OT: LOONEYTARIANS and how to spot them....greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Now I know where most of the posters come from after reading this little article. This is not the libertarian party I remember from the early 80's when I was more politically aware..LINK
I find Libertarians the most selfish people on this Earth. They care about nothing at all but their money, their guns and their absolute right to their money and their guns. They care not one lick about society or anyone in it, proved conclusively by their incessant screaming not about less taxes but no taxes, yelling not about less gun controls but no gun controls.
No personal income taxes whatsoever is at the top of their party platform. My speech on this issue is real short: If you don't want to pay taxes get the fuck out of here pal -- go to Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda or Beirut where your ideas are a reality rather than just pipe dreams.
Second on their platform is the full legalization of all drugs including heroin, cocaine, crack and crank. The numbers of people who would fall into this snow heap would overwhelm every city in this country to an extent never before experienced. Within months there would be literally millions of kids and screwed up nitwits perceiving existence only as where and when their next line or puff came. Ten's of millions more would be buying and trying cocaine within weeks; the hopeless lower class, the bored middle class, college students, the sometime partiers, and horny Dudes using it to get laid. Adding a 10% addiction/dependency rate to the millions of afore mentioned kids and nitwits. This would be the beginning of what the Libertarians are after, the destruction of society and overthrow of the United States Government by handgun and assault rifle.
Third on the Looneytarian platform is an intense overwhelming gun waving that makes the NRA look like a gun control organization. My God, these people are gunloons from Hell. They want full automatic weapons in hand at all times with hand grenades, claymores and rocket launchers strapped to their coveralls and .50 caliber machine guns mounted on their cars.
The leader of the Libertarian Party in the 80's and who was instrumental in making it America's Third Party (also their Presidential candidate at the time) was Ron Paul, a Republican congressman from Freeport, Texas and an unyielding Pro-Lifer. In the Spring of 88' when Pat Robertson lost the Michigan primary and was knocked out of the presidential run, an estimated 200,000 Right-wing Fundamentalist Robertson followers joined the Libertarian Party ranks.
The biggest floor fights in their conventions are over abortion, in the past it was left blank in their platform but now by a narrow margin they include a pro-Choice statement. Watching this particular fight I finally began to understand. That it is not liberty that drives the libertarian mentality, but just the base selfishness of Social Darwinism. After all, besides the death penalty and physical incarceration, there could be no greater government intrusion in this nation than forcing women to have children they do not want.
Also keep in mind that their two greatest heroes today are David Koresh, an insane cop-killing rapist, child molester and arms dealer who said he was God, and Randy Weaver, a cop-killing arms dealer aligned with the Aryan Nations. The attraction to Weaver is not only the guns, but be sure to understand that the Libertarian Party is against all Civil Rights legislation and adheres completely with David Duke, the KKK and the Aryan Nations on legislation concerning race.
A few years back in my cyberspace travels I happened upon the National Libertarian Echo, I asked the question: "How do you rationalize "libertarian" to your leader being Pro Life and the influx of a quarter of your membership from Pro-Life Pat Robertson Fundamentalists?" I received the answer the following day through my local access point who informed me my message had been deleted and I was banned from the system. Banned I might add, faster than I had ever been banned from any system in 10 years (including Christian Fundamentalist and NAZI/Aryan systems).
It was also a real eye opener to watch the most disgusting right-wing bigot, homophobe, racist, anti-Semite, and the person who has left me the most point blank death threats on any network, leave a message in August of 92 say that as the Republican Party and conservative ideology were no longer viable with his extreme right-wing views, that he was immediately joining the Libertarian Party and would vote Libertarian from that day forward. That was the final straw. There was no longer any doubt in my mind at all. Libertarians were just what I had assumed they were, anarchists and right-wing lunatics who have fallen so far off the deep end, they deny liberty in the name of liberty even more blatantly than the conservatives.
Take your standard right-wing lunatic, remove the issues of sex and religion, add a double dose of selfish callous disregard, stir in a gun waving madness putting even the NRA to shame, mix in a seething hatred of the Federal government, toss in a few ship containers of legalized crack and crank and you got Looneytarians.
