. . . promoting capitalist acts between consenting adults.
Why the left really hates Sarah Palin. Read it.
Why they shouldn't underestimate her. Ponder it.
Why libertarians should really like her. Consider it.
Why rational individuals might, nonetheless, remain wary. Think about it.
There's a good article up on LewRockwell.com today pointing out the fairly obvious reason why libertarians shouldn't get excited about Palin.
I like her looks. For McCain/Palin policies, I am still to be convinced yet. If there is a tie between the 2 opposing candidates Obama/McCain policy-wise, then I will vote on looks and that means McCain/Palin.
Appreciate those links.It is amazing to watch the spit fly. I made the point over at CR that the Democrats' nasty innuendo over her infant's maternity & breathless reporting of her unmarried daughter's pregnancy is all the more obscene in that they've been crying "non-issue" over these very types of thing for years ... and rightly so, "being nobody else's business", etc. Guess only Democratic voters are allowed to be teenage, pregnant & unmarried, though.Come on. The Dems are furious that the GOP has neutralised the colour of the Democratic candidate with the gender of their own.My minority's better than yours, so there! :)
I don't think you have any business cheering for Sarah Palin. What ever happened to your senseless mantra- There's no difference between left and right"?What about all the venom and hatred your troops have vented all over the net against anyone who might suggest they're a traditional Conservative? Especially a God fearing one?My advice to the Libertarians is to go back to your little corner of the woods and butt out of this fight. Its nothing to do with you.
RedbaiterDo you have a turd in your head or what?While it is true that in practice and in result there is little ultimate difference between socialism of the right and socialism of the left, it is also true that some politicians are less harmful than others. Further, it is also true that some people are more physically attractive than are others. Ifb you were to wah your face and get some of the pooh out of your eyes it may be possible for you to see and learn some. Anyway, you really need to learn to read, fool.Final point. The result of thie competition for the US Presidency is exactly the business of Libertarians. It is so because the result will affect each of them. It is so because, unlike you, they know what is at stake. LGM
For once I agree with Redbaiter.The GOP is shaping up to be more about Palin than the presumptive nominee.The reasons the so-called left 'hate' Palin - attractive, intelligent, nice family - are the exact same reasons you hate Obama! Which is why they chose her. Oh and without separation of church and state, and without the freedom to undertake the medical procedures you choose, the entire concept of freedom is meaningless. Peikoff and Hseih know this. Are you aware she wants to criminalise abortion - even for incest and rape. In Texas it is now compulsory to teach Bible Studies at high school level.Theocracy moves on,suggest you re-read what Peikoff had to say on it. McCain is WAY worse than Bush ever was.
"there is little ultimate difference between socialism of the right and socialism of the left, it is also true that some politicians are less harmful than others"Only a Libertarian could say something so bloody irrational and contradictory. Why I reckon so many of you are more at home in the leftie camp. Leave the Palin fight to us bozo. We don't need the help of smug preaching fuckwits who don't know which direction to fire in.
Redbaiter makes a convincing point.Also, separation of Church and State is just as much to protect religion from the State, as state from the religion.The last thing I think we need is the teaching of religion in State run schools though. They'd all do a completely crap job of it. It's hard enough for State run schools to even teach an unbiased account of history.
In Texas it is now compulsory to teach Bible Studies at high school level.I don't think that's quite correct. I think its optional, both for the schools and the students. That said, I agree with Zen. Who wants those state school fuckwits teaching religion to students anyway. Or teaching students anything really.
Zen and Red - Biden said this about religion:"The coin of religious freedom, we must never forget, has two sides." ..."America is one of the most religious nations on Earth, he maintained, precisely because the government has stayed out of religion."In his view, the issue before the Senate was not whether religion was good but whether all Americans, including religious minorities, would benefit from increased government involvement with it.Strange our Libz choose to support McCain and Palin. I can understand conservatives supporting her - not libertarians.
Leave the Palin fight to us bozoWho's us old white man?
On Palin, I still can't get past the fact that she would ban birth control for married couples... There is conservative, and there is outright bizarre, I guess. DenMT
"she would ban birth control for married couples"Prove it.
