|James Woods |
I lived across the border from -- so I know. Sarah Palin?
Fuck scratch that. The surprise wore off before I could hit Submit.
Ok, everyone talked and nobody cried. There.
Pause at 3:05... it's a triptych of idiot blowhards.
+4 I guess for Beck being semi-coherent. Reach for the stars, Glenn!
It's like some kind of asshole douche shitbag blackhole forming, sucking all the asshole douche shitbags to a single location.
Maybe it's like the Gathering, and they'll bore each other to death. The last one left will gain the Prize.
Any self-proclaimed Libertarian past college age needs Al Pacino calling them a fucking child.
1. Hire Pacino
2. Rent him to people who want to shame others, or train salesmen
3. Make money by making the world a better place
Libertarianism might be the path less traveled, but, in the immortal words of Jerry Seinfeld, "Sometimes the path less traveled is less traveled for a reason."
I love how they talked about "what the Founding Fathers envisioned". The Founding Fathers argued. The makers of the Constitution came to blows over what should go in it. There was no one unified vision of what the future should be, and the first American government, post-Revolution, fell on its ass and needed to be reformed, and even then, the end result was less about some ultimate ideal and more about business.
I don't think the Founding Fathers could have envisioned Slavery coming to an end; I don't think the Founding Fathers could have imagined the horseless carriages, or people flying about in the sky with their wondrous machines, or a model of atoms, electricity not coming from 'luminferous Aether', germs being the cause of diseases, the miracle of vaccination, or the idea of the "Humours" being way wrong. There's no possible way they ever envisioned this country, or the world, for that matter, being what it is today.
These "Libertarians" should try pulling another card, or, at the very least, come up with a vision and take credit for it being entirely theirs, instead of trying to superimpose their modern ideals on the will of historical figures.
Why does everyone pretend to give a shit about what the "founding fathers" wanted or believed anyway? If they were so smart, they wouldn't be dead.
I try to stay out of the discussions of Libertarian because it induces a mind shattering rage in me. Mostly because everywhere in the world, libertarian has a completely different meaning than what these fuckwads imply. NewSoc-USA-speak once again.
For years, I knew I could introduce myself as a libertarian socialist in the proper context (Iampoliscigeek) and have my peers understand what I meant was, anarchist. And in doing so give them the secret passcode- no, I do not advocate mad violence in the streets and wild random chaos, I know what the term anarchist actually means and can have a real and viable conversation on the philosophies within.
Now, to quote Ghost Dog- 'Stupid Fucking White Men'- have backwards co-opted the entire context and hijacked it into something completely the opposite of what it actually was (in the setting I am referring to) and flooded the media with a shitstain brown-wash that makes it practically impossible to use the term anymore.
Don't get me wrong; I know full well were I to use the term 'libertarian socialist' (as opposed to totalitarian socialist) in their company they would have no idea whatsoever what I was talking about, my main rage is mostly the fact that the douchebags have once again tarnished any part of the semantic even remotely connected to the term.
Humanity is great; the only problem is the people.
Libertarianism isn't the path less traveled, there are countless stupid goobers who rally under its banner due to a lack of real political knowledge.
Libertarianism is the official political party of those people who say "let's kill all the lawyers" because they have no appreciation of how nuanced the law is but they're pissed off they had to pay a lawyer once.
If I met you at a party I think I'd fucking kill myself
So your main problem with libertarianism, a political ideology riddled with problems and assholes, is that you can't use the word to describe your own idiotic politics?
Congratulations! You're the new most pretentious douchebag on this place! You're also a sack of self-satisfied bullshit! I hate you!
|THA SUGAH RAIN |
TL;DW : 3 Rich white dudes argue against million dollar per year families paying 9k for healthcare for families who can't afford cars.
I'm not surprised by Beck or Stossel's behavior. But Penn (I thought) was much smarter than this.
Penn is all for good sense when it doesn't challenge his previously held dogmas.
|C. Eloi Marx |
It's so unfortunate that the parasite is holding these Randian supermen down.
A grown man with enough sense to own a suit uttered the phrase "parasite class" in a completely serious way.
So much ignorance that it must be shared between three people. I second the sentiments on the "Founding Fathers" worship, shit makes me cringe. Libertarians seem to be the fully realized embodiment of those fooled by capital interests into thinking government is somehow bad, even though they actually have a voice and protection through it, unlike their own fucking jobs.
Needs a 'white people' tag
Anarchism for rich people.
How come John Stossel hasn't aged?
trifecta of douche
So you are stuck on an island and you must choose one companion from among these three. I know what you are thinking, that you will choose Jilette because at least he can amuse me with magic. Or perhaps Stossel, becasue at least he can amuse me with his spectacular moustache. But I ask you, isn't the best choice Beck? Why? because you can strangle him with a clear conscience.
oh my, clearly i wasted my stars not reading down further. if i could, i would throw you roses and bras.