Ideology: The Libertarian mindset stems from an obsessive adolescent hatred of authority in any manner, the inability to speak or write a sentence without a reference to the 2nd Amendment, and of course the gun toting social and economic anarchy they wish upon the land.
Issues: Top four: The elimination of the IRS and income taxes, States Rights, the full legalization of all drugs, and no gun controls at all.
Heroes: Randy "Niggers and Jews should be deported or shot" Weaver, the racist arms dealer and cop killer from Ruby Ridge and David "Give me your wife, a little girl to screw and a baby to beat, for I am God" Koresh, the Branch Davidian cop and child killer.
Support: The NRA, the Posse Comitatis, the American Spectator, the CATO Institute and Right-wingers gone off the deep end.
Abortion: It is estimated that over 40% of Libertarians are Pro life. Keep in mind what the powerless Federal government they advocate will allow the States to do with this issue.
Civil Rights: The civil, equal and human rights women and minorities have gained have been from the Federal Government, without it, many or most would have no vote and would still be bought for dowries or picking cotton as slaves in Alabama. Again, keep in mind what a powerless Federal government will allow the States to do with this issue.
Gay Rights: Where must gays and lesbians go to gain redress for discrimination against them? Libertarians may sound tolerant on specific issues in this matter, but again, think what gun toting anarchy will gain the homosexual community.
Environment: No federal regulations. This alone will decimate America to literally look like Mad Max - Thunder Dome.
Beware: Look what decentralization of federal power has accomplished in Somalia, Lebanon, Rwanda, Bosnia and much of Eastern Europe. Anarchy, religious/ethnic civil war and genocide.
Long ago as an acne faced juvenile without a clue, I read Atlas Shrugged (Ayn Rand) one summer and literally fell apart. The government was all bad, society was all bad, all that mattered was the individual's right to market what they pleased at any price they wished and to make as much money as possible without any government interference. Nothing else mattered, 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. I even sent for a WHO IS JOHN GALT? bumper sticker. Luckily for me that Teenybooperism dissipated as I read more books, my acne cleared and I grew up. Sadly, Libertarians have not as yet made that transition, squeeze one and most of what you get is pimple puss and gun oil.
If you wish to understand what Libertarians want and are about, just go down to your local movie rental house and grab up a couple MAD MAX movies.
-- y2k dave (email@example.com), September 29, 1999
Want some cheese with that whine?
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 29, 1999.
While I have had my own reservations about the opinions of some who refer to themselves as Libertarians, I am overwhelmed by the hysterical statist ranting reflected above, as well as by its wildly inaccurate claims. I'm delighted, Y2K Dave, that you were able at one time to read some of Ayn Rand's works; perhaps some follow-up with the original text of the Constitution and The Federalist Papers (as a clear reflection of INTENT in that Constitution) is indicated. Does your tone suggest that you are afraid that Y2K will prove a 7+ event and that your heavily centralized Federal government will not survive? Is liberty that frightening a concept for you?
-- Paul Urquhart (email@example.com), September 29, 1999.
thanks Big Brother Dave...
you call libertarians looneytarians, I call you a one world socialist elitist liberal..
you say get out for not agreeing on tax issues, I say you get out for trying to force me to pay taxes for your plutocracy.
associate libertarians with David Koresh and Randy Weaver.. a little demonizing huh.. i bet your two greatest heroes are Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot..
oh and i must not forget the associations with the KKK, "Christian fundamentalists" and the Aryan Nation.. I bet you like environmental extremists... pinko communists... etc
next time argue some valid points without the threats to "get the @#@#@ out".. and the pathetic name-calling..
-- kergan (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 29, 1999.
What is Libertarianism?
Libertarians and their ideas are often misunderstood. Libertarian.Org is here to offer an overview of the libertarian philosophy and the libertarian movement. It is designed to be an introduction to the breadth and depth of libertarianism, for the long-time libertarian and the curious newcomer.
While libertarians are a diverse group of people with many philosophical starting points, they share a defining belief: that everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others.
Human interaction should be voluntary, not coerced. The only time physical force is acceptable is when it is used to defend against force. Many libertarians frame this in terms of the non-aggression principle: no individual or group of individuals shall initiate force against the person or property of any other individual.