"It's hard enough for State run schools to even teach an unbiased account of history."It'd be great if they could teach history, period instead of marxist claptrap disguised as history.As for her religious views--religious fundamentalists have caused a tiny fraction of the damage to our societies the left are guilty of. I'll worry about the immediate enemy for now.
I think this Sarah Palin gal is just splendid!She is 'normal', she has a 'normal' family..(gosh, we all made mistake when we were 17 didn't we?)...she is right on the button on so many issues...yes...gosh...splendid gal!I realise there are those without life experiences, success, relevance - (or anything else) who criticise her because she did not put the semi-colon in the right place..but..well..who listens to those lunatics? She and McCain are going to beat that negro...serve 8 years..and all the critics and doubters can eat their hearts out! ha ha!
Ruth, strange that libertarians support Obama, a man who believes in increasing the role of the state in the economy, who believes in substantially increasing the role of the state in healthcare, who believes taxes spent on pork barrel projects are just dandy and who buys into the ecological religion.The separation of church and state is not threatened by John McCain. However this is all around whether you think that is more important than buying into the ecologist religion which the Democrats swallow hook line and sinker.Both are far from perfect, but the Democrats are so far from being libertarian to be laughable.
Actually it would be worth noting how unimportant most Vice Presidents really are.
She's important until she makes VP. Libertyscott. ;-)
I'm sure banning books on moral grounds, then firing the librarian when they refuse, isn't the most freedom-embracing of principles. From the NYT:Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who said she attended every City Council meeting in Ms. Palin’s first year in office, said Ms. Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said.The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, pledged to “resist all efforts at censorship,” Ms. Kilkenny recalled. Ms. Palin fired Ms. Emmons shortly after taking office but changed course after residents made a strong show of support. Ms. Emmons, who left her job and Wasilla a couple of years later, declined to comment for this article.
Libertyscott is right. VPs are unimportant. What's fun here is that McCain has shown himself unpredictable & daring. He's unsettled the Dems (game over I think) and too the 'international community.' A maverick USA is the real USA. Makes everyone else wake up & lift their game... as the Dems have to now. Interesting times ahead.- Sam P
"Are you aware she wants to criminalise abortion - even for incest and rape."On that one she can want all she likes but she won't be able to make it happen. The Alaskain sup court recently overturned a 1997 abortion law dispite her protests.It was a sensible law that even many pro abortion advocates would have supported. That under age girls had to get parental consent to get an abortion.If she can't even stop that been over turned in her own state (A very conservative one) then she ain't got a hope of banning it.
"I'm sure banning books on moral grounds, then firing the librarian when they refuse, isn't the most freedom-embracing of principles." More liberal hate driven bullshit that cannot be verified. -The Librarian was not fired, -the reasons for her potential dismissal were not given, -the librarian was a political opponent of Palin, -there is not one skerrick of evidence that Palin wanted books banned. -All that occurred is a conversation wherein Palin raised the issue that some voters in the town wanted certain books removed from the library. This is nothing out of the ordinary. There is a list of books that public libraries throughout the USA do not usually keep, and if the citizens of a town do not want those books in their fucken community library so what LIBERTARIANZ..??? You deny them the right to make that decision?Palin as VP in the US is a major step forward for those who really want small government. Get off the commie smear machine and get a brain and a life for chrissakes.
"and if the citizens of a town do not want those books in their fucken community library so what LIBERTARIANZ..??? You deny them the right to make that decision?"Libertarianz would actually let people make there own decisions by not forcing them to fund things like libraries who's content they may or may not agree with.The trouble with "community decisions" is that there is almost never complete agreement amoungst its individual members so one group weither conservative/liberal/commi/christian/whatever is ganna force something on people that don't agree.I 100% agree with you that people shouldn't be forced to put up with material they find offensive in a libary there forced to pay for. Like wise people should be able to have material other find offensive in libaries they fund.Though in this case it appears to be a trivial argument she didn't advocate banning books she was just running the public libary as best she could which as stated above is always ganna be a cluster fuck.
