disagree on philosophical bases, but agree on basic political ideology.

[EstimatedProphet]

2. Some 'libertarian'

A real libertarian would care about the 4th amendment. If all he cares about is his money, then he's a corporate leech.

[KurtNYC]

60. Someone said recently that a Libertarian is a Republican who

smokes pot.

A bit simplistic but not too far off.

[kysrsoze]

61. Or a Repub who drinks soy milk - these people are generally full of sh*t

They profess to hate big government, but support it anyway. I seriously think they get off on being able to tell everyone they're wrong due to some ridiculous qualification. I was talking to one about the war and he responded, "Well, Clinton went into Bosnia without UN authorization." I said, "He got NATO approval and genocide was going on." Screw them.

[Ovett]

68. i hate to say it but my Dad is just like that

He likes to justify the Iraq War by citing Saddam's violations of the first Gulf War treaty. Basically, if you win a war and the guy who lost violates the treaty, well you are justified to go back to war. I always respond, just because you can find a justification for something doesn't make it a good decision.

[shadowknows69]

88. In defense

A libertarian attended the sept 24th anti-war rally with me in DC. Didn't agree with a lot o his politics but over all he's a good person and definitely has his head on straight concerning our dictator in the white house. Never smoked pot either BTW.

[BiggJawn]

92. I always say that.

Can't remember where I heard it first.

[mmonk]

82. Bingo

Real libertarians are against dictatorial control nor are they indifferent about it.

[izzybeans]

4. Just don't this person has shut down mentally.

[mitchum]

5. Were you drinking moonshine instead of "government approved...

alcohol"?
If not, he's already a hypocrite.

[DURHAM D]

25. I always suggest these people travel home on private roads only. eom

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

7. Strange, libertarians I know HATE the Schiavo-Republicans

and the rest of the intrusive theocrats. They also hate all the tax money that went for "preparedness" of homeland security and *poof*, a predicted hurricane proved too much for them.

They are all voting Democratic in 06 to rid the country of the Rapturist Rightwing intrusive zealots and wasteful spending breed of Republican.

[janx]

15. Yep, they sure do!

:toast: to libertarians!

[rucky]

74. This guy sounds more like a free-market fundamentalist

and Social Darwinist - "I got mine, screw you."

Totally different breed from the feisty "Don't Tread On Me" social libertarian types.

[KharmaTrain]

8. Hope The Bastard Hits A Pothole and Ruins His Hummer

Or his kid can't play golf next spring cause the school had to eliminate the team...or his sewage system backs up due to neglect. Serves these bastards right. They're the first to complain how inefficient government is, yet the last to want to pay for it and then condemn those who try to and vote for those who abuse it.

I used to have respect for Liberatarians...these days, these people are just as out there as the wingnuts.

[bluerum]

9. Ann Rand is a fiction writer. Fiction. It's not real.

Europe has been around for,,,,,, well much longer than the US. And it appears that it is evolving in a more consructive way than the US. If you ask me, the US is collapsing from within.

Regan fixed what? He raised taxes and reduced support for the poorest and most vulnerable and reduced taxes for the most affluent and most powerful. How is that a policy that any civilised society can justify from moral, ethical or religious positions?

Libertarians suck. They are Repukes in sheeps clothing. Too chicken to say what they really are.

[Ovett]

16. he wasn't afraid to say what he believed...

all he cared about was his money, literally. he was for an isolationist foreign policy, minimial government and minimal taxes. He didn't even think a FLAT tax was fair! Which I thought was pretty funny and laughed at him.

[bluerum]

51. As long he does not have to pay taxes. Let them poor people do it.

They get all the benefits right?

[Terran1212]

54. These fanatics gaining ground in Georgia

The "fair tax" idea and whatnot

They may even replace Democrats as the 2nd most popular party behind Republicans.

Only reason Libertarians don't rule Georgia I'd say is because they lack corporate connections and do not really sidle up to the Religious Right.

But then there are many "Libertarians" who are just extreme Republicans.

[Maru Kitteh]

69. "minimal government"

aka stuff HE thinks is important. I'm sure he can find a country more suitable to his philosophy. It'll have shitty roads, terrible schools/no public schools, crumbling infrastructure, sporadically unavailable utilities, terrible smog, dangerous doctors, not enough police, corrupt police, less safe food and more dangerous medicine, unregulated deadly buildings waiting to collapse filled with asbestos and formaldehyde, regularly occurring catastrophic air and rail accidents, death-trap cars trucks and busses driven by unsafe drivers and rip off artists around every corner preying on a wildly uneducated populace with an out of control birth rate.