This might not seem very radical. After all, your parents probably taught you not to cheat, steal or pick fights -- in other words, not to use force against others. What sets libertarians apart is that they don't make any exceptions to this principle -- not even for governments.
In the libertarian view, governments should be held to the same standards of right and wrong as individuals. As a result, libertarians believe that governments should not interfere with the interactions and exchanges of peaceful people.
At this point, a few questions might come to mind. For example, why do libertarians believe so strongly in individual rights? What about other social values such as equality and security? Or you may be wondering about the historical origins of the libertarian philosophy and movement -- where does libertarianism come from? Who are its leading thinkers? And how do libertarians apply their principles to contemporary public policy issues? Libertarian.Org is here to help answer those questions, so read on.
-- Sysman (email@example.com), September 29, 1999.
Since your information on Weaver and Koresh are taken are derived from sound bites taken out of contexts if not outright lies to villify someone who was on the wrong end of the government boot I feel confident that I can discard the rest of this post without bothering to verify the content. Anyone can parrot Liberals.
The above rant did tell me all I needed to know about how much time I should spend reading your posts. Thanks for the big time saving tip!
Have a politcally correct day and keep your...
-- eyes_open (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 29, 1999.
First, let me congratulate you on your very insightful post. This forum being saturated with the loonies you describe, please stand back and observe the mindless flaming coming your way. As is the case with every organized political group, there will be factions within factions and the libertarians are no exception. It just seems that the far right fringe nuts seem to gravitate to this forum to spew forth their moronic fantasies. Fortunately, most of these idiots are totally harmless and the rest of them will go the way of most crazies. Thanks for a great post!!!
-- Truth (email@example.com), September 29, 1999.
THANKS for the post y2k dave.
You helped me see the light.
All this time, I thought it strange why so many Librarians were interested in our government abiding by the constitution.
And now I know that they weren't Librarians at all.
This has been a truly enlightening experience.
-- no talking please (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 29, 1999.
Dave, you rotten scumbag!!! Read the CONSITUTION, you fool! Income taxes are stricly defied as unconstitutional! "and no direct tax may be levied." GET IT?? And as for guns, everyone should own AT LEAST one. Our guns are the ONLy thing from kepping Red Chinese agent Klintoon from crushing us all under tank treads, as he did the INNOCENT VICTEMS at WACO, just as the Chinese did in Tienimin square!! Get the FACTS about Korresh and Weaver before you slander them, you scum. They were true americans, who wanted freedom, and were slaughterded by the TRAITORS in our government. Freedom is NOT slavery, dispite what Slick tells you. If you want to be a bootlicking toady, them you are as guilty as the government. Koresh was JOKING when he said he was god, fool. He was at a press conference when a reporter asked him an idotic question, and he resopned "sir, if that's true, then I'm Jesus Christ." He was using SARCASM. He never raped little girls, get the facts before you slander someone scum -ucking, bootlicking, government lacky
-- Crono (Crono@timesend.com), September 29, 1999.
God, don't let Uncle Deedah see this.
-- lisa (email@example.com), September 29, 1999.
Quick, cover your forehead, you have a sprung a leak.
-- Truth (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 29, 1999.
You need to read the Constitution of the UNITED STATES, not your personal one.
Try article 1, section 8- The congress shall have Power To lay and collect taxes, duties,... to pay the Debts, and provide common defense and General Welfare.
Or maybe Ammendment XVI- The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or ennumeration.
Next time you quote, use the whole thing, not the just the parts you like.
-- As Always (email@example.com), September 29, 1999.
Please people, this person is in serious need. Dave, I am here for you. Post your address and I will send help. Does your area have 911? But don't worry, dave, when you get to high school you will be introduced to more adult thinking. You'll still be crazy but you could be a more educated crazy.
-- Mr. Pinochle (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 29, 1999.
This is not the libertarian party I remember from the early 80's when I was more politically aware
You said it pal, not me. Your rant is so full of nonsense and distraction that Im not even going to waste my time picking it apart, your conversion to mindless follower is too complete. Have a nice life.
-- Uncle Deedah (email@example.com), September 29, 1999.
Oh, looks like "Truth" came back out from under the rock at the beckoning of his slime brother "y2k dave". Both are at heart fascists, though they would cloak their beliefs in protests of "compassion", "social justice" or whatever.