Redbaiter: I can't remember who originally quoted the article, but the link led here:http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/08/30/worst_pick_ever.htmlIt is clearly not 'proof' that Palin is against birth control for married couples, but I've heard it a few places now...DenMT
"but I've heard it a few places now..."Oh wow, well that of course means it just has to be true.Ever thought about how often the Libertarians use the word "ban" (or derivatives) in ways that are completely incorrect? Like the claim that she tried to "ban" books, its just another distortion of the truth. Another conscienceless smear. Proving that the left have lost the battle of ideas and have nothing left in their armoury but weak and cowardly attempts to discredit their opponents by means of lies and distortions. I know this strategy has worked so well for you in the past. (Thatcher, Reagan, Bush, Brash) However the smear campaign against Palin has produced a level of outrage I have not witnessed before. This time, I get the feeling you might have just pushed it too far.
"Though in this case it appears to be a trivial argument she didn't advocate banning books she was just running the public libary as best she could which as stated above is always ganna be a cluster fuck."Damn right. End of story. I dunno why people are so keen to run with stories that so obviously have a political purpose and originate from a partisan source. I'm always skeptical of any media report on any issue, but if the story concerns politics, then due to the leftist bias and bigotry of the mainstream media, I'm naturally about ten times more skeptical than usual.
Palin’s tenure as Alaska governor equals, if not exceeds, Obama in experience. Palin, 44, has spent 12 years in elected office: 10 years as a city councilor and mayor and nearly two as governor. Obama, 47, has also spent 12 years in office: eight years as a state senator and close to four as a U.S. senator.She has a mixed record on taxes and spending.One of her signature accomplishments as governor was a $1.5 billion tax increase on oil production, infuriating oil companies. She accused oil companies of bribing legislators to keep taxes low and, soon after, passed a $1,200 “energy rebate” to each Alaskan from the state’s budget surplus.some other stuff:http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/what-is-mccain-thinking-one-alaskans-perspective/http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/1/4231/18477/878/581881
Elijah : She and McCain are going to beat that negro.PC and the Libz party, I second to a comment by DenMT about Elijah being a liability for the party. Is this something that you consider seriously? If he is campaigning for the Libz, I suggest that you cut off this idiot now, before a great damage is done to the image of the party.I am amazed at your being silence about Elijah's manner which will bring a huge disrepute to the party. I hope that the potential Libz voters are not reading Not PC blog to see this vile from this cocksucker Elijah. It's gonna be a turn-off for them.It is time that you (Libz executives) have a word with him. His diatribe is Ok if he is not contesting an electorate, but not when he is running for one. It seems that the Libz don't have a cohesive strategy, if the Libz do, then it would have been a policy (already established) to state clearly of how you present your ideas to the voters and the general public.Think about it, how are you going to convince the voters with such diatribes from Elijah.
".. how are you going to convince the voters with such diatribes .." Hi Ariel .. the crucial point is that libertarians recognise that 'free' speech is just that.Red: you have bigger enemies. May I suggest you direct your spitting to those who truly deserve it. You know, the toerags who would curtail your freedoms - not preserve them! ;)
Libz proclaim themselves to be the Party of Principle ...Unfortunately these principles do not appear to extend to condemning racism and prejudice.Why did the Libz choose a racist to represent them on the campaign trail??? WTF!Get rid of Lineberry. 'Nuff said.
In answer to the latest anonymous post:You'll forgive me, I hope, if it's impossible to take serious talk of "prejudice" from one who's too scared to put their name their own.
PC, what does racism and prejudice have to do with the desire for anonymity?I would like you to answer Anonymous' comment. Do you believe Elijah is racist?Does the Libertarianz party endorse racism?Yes of course he has the freedom of speech to say whatever he likes. That is not the issue here.
Ariel, may I invite you to contemplate the name of this blog?These days we're all getting just a little too precious, don't you think. All too concerned with what 'other people' say we should think, or who like to dictate to the rest of us what is 'inappropriate'?Allow me, anyway, to quote from Ian Fleming's character Felix Leiter (from 'Live & let Die' as I recall). : "These days," and he said this back in the very early sixties, "you can't even ask a barman for a jigger of rum, you have to ask for a jegro."Looks like four-and-a-half decades later you're frowned on if you ask for a jegro.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."I don't think Elijah could stand up with his hand over his heart and say this with meaning.