But hey, at least they won't be taking so much out of his check.

[tenshi816]

81. In other words,

pretty much every third-world country on the planet. Good point.

[Cats Against Frist]

10. Man, libertarians keep getting the short end of the stick

We liberal libertarians, first and foremost, have to deal with LIBERALS who have no fucking clue what we believe in. Before we had to fight of the image of the asshole "Republican college kid who wants to smoke dope," label. Now we have to fight of the clueless idiot asshole "Republican college kid who wants to smoke dope" label.

Anyone who calls themselves a libertarian, and supports the GOP is a completely fucking clueless idiot. And half of all self-styled libertarians truly ARE Republican assholes, trying to pretend they aren't simply fascists who don't like to be taxed.

And now, people will pile on libertarians, in this thread, without trying to understand it.

:(

*edited for brainfart

[Ovett]

20. his only real reason to support the GOP was taxes...

he disliked the corruption and cronyism, but was clueless beyond straight fiscal issues.

he also would not support the religious right, except that any way to keep his taxes down would work for him--thus the alliance between the christian right and the corporate right.

[immoderate]

33. Hear, hear!

This libertarian issue has come up a few times in recent days. In a few instances I have sought to explain the difference between members of the Libertarian party (with a capital L) and generic libertarians (small l) who believe simply in exercise of free will. I have summed it up for some with my historic statement, "Give me liberty, or leave me alone!"

The Libertarians have co-opted the term and what it means for them is simply that they don't want to pay taxes. They are deluded into thinking they are self made and don't rely on the resources of a society to maintain their comfort. They don't see that if you deny enough people, you will be kept very busy fighting off predators.

Socially conscious libertarians understand the benefits of the economics of scale as it applies to our society. And that these benefits accrue to all. Note: Chomsky calls himself a libertarian socialist. There is no contradiction there. Libertarians believe in liberty. That's what the word means.

--IMM

[bluerum]

56. If belief in liberty is the defining component then there are many

libertarians in both parties and throughout the world.

Ahhhh - Wikipedia definition.

Libertarians support an expansive view of liberty as the proper basis for organizing civil society. They tend to define liberty as the freedom to do whatever one wishes up to the point that one's behavior begins to interfere with another's person or property. At the point of interference, each party would become subject to certain principled rules for adjudicating disputes, generally accepting that one who has demonstrated a proven lack of respect for the rights of others should be subject to sanctions, including possible constraints on their freedom. They believe that liberty is the right of every individual, with some viewing it as a natural right.

Libertarians generally defend the ideal of freedom from the perspective of how little one is constrained by authority, that is, how much one is allowed to do, which is referred to as negative liberty. This ideal is distinguished from a view of freedom focused on how much one is able to do, which is termed positive liberty, a distinction first noted by John Stuart Mill, and later described in fuller detail by Isaiah Berlin.

Libertarians generally view arbitrary constraints imposed by the state on persons or their property, especially because of statism, as a violation of liberty, in much the same light as similar interference. They tend to view the proper role of government as defending liberty, and otherwise limited to defining the equal rights of individuals to their respective freedom, and using the law, and a presumed monopoly on violence and coercion it would confer, to punish those who harm others through force or fraud. Anarchism is an extreme version of libertarianism favoring no governmental constraints at all, based on the assumption that rulers and laws are unnecessary.

Many libertarians view life, liberty, and property as the ultimate rights possessed by individuals, and that compromising one necessarily endangers the rest. In democracies, they consider any compromise of these individual rights by political action as "tyranny of the majority."

One of the problems with this is that everyone will have a different take on where their liberties end and others begin. This will bring about the need for "adjucators" or courts, judges and lawyers. We will need laws that will necessarily impinge upon someone or others view of their liberties. To support our society of libertarians we will need taxes.

I guess I am asking how do you reconcile your personal liberty with societies collective liberties? When and where do you become responsible for helping support the social and cultural artifacts of civilization? Should libertarians pay Taxes? Or is behaving nicely to you neighbor and not stealing his stuff qualify you as a good citizen and libertarian?

[Telly Savalas]

101. Should we do a DU poll to see how many people

support "arbitrary constraints imposed by the state"? That looks like attacking at a strawman to me.