Sounds like they're afraid that another "evil empire" might bite the dust in a few months.
-- A (A@AisA.com), September 29, 1999.
Hey, As, the 16th amendment was NEVER RATIFIED!! it was forced down the throats of americans ILLEGALLY!! The origional intent of the consitution was for TARIFFS, NOT for an income tax!!! I should know because I am decended from one of the founding fathers, and have read each of their writings, in DETAIL!! Youn are a collaberatior and deserve a beating, and possibly death, you boot-licking cowardly, .gov wannabe flunky!! DON'T TREAD ON ME!! You are the reason that we must always be on the lookout for tyranny, because you are always willing to give the traitors an open window. SCUM!! I will fight to the death to protect my freedoms, and I'll take you down if you try to get in MY way and take them from me... We should live free, with a small, weak fed.gov, and most power in the hands of the states. A standing army in peacetime is UNCONSTITUTIONAl, all military weapons +training should be in the hands of the militias, so that they can defend themselves, and us! Read the constitution, it's all very clear! Everythin the fed.gov has gone since 1900 has been unconstituional, and some things before that... think about it for a while, and ignore the spoon fed sh*t you hear on the Clinton News Network...
-- Crono (Crono@timesend.com), September 29, 1999.
Once upon a time there was a hospital where people, in general, got well.
They wanted to do a better job of it, though. They wanted to make the majority of the patients happy. "To hell with individual rights!" they exclaimed. There are many people who are in need of organs who could be made well if we ignored our patients' will.
One night, a woman being treated for appendicitis got operated on. Her appendix was gone. But lo and behold: so was her left lung! She was once a star athlete. It was her God-given talent, the thing she did that made her proud of who she was. Now she can live a FAIRLY normal life doing light clerical work. Naturally, when she awoke from her surgery she was a little upset. "What have you done with my left lung? Surely the appendicitis did not spread to my lungs yet?! Now I can't live out my life's dream to be in the Olympics!"
To which came the reply, "We're sorry, Miss, but are you too greedy to think that you can come in here and expect us to ignore the poor smoker in the corner with stage 2 lung adenocarcnima with acites in both lungs? When you were asleep, we decided to save this guy's life and give him your extra lung!! Look at how happy he and his family are now! Now he can smoke again and maybe live another half-decade or so because of you!"
The former athlete said that this was unfair. Her happiness meter went down from 100 to 10, indicating a net loss of 90 happiness points. Her family was sad but not terribly sad; while they could never watch this young woman in track meets again, she still survived her appendicitis. Their happiness decreased from 50 to 25.
The old smoker was delighted to be alive! His happiness meter went from 50 to 150, producing a net gain of 100 happiness points. Furthermore, his family was glad, too, and they contributed a total of 250 happiness points. (They celebrated by giving him a fresh carton of Marlboro Reds.)
Happiness declined a total of 105 points. Happiness increased a total of 350 points. The net increase in happiness was 245 points! A success for the hospital!
More and more, the hospital realized that it could do more "good" by such practices. It was touted as a "model of fairness" and a symbol of the "new medical order (NMO)."
Then something strange happened. Even though the majority of people leaving the hospital were happy, the hospital gradually had a very difficult time finding patients who wanted to seek treatment there. Many people, oddly enough, did not feel that it was their duty to unwittingly donate eyes, hearts, kidneys, livers, and lungs. Fancy that! (Even so, the hospital always boasted--quite accurately--that the percentage of happy people increased after passing through this hospital. Thus what they did was always justifiable in their eyes.) In several years, the hospital had to fold and go out of businesss. Yet it always served the MAJORITY of the patients. A tragedy?
The moral of the story is that the means don't justify the ends. Whenever other people are used a means to someone else's end, the result is an evil deed. When individual rights become subservient to the will of the majority, it is the majority that suffers in the long run.
If individual, inalienable rights are not the pillars one's social/legal system, the path to tyranny is a given. Even if it is tyranny with a smiley face.