Sus : Hi Ariel .. the crucial point is that libertarians recognize that 'free' speech is just thatNo, Sus, you got it wrong. Of course it is free speech, but Elijah's comment is not illegal under the law and that's what free speech is all about. If you have a law forbidding the use of the term negro to label someone with, then the right to free speech is being taken away. Elijah's comment is not about that, since the law doesn't forbid him saying that.What I mean is that if you & Elijah turn up in St Lukes mall for example to campaign for the Libz and the language that you two use are slang/gang-type/derogatory etc, etc, people would just ignore you. Here is an example:Elijah & Sus in the St Lukes Mall:Elijah : If you vote for the Libz, we intend to abolish all forms of tax over time. Those motherfuckers in Wellington have been stealing from you for so long. We want to return of what is rightfully yours (money) so you can choose of how to spend them. Shoppers: Boo boo, fuck off cunts.Elijah : Don't boo boo me crowd, because I know that our childless prime minister is a motherfucker. She and her socialist government is no different from that negro Obama.Mall Security Guards: Elijah & Sus, shoppers are complaining about you two for using such offensive languages here, because there are parents with their children that overheard what you two said (loud-speaker) those nasty words. Could you please leave.Elijah & Sus : We thank you security guards for giving us the opportunity to speak to shoppers here, but we would happily leave now as us Libertarians do respect the property rights of your owner/s.Now, think clearly about this Sus, are the shoppers going to take you seriously or not? You should know the answer.How would you feel, if you ever hear Bernard Darnton using such racist language, in public (media/internet)? I know that Darnton wouldn’t do that, but if you're going to get Elijah involved in your campaign, at least someone in the Libz executive committee should reprimand him and those who would be out there selling Libz's policies to the public (in the coming election).There is a difference between arrogant/racist and being principled? Do you see what I mean? I know that PC is a principled person; he sticks to what he believes in no matter what. On the other hand Elijah is arrogant and a racist cocksucker. It is time that you (Libz) cut him off now.
Luke, asked "what does racism and prejudice have to do with the desire for anonymity?"The correct question is: what do accusations about racism or prejudice or the like have to do with the desire for anonymity.And here's the answer:I've said many times here that all commenters have plenty of slack, and that those who put their name (or a regular nickname) to their comments will be taken more seriously.Which means I have neither time nor tolerance for those who like to slander others from the nether regions of anonymity. And there's been a lot of that about.So, Luke, it's got plenty to do with it."I would like you to answer Anonymous' comment. Do you believe Elijah is racist?"As it happens, no I don't. His views are mixed -- as are yours, as a matter of fact -- but so what? I still talk to you.Perhaps I can ask in return: "Why are you so wet?""Does the Libertarianz party endorse racism?"No, do you?What we do endorse are these principles.Do you?"Yes of course he has the freedom of speech to say whatever he likes..."I'm very pleased to hear you say that, especially since it's become very common to fling around the word "racist" as if it's some trump card that shuts down debate -- especially by those who defend state-sponsored racism.See for example the reaction to 'The Orewa Speech.'Bear in mind that racism is just one form of collectivism -- and as I say here (and I recommend interested readers make a thorough study of the post to which I link before commenting): "As anybody who's ever read a newspaper would already know, in the New Zealand of 2007, state-sponsored minority racism is much more of a problem than spontaneous, private majority racism."Now, to return this discussion from your thread hijack, perhaps we could discussing how the Donks are happily throwing mud in one direction, while using the shield of 'racism' to deflect anything coming back the other way.
To reluctantly extend the thread-hijack: You have a problem with the word "negro," Ariel?If so, why
Ariel, you've missed *my* point, or perhaps I've not made it clearly.I was simply responding to your question as per the last sentence of your first post, as to how we were supposed to 'convince' voters to vote for Libz with Elijah using language like that.So, (in explanation), my answer meant that given free speech means people are free to say what they like (and, obviously, face any consequences that arise), voters will either 'get' that, or not."Getting it" automatically encompasses that their disapproval - downright horror, perhaps - of said comments is irrelevant. End of point. Your St Lukes Mall example, however, perplexed me. I don't know who you are, (I presume we've never met?), but I'm guessing you don't know me, because I can assure you that I wouldn't be:a) talking like that or b) associating with somebody else who talks like that in a public place, re matters Libertarianz or otherwise.You don't seem to allow for personal discretion. Comments made in print on this blog and those verbalised in a public environmentare surely subject to discretion, yes?I take the Libertarianz principles very seriously. As they concur with my own of having the state neither favour nor disadvantage *any* individual, they are, by definition, anti-racist.That's all that matters to me. I barely know Elijah, much less presume to speak for him. Conversely, your beef with him sounds personal. No?