Using the definitions you provided, I would argue that he essence of progressivism is to maximize positive liberty. Saying that protection from the constraint of taxation supercedes the benefit of a government-run universal healthcare system is a pretty ugly idea in my book.

As you concede, there's a lot of grey area in what the correct course of action is when liberties conflict. If the government doesn't put constraints on my neighbour's right to put a 50 foot tall nude photo of Dick Cheney her front yard, then it fails to protect my right to not to have to look at a giant image of the VP's flaccid member.

But self-proclaimed libertarians strangely act like they have have some sort of monopoly on the defence of freedom because of their tendency to favor negative liberty over positive liberty. This is made all the more perplexing by the fact that most of them drop this stance when it comes to certain pet issues (typically economic ones for those on the left).

[bluerum]

105. (Do) constraints appear arbitrary because they are created within a

specific context? For example a specific court case that produces a ruling that becomes precedent and is used as such in similar cases. Should the court ruling against displaying 50 foot tall photos in front yards apply only to nude photos of Dick Cheney, or 50 foot photos of other things as well? While this is well covered under most town zoning ordinances I can easily see it being labeled as an "arbitrary constraint" on my personal freedom to do as I want when and where I want.

In any case, (no pun intended), law and precedent are not created out of a vacuum. There must be some legal proceeding and agreement to precipitate a ruling and then perhaps a law.

The perception that a constraint is arbitrary is a failure to view oneself as connected to an existing body of law and society as a whole. Or perhaps a willful disconnecting in order to preserve a need for some sense of independence, freedom, or in fact, liberty.

I think as a whole, most people, even libertarians, understand the need for taxation. What most people object to is that the burden of taxation is carried unevenly and unfairly.

Those who reap the greatest gains from society seem to me, to owe the greatest debt to society. Those who must toil under the yoke authoritarianism for few wages and little compensation should not have to also carry the tax burdens of those who profit most from the toils of the poor.

One should graciously acknowledge and take responsibility for ones debts. To pass your debts off onto others is not libertarianism. I am not sure what it is,,,,, seems more like a modern day republican/neocon/theocon trait to me.

[Bryan]

57. Exactly. It's not fair.

There's a huge difference between the social lib elements (left-libertarians concerned with the encroachments on our freedoms, cosmopolitan "What do you mean I can't smoke in this bar?" types) and the deranged, antisocial ones (Free-market-will-provide corporatists, Trespassers-will-be-violated landowners who hate taxes).

[ktlyon]

85. so tell us more of what you think

What is a liberal libertarian?

[Cats Against Frist]

93. I can tell you what it's not

and that is self-described "social libertarians" or "civil libertarians," i.e., those who believe that the big-government apparatchik is fine, except when it comes to our bedrooms, drugs, etc. It's the equivalent of the "Republican who just wants to smoke pot," except it's the "Democrat who just wants to smoke pot.

What do I personally believe? That the owners of capital are largely criminal assholes, who wouldn't know the meaning of "personal responsibility" if it bit them on the hemmorhoid. That we have a corpo-fascist government, that the middle class wants protection from itself, and that everything is pretty much fucked up, and won't get right, until each individual person can take a kind of holistic and organic personal responsibility. Until we can work together, locally, as neighbors and communities, until we destroy national branding and national discourse, until we all have equal rights, under the Constitution, until we can sever the idea of a nation where 300 million people have one ideal in governance. Until the government is separated from the corporations. Until globalism is put to rest. Until we have strong unions, deriving their power from solidarity, until we have a committment to stewarding the Earth.

You get the idea -- it's your normal, radical left-wing stuff, just with an anti-government, or de-centralized spin to it. To become a libertarian, I had to let go of two ideals: 1. That the nation is a true reflection of community and 2. That the middle class needs saving from themselves. Once you realize that any other solution is just putting lipstick on a pig, it's fairly easy. Of course, it's much more complex.

[no name no slogan]

95. This would be called Anarchism in most other countries

and has more in common with the anarchist movements of the early 20th century than the so-called "libertarians" of this day and age.

See the Paris Commune of 1868, or the Spanish Civil War-era Catalonian government of 1936 for a close approximation.