The hospital here is an allegory of socialism. In socialism, the object is for the majority to be happy at the expense of the minority who are getting TOO happy. Everybody is marginally "happy," yet for some reason people tend to move OUT of socialist countries rather than in--unless we hem in the people by building walls with armed guards. Libertarians say that individual rights are supreme. Hey, maybe this is selfish. But as long as people exist, there are going to be selfish and corrupt individuals. It does not matter if the system is socialism or libertarianism (the two poles on the continuum of government that exist today). It is better that selfish individuals' appetites not be institutionalized in the legal system, as inevitably happens in a government that respects group rights over individual rights. So flame me. I'm libertarian at heart, although I question whether libertarians can really deal with public issues like how clean air and water are managed and protected...
-- coprolith (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 29, 1999.
As Always- you said: "Or maybe Ammendment XVI- The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or ennumeration. Next time you quote, use the whole thing, not the just the parts you like."
Key word there is "INCOME". Look up the definition of the word "income" in a dictionary circa 1910-1920. It is remarkably different from what it is now. Oh, and I don't pay that Voluntary Income Tax - Legally. Try checking out the law sometime. Title 26 USC and CFR
GO Coprolith !!!! I agree
-- Brent James Bushardt (email@example.com), September 29, 1999.
I don't suppose it's ever occured to anyone involved with this thread, that making a determination of what's in someone's soul, by the particular "ism" they subscribe to, is a pretty lame way to make a judgement?
I hate to sound trite, but some of the nicest people I've known, have been Libertarians, and some of the nicest people I've known have been Socialists, too.
Ahhh, but no one wants to hear that, right? Everyone wants to believe that the "devil" is easily identified.
Intemission's over now. Y'all can go back to having fun.
-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), September 29, 1999.
You done quit preachin' and gone to medlin'. I used to be a Looneytarian, but now I'm a Hairy Fishnut.
Brother, can you spare some change? OUCH, hey, watch the bare feet, O.K.?
-- Lon Frank (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 29, 1999.
Now I know where "A" get his political advise. Here is an interesting link about Libertarian and Anarchy. Very good reading I think..
These skewed visions can be partially attributed to a confusion over definitions, that age-old problem which we are even now struggling to remedy. For instance, Rand doesn't use the same general definition of socialism as the Nineteenth Century anarchists like Bakunin or Kropotkin. Indeed, she takes the Bolshevik and Nazi "socialist" systems at face value, fully accepting their terms, defined by the realities of their policies. The result is her equation of "socialism, "communism," and "fascism" as all being identical in essence, all three of which she encompasses under a single new term, "statism." "Government control of a country's economy ... rests on the basic principle of statism, the principle that man's life belongs to the state."19 Rand's term, "statism," is synonymous with the general descriptor, "authoritarian" or "centralist," which we use with the "landscape" graph. Rand, however, describes socialism in a strictly authoritarian sense. "A statist system -- whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or 'welfare' type -- is based on the ... government's unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force."20 She did admit that fascism differed from socialism in that, under a fascist system, "citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property," while under socialism they do not. However, she thought this difference was insignificant because, in spite of private ownership, "the government holds total power over its use and disposal." However, she apparently had no concept of a non-statist socialism.
-- y2k dave (email@example.com), September 29, 1999.
Except for the first paragraph, this post is from the LINK, not from y2k dave. I agree that it's a bunch of crap. I can't speak for dave, and I'm not sure what his first paragraph is really saying. Let's not be too quick to jump on him. I think he does seem to be a GI, from his other posts that I have read. But I read a bunch here, and maybe I'm confused.
Just a thought from a libertarian.
Tick... Tock... <:00=
-- Sysman (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 29, 1999.
Well, we posted at the same time, and I'm still not sure what's going on here.
Just what the hell are you saying y2k dave, in plain english? <:)=
-- Sysman (email@example.com), September 29, 1999.
No bold really off.
-- ct vronsky (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 30, 1999.
y2k dave keeps trying to argue with me, but what he posts actually make my points. Of course, I don't get bogged down in immaterial details and have an excellent facility of seeing overall concepts and their ramifications. That's why for example, as soon as I was apprised of potential Y2K problems, and the reasons therefor, I immediately became a GI. Similarly my views on religion (atheist) and politics (anarchist, minarchist, libertarian) have been adopted by an ability to cut through intellectual (and emotional/psychological) crap.
-- A (A@AisA.com), September 30, 1999.