Ehem, getting this thread back on topic... Judging by the speech today, Sarah Palin could well be the next Reagan. It's a pity the ticket is not Palin-McCann
On-topic: Some very interesting commentary in the media here in Sweden on how there has been a massive hue and cry from the Republicans that the family of Palin are 'off-limits' (which I agree with whole-heartedly) but on the other hand they are putting a suited and styled-up shotgun-wedding boyfriend into carefully managed photo ops with McCain (in a lineup at the airport to meet him etc).They are chastising one second, and milking the situation for all it's worth the next... Amusing.DenMTOff-topic: The apologists for Lineberry are fooling themselves. Free speech is well and good, but at what point do you draw the line, and say 'It damages my image to condone this carry-on.'? All the carry on about the vulgar poor, the distasteful working class, and the superiority of some imagined aristocracy, not to mention the snide racial slurs, just don't pass a common-sense test of 'humour'. Add to that the fact that his blog contains some pretty scary material on eugenics of all things (have a read of 'It is all in the breeding' for example) that have nothing to do with humour. The man has worrying views, and your endorsement of them as simple free speech is what you would call 'appeasement' in other fora.
On Topic:I saw on BBC's part of Sarah Palin's VP nomination acceptance speech and I have to say that she electrified the crowd (as if they're reaching orgasm). Some journalists dubbed her , the second coming of Reagan and yeah, her views of Washington is similar to what Libz stands for, such as less government , tax cut, etc...Here is the ABC's take on her speech:Palin attacks Obama in acceptance speechOff-topic: The apologists for Lineberry are fooling themselves.Absolutely. One just have to look at the post from Elijah's blog, especially this comment:"No, just give me a cup of rich white people exploiting poor negroes tea, please"Read it here:"Fair Trade" wankfest tea...That is free speech, that's fine, however I hope that the Libz won't regret it, (if they turn up to campaign in some shopping mall, where Elijah is handing out Libz flyers with his name on it) that some people will abuse you, simply because everything you say today lives on the cloud (internet) forever and it is easily searchable. Make no mistake, people will search Elijah's name on the internet especially those or unknown candidates from political parties who are out there campaigning and giving out flyers/cards to the members of the general public (potential targets) and this is a fact.As I have stated previously that if Elijah, doesn't get involve with the upcoming Libz campaign , ie is fine but if he does, then God help the Libz.I suggest, that you (Libz) better recruit Steve Crow (a true business, a wealthy and pro-freedom person) and ditch Elijah. Steve's view is closer to the Libz's ideologies than National or ACT. I would like to hear if the Libz like Steve Crow or not(ie, to be a member of the party). If he's not being viewed as a favourite candidate, then on what grounds that this is based on? I would rather vote for an honest business person such as Steve Crow representing the Libz rather than Elijah.
RedbaiterWell yes, you do have a turd in your head! Thought so.There is nothing contradictory in stating the fact that there is little ultimate difference between leftist and rightist socialism. Both are variants of socialism. Surley even a shit head like you could understand that?And yes, some politicians are more harmful than other politicians. That does not mean that a leftie is necessarily worse than a rightie. That depends on the specific attributes of the particular politicians being examined and compared. Some are worse than others. Some of those of the righist persuasion are far more harmful than are their counterparts on the left. Surely a shithead like you could understand even that basic point? No?Oh well. In the end, they are share premise and principle and practice. That is the fact that Libertarianz have commented on for decades. What you need to do is wash you face, clear the pooh from your eyes. Look around. Look at reality for a change.LGM
1. Commenters are welcome and are invited to challenge the facts presented herein. Commenters who wish to ignore them however will themselves be ignored.2. Read before you comment.3. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.4. Off-topic grandstanding, trolling and spam is moderated. (Unless it's entertaining.)