[Cats Against Frist]

98. Well, that's exactly what I'm talking about

Except that the term "libertarianism" was co-opted by the right-wing libertarians. They can also be anarchists -- i.e. anarcho-capitalists. I prefer the term libertarian to anarchist, and I'm trying to take it back. :)

[no name no slogan]

100. good plan

I've heard Chomsky refer to it as Anarcho-Socialism or Anarcho-Syndicalism, which is essentially a socialist state where control of the economy is left to the people, and not the The State®, with direct control of the means of production handled by the workers themselves. :)

[flamin lib]

11. This is a hard case. I once had a conversation with a libertarian

who kept harping on "fiat currency" and said the constitution only allows for "minting" money which means coinage, preferably gold.

Okay I say, how do we pay for a B-2 bomber with gold coin? It would take about 500 pickup trucks to deliver the coins and would the trucks themselves be part of the payment? It hung him up.

Might try following his wishes to the logical conclusion. Don't care for the sick and infirm, they die. They die and somebody has to bury them. If that isn't paid for by taxes they lay in the streets and rot.

Is he/she willing to step over rotting corpses in the street on the way to work?

[SteppingRazor]

12. If Europe is "collapsing from within" becuase of socialism...

How come the Global Competitiveness statistics, released just weeks ago, rank us at No. 2 behind Finland? Sweden and Denmark round out the top four, with Norway at No. 9 -- in other words the most socialist countries in Europe are the most economically competitive.

Tell your libertarian friend to wrap that around his idiotic, Ayn Rand-loving brain.

Link:
http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Global+Competitiveness+Programme%5CGlobal+Competitiveness+Report

[BlueEyedSon]

17. Jesus, in what way is the US competitive????

[SteppingRazor]

21. If you're really wonky...

You can read the study's methodology here:

http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/GCR_05_06/Composition_of_the_Growth_Competitiveness_Index

[BlueEyedSon]

24. they are wrong about everything, probably heavily infiltrated with

neocons, bushites & US apologists


"Terrorism is greatest global risk for 2006"
LOL!

[SteppingRazor]

30. You're saying terrorism ISN'T the greatest global risk?

I think you can make a case either way, but I think terrorism is certainly a great risk, if not the greatest, going into 2006. I would further point out that our actions in the Middle East have only increased this risk, making terrorism even more of a threat now than it was in 2005 or even, say, Sept. 11, 2001.

[BlueEyedSon]

32. GLOBAL RISK? yeah. climate change, other environmental damage,

US economy failure, US expansionism, bird flu, weather, peak oil, drought/poverty/starvation.

Katrina killed at least 3x more than 9/11

US expansionism killed 100k.

Terrorism is so overblown. They just don't have the power, resources and reach to be a huge problem.

[SteppingRazor]

38. I think, on the contrary, a lot of the problems you cite are overblown:

US economic failure: Over the next year? Hardly likely. We may see a downturn, but the idea that the economy is going to crash in the next year, given that last year saw the highest economic growth in more than five years, seems far fetched to say the least.

US expansionism: I don't think you can look at our misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan as "expansionism." And, in any case, it's a regional -- not global -- threat. I don't see us attacking, say, Spain, England or Indonesia tomorrow -- all places where recent terror attacks have occured.

Bird flu: And you call terrorism "overblown"?

Weather: I agree weather is a problem, but it's hardly one we can do anything about. Humans are too small to affect short-term changes in weather.

Peak Oil: In 2006? I think this isn't a serious problem for at least another decade, yeah? Even if we hit Peak Oil now, the effects won't be felt for years. I agree this has the potential to be a MASSIVE problem. But if we're going to talk about the greatest risk in 2006, this isn't it.

Climate change: again, a long-term problem that won't have serious repurcussions over the next year.


In short, with the proper outlook domestically and a greater cooperation internationally, we can stop terrorist attacks. We cannot stop a hurricane or a tsunami.

And as far as the World Economic Forum being filled with "neocons" and "US apologists," the one director with any political background on the "about us" section of the site is almost definitely a Democrat, as he worked as the senior legislative assistant to a committee chairperson in 1990 and 1991, when Democrats controlled Congress.

[BlueEyedSon]

42. Humans are not too small to affect weather changes. We just did.

Peak oil occurred Dec 2005. As soon as demand outstrips supply by a teeny-tiny bit, the results will be global. It's an inelastic market.

The bushies are really falling down on the job if they haven't stuck some of their operatives in there, or otherwise exercised control over the WEF.

[SteppingRazor]

66. I didn't say humans are too small to affect weather changes...

I said we're too small to affect short-term weather changes. We cannot stop a hurricane or a tsunami. Over the long-term, I certainly agree that we can and have affected patterns in the weather.

As for the bushies having operatives in every global think tank on the planet, which your final statement seems to suggest, I'm not going to bother addressing such parranoia, except to say that I consider it dismally unlikely.

[Katherine Brengle]

53. Defeatism?

"In short, with the proper outlook domestically and a greater cooperation internationally, we can stop terrorist attacks. We cannot stop a hurricane or a tsunami."

We can't stop normal weather patterns (without an astronomical technology jump), but we can take steps to reverse the greenhouse effect. Minimal changes in world temperatures have catastrophic effects that we can see easily in the tsunami, the hurricanes, and if you want to see it in extremely serious terms, check out the situation in Peru.

Our dependence on oil, primarily oil from overseas, is a serious political issue as well as an environmental one. Obviously, toxic emissions from automobiles and manufacturing facilities are contributing to global warming. But our involvement in Middle Eastern politics is based first and foremost on our need to control the flow of oil from the ME to the United States.

Stopping terrorist attacks is NOT the most important thing on our agenda--it is important, but there are many other things that we need to do that will have an impact on how the rest of the world views the United States.

There is a far better chance that your child will have athsma because of air pollution than you're being blown to bits by a terrorist shoe bomb. There is a far better chance that your child will develop autism from mercury in his food or drinking water than you're being killed in a terrorist attack. There is a far better chance that a natural disaster caused in part by global warming (caused by human interaction with this planet, burning of fossil fuels) will destroy your home than a terrorist attack.

As long as we buy into the Bush administration's claims that we should live in fear of terrorism, we will never be able to get anything else done.

[Ovett]

58. i think the tsunami was caused by an earthquake. n/t

[SteppingRazor]

65. I agree with almost everything you said...

And I think we should be doing far more to address almost every envoironmental concern facing us today. But none of your points -- which, like I said, I agree with -- refute the fact that we can't stop a hurricane or tsunami. I don't think stating pure, simple facts is "defeatism."

And, over the long term, I agree that both peak oil and global climate change are more serious problems than terrorism. But, the question was what is the most serious problem in 2006, not over the next 20 or 40 years.

All I'm doing is pointing out that a legitimate case could be made that terrorism is the most pressing, immediate global problem in the next year. That's all. And, obviously, I don't think there's any chance a terrorist is going to attack my local Wal-Mart or shoe-bomb my children (if I had any). I mean, if I thought like that, I'd be posting at freerepublic, not democraticunderground. :hi:

[rman]

83. The neocons are the greates global risk

This isn't exactly the first time they have manufactured an enemy.

[Spinoza]

34. Actually,

libertarians are 100% against the war in Iraq, (most were also against Afghanistan) are isolationists to the core, (and therefore hate the neo-cons) and are opposed to ALL restrictions on immigration, illegal drugs, pornography, etc. Unlike both Democrats and Repubicans you can't say they are not consistent.

[SteppingRazor]

40. I think he was refering to the World Economic Forum...

who created the reprt I was citing. Not libertarians.

[stepnw1f]

14. Nothing But A Greedy Dick Head

"Libertarian" just sounds good, kinda like "Conservative", what ever the hell that's supposed to mean these days.

[Bozita]

19. ummm ... that 90% income tax structure was fixed by Kennedy

[sandnsea]

45. Because WWII was largely paid for

Which these numbskulls also fail to consider.

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. Here is some info on tax rates

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

[BlueEyedSon]

27. wish i could k&r this post

[Lexingtonian]

23. They're a waste of time

You can always bait them and toy with them by bringing up a/the social contract.

It's basically a kind of money-centered sociopathy.

Europe's fundamental problem is overpopulation relative to its resource base and markets. Economic ideology is beside the point there, the theories involved are simply excuses for how to partition the wealth and the pain there is. Population shrinkage is the solution and it's taking place.

[Bozita]

26. Thom Hartmann's got a guest from the Ayn Rand Institute on NOW

a regular feature on Hartmann's excellent show

[BlueEyedSon]

28. in the immortal word of cheney: "a major league asshole"

[dysfunctional press]

29. you can only get past them, not through to them.

i recently made contact with a girl/woman whom i've 'carried a torch' for since college(20+ years ago) when she was my best friend's fiance...they broke it off pretty ugly, and she moved on and away...when i first contacted her, she sent me a letter and a picture, and it really made my heart leap- i even contemplated the possibility of divorce/separation to possible pursue something...
then came the second letter- she's in kansas now, and a total right-wing loon...it gave me a total soft-on, and all those un-requited(sp?) feelings evaporated- poof. just like that.

funny how that happens.

[Maru Kitteh]

70. If you're that unhappy do your wife a fuckin' favor and divorce her now

Whatever has happened between you I seriously DOUBT that she deserves a husband so faithless as to seriously consider a divorce over an old fantasy and a new photo. It's wrong for you to waste the rest of her life when she could have had someone that really does love her. If you can't do the noble thing and tell her how you really are - get thee to some counseling.

[dysfunctional press]

73. whatever you say, dr. laura-

:eyes:...

(suffice it to say- some people should probably just steer clear of psych courses in college)

[GreenPartyVoter]

31. I have a neighbor who has this bumpersticker on his truck:

"Work Harder: Millions on Welfare are Depending on You" :puke:

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

35. Last April I had someone who cut my hair make a comment like that...

I mentioned I had to finish my taxes that evening, and she said, "good, there are millions on welfare
that need your money."
Without batting an eye, I said "Like Walmart?"
She paused, taken aback, and I explained corporate welfare in quick, concise terms. Even used an
examply of a local company that received $25 million in waived property taxes to expand their plant, then
reneged on their promise of 500 new jobs for the area. Then they went belly-up, shirking the city and
the state out of millions of dollars. All the while the CEO got his golden parachute and walked away.
She didn't like that story, and cut my hair in silence. I don't know if the silence was due to
her thinking over what I had said or her being taken aback by my refusal to agree with her narrow (dare I say bigoted?)
view of people on welfare.

I even tipped her. Although I'm not sure why.

[Bozita]

41. betting she doesn't report all of her tips

Some folks are welfare cheats. Therefore, her personal tax cheating is completely justified.

It's part of the GOP mantra.

[Hobarticus]

67. You ambushed her with facts and reason...

always knocks the 'bumper sticker' crowd deaf and dumb.

[Ovett]

36. that sums up his philosophy

he was opposed to all welfare. he said if you need welfare you should be put to work digging ditches or some other type of physical labor.

[mitchum]

37. I guess he's just too chickenshit to attach that "I Hate N*****s" one...

because that's what he really means.
Make no mistake about it.

[ktlyon]

86. so true so true

I think that is something we need to remember. Clinton pointed it out many times, racism is not dead. Just mostly silent or speaking in codes. That is code in redneck language.

[SnowGoose]

39. Well then he won't mind if I build a waste incinerator next door

to his house and put a *really* short stack on it. After all, what business does the gub'ment have telling me, a private business, what I can and can't put into the air on my private property?

He also probably wouldn't mind if I began manufacturing a food additive "secret formula x-39" that goes into all the packaged foods with no safety testing. After all, he's free not to buy anything if he can't understand the ingredients list.

Think of all the tax money he could save if we eliminated the FDA and the EPA!

[Initech]

43. Another "libertarian" who votes with his wallet

God, there is nothing more sickening than people who vote with their wallets.

[Katherine Brengle]

44. I think Libertarians are 1/2 right--the "Liber-" half. n/t

[Carni]

46. Tell him to put down his bong

I think there is a lot of truth to the libertarian's are just repukes who smoke pot rumors!

[Trueblue_Too]

47. Wanna see some real RePUKElican FREAKS?

Check out this message board...

http://www.up-link.net

They all claim to be Christians but they are soooooo hateful!

:banghead:

[Odin2005]

48. Libertarians = anarchists who want protection from thier slaves

[TallahasseeGrannie]

49. I've always rather liked librarians.

[Nutmegger]

50. Too socialist????

What a jackass. See post #12.

:eyes:

[Terran1212]

52. "Libertarians" and Ayn Rand fanatics can't be debated with

They are just obsessed with the simple fanatic principles of what they refer to as the "Individual," not understanding or choosing not to deal with the fact that without social responsibility and rights, most individuals will live very poor lives.

[ProfessorGAC]

55. Um. The 90% Tax Rate Was Removed By KENNEDY

He's off by about 25 years. He doesn't even have his facts straight.
The Professor

[MrBenchley]

59. You can't get through...

Libertarianism is the rationalization of any nonsense that happens ot be running through a libertarian's mind, whch usually happens to be plain old right wing bigotry and ignorance. You can't debate an idieology that isn't there.

[warrens]

62. It was 70 percent and Kennedy fixed it

90 percent was a brief moment in Great Britain (leading to Beatles' song Taxman).

When anyone says "read (insert Ayn Rand title here" reply, I did, when I was 14 and didn't know any better.

[Ovett]

64. wrong... see post 22. it was 90. n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

63. Someone one day will find a way to turn the mirror on them.

Right now it's important for us to make sure we don't get seduced by them. They have a far darker agenda than the Republicans have. In fact, a lot of what has gone wrong with this administration, can be attributed to Western-style Libertarianism.

[mac56]

71. Ignore them.

Libertarians are just Republicans who smoke dope.

[tjwash]

72. I read Atlas Shrugged when I was a teenager.

And I actually really got into the mindset. The government was all bad, all that mattered was MY right to market what I wanted at any price I wished and to make as much money as possible without any government interference. Nothing else mattered in a capitalistic system, the political parties were all the same, the existing ideologies were no different from one another, Left and Right, up and down, and white and black were all equal. But then, my skin cleared up, I moved out of my moms house, and I grew up.

Sadly, most Libertarians have yet to reach that point..

[depakid]

75. You don't respond to stupid people

in fact, you don't hang out with them- and don't help them when bad things eventually happen.

Remind them of their words. I had the great pleasure to do that to someone like the person you described once- you never heard anyone whine so loud about his "misfortunate" and his "rights."

[ktlyon]

90. I will help people in need no matter what personal philosophy

they espouse. One way to show them what we stand for is to show real compassion for those in need. A hurricane or tornado affects the whole community and we can not pick and choose who will help. My personal beliefs will not let me turn my back on anyone.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

76. Actually, the top MARGINAL tax rate was 90% until

Kennedy reduced it all the way down to....70%!

(By the way, it sounds as if he doesn't understand what a marginal tax rate is.)

[Warren DeMontague]

77. Run, don't walk, from anyone brandishing Ayn Rand.

That's all I can say about that.

[Swamp Rat]

79. He'll get killed if he continues to hang out with repukes

They are TOTALLY INEPT when it comes to handling guns.



:D

[Blue_Tires]

80. yea, i'm coming across more and more

of the free-market worshippers, those that want a completely unregulated corporate world where everything is legal in the name of making a buck

[kentuck]

84. A lot of people are like the frog in boiling water....

Bush and the Repubs are slowly turning up the heat and they will be boiled to death as they all talk about how nice the water is...

[bleedingheart]

87. Tell him that if he is in a life threatening situation you will have to

decide what is is in it for you....and then perhaps just walk away...

[Paladin]

89. There's A Self-Described "Progressive Libertarian"......

....down in our very own DU Gun Dungeon, with a post savagely trashing Ted Kennedy. It ends with an ugly joke involving Mary Jo Kopechne. The moderators used to remove such blatant insults to Democratic officials; not any more, I guess. Gotta love such "progressive" behavior.....

[stevietheman]

94. Objectivism = the worst form of linear thinking. n/t

n/t

[leesa]

96. Obviously he has not had a medical problem or he would have noticed the

collapse of our medical system. Has he noticed the collapse of our treasury? Has he noticed the collapse of our highway infrastructure?. What little bubble is this dufus living in?

[globalvillage]

97. Show him costofwar.com

I showed the cable guy last night when he installed my new modem. Nice guy, but started talking about his tax cut.
He was amazed to see what his baby daughter's grandkids will be paying for.
Of course, he may not care.

[left of center]

99. The film "Corporation" provides a clear picture of what would

take the place of government should Libertarians have their way- ammoral corporations!

Tell your friend to put that in his pipe!

[Terran1212]

102. Good but incoherent film

It really ends up attacking corporations in a few cases rather than the institution as a whole. Still good though. The Bolivia/Bechtel stuff was disgusting.

[left of center]

103. The events in Bolivia/Bechtel were a good example of

the weak state/strong corporation mix.

[ComerPerro]

104. Tell the guy to open his eyes and look around

odds are, he is paying out a larger percentage of his income (in taxes and due to inflation) than he ever did under a Democrat.

Unless he is really rich. Then, yes, Republican policies are good for him.