All of them would kill you at some point. Stossel would kill you quicker because he's easy to underestimate. He's a wimpy little shit. You wouldn't think he's any kind of threat, but he knows he'll starve in a matter of weeks if he doesn't eat your corpse. He'll wait until you sleep and drop a rock on your head. Penn might have the same plan in mind at some point. He'll get hungry. He'll want to eat. He won't deprive himself. He might seem all charming and friendly at first, and might even have some good tips for getting off the island, but if things don't pan out soon he'll take you out. Beck would be an interesting case. I suspect he'd scope out the island, find which half is better on food and shelter, and offer you a deal to split the island with him, giving himself the better half. He'll do things his way, you do things your way, and never the twain shall meet. You might even survive and make do for a while, and enjoy the quiet time you have, but Beck will be burning through resources like it's nobody's business, all the while hoping God will get him out of the situation. When that doesn't pan out, he'll either think it's your fault, blame you for stealing his coconuts, or find some other insane and wrong reason to attack you, and you'll find out he's like a rabid animal, like Mike Tyson, and maybe he's been waiting his whole life for a moment like this. He might even think he'll get a good book deal after killing you in mortal combat and fudging the details a little.
So basically - since you're going to be in a life and death struggle anyway- pick Penn. Should you outlive him, he'll offer up the most calories. Just don't let him fool you with one of his magic tricks.
Anarcho-capitalism is the mad, froth at the mouth masturbation fantasy of every entitled douche that has no real concept of the real suffering of being born disenfranchised or at loss, and all the while takes every given, even unearned, privilege and claims it as it's own personal victory and triumph of the will. I have no doubt whatsoever that each of them surely and truly believes that in their own way, they are the star of their own personal version of 'Surviving the Game', victors with none other to thank but themselves.
Anarcho-capitalism is a joke term amongst anarchists, in the way that any other political ideology can be coined as a subset of a larger anarchist philosophy when looking at political philosophy in the right context; truth be told though, it is simply a laughable excuse to tell yourself everyone else is out to get you, life is nasty, brutal and short, and everything you have you deserve and you owe no one any help whatsoever.
In short, it is just an excuse to be an ignorant, uneducated fucking dick that takes everything others have given them for granted.
I tend to avoid talking politics in large groups; ego and dogma override any chance of real shared understanding and learning from each other. I stick to politics when there are only a few people around so you can really share with each other without feeling threatened, and challenge each other without feeling attacked.
As soon as you enter the social threshold where the ego demands that 'being right' in front of the group so as to avoid any personal shame or humiliation over incorrect facts or knowledge becomes more important than 'discovering/sharing truth' then there is no point in pursuing a real conversation and making small talk is far more successful.
He's saying that yes he is a blast at parties.
You make it sound as if there are forms of anarchy that aren't a joke.
We spent millions of years evolving the ability to form complex societies. It fucking rules.
Are you being serious or are you really one of the most punchable people on the planet?
WPCR, I am shy and what you are saying hits close to home. But I think you are overthinking this, and rationalizing being passive. Sometimes in a group you have to shout to be heard. If you are, as you say, a civics nerd then talking politics at parties should be fun. Throw a few back and dive in.
> the ego demands that 'being right' in front of the group
This is the part that jumped out to me. Nobody expects you to be right all the time. You're doing that to yourself. I do it to, but you can't always trust that part of yourself. There is such a thing as too much risk-aversion.
"It is our responsibilities, not ourselves, that we should take seriously." - Peter Ustinov
Hmmm, I'm not sure how to respond to all of that aside to say that I tried to already clarify that anarchism isn't half the things being imputed... there really isn't much room here to have a concise and clear discussion on the topic. The jump to 'chaos, madness, everyone fighting each other because there is no government' really gets left behind when you have the space and time to establish certain understandings about the ideology and the differences in forms of the philosophy. That's not an attack on anyone, what I'm trying to say is that I wish there were more of a medium to allow a better explanation and fairer opportunity to really elucidate beyond soundbites.
Just remove a lot of the assumptions being put forward about the concept and it gets easier to understand... again, sadly, I wouldn't have the chance to clarify in this type of medium. Anarchism isn't simply 'no government, no power structure, free for all'. No system of self governing or self organizing is that basic and simple. No governing system is either.
The frat-boy, passive/aggressive hostility from (some) of you is cute, however. You wouldn't have to worry about meeting me in a party; I doubt very highly the types of parties you attend have anything of worth to me.
What clued you in to my "frat-boy hostility?" Was it the fact that I was doing a keg stand while posting jokes about what a smug and annoying doucher you are?
"My ideas are SO COMPLICATED AND SMART that you can't possibly understand them without basically a whole book! OR A ROOM FULL OF BOOKS!"
You should write novels about your stupid politics, Ayn Rand.
In Beck's defense, the Founding Fathers were a bunch of racist, slave-owning, capitalistic fucks.
History requires context, much like speaking requires thinking.
"More insurance is the problem"
"The loser should pay in lawsuits"
Are these people clinically retarded?
Jillette is only skeptical and rational when it comes to things that don't inconvenience him in some way. See his rants against recycling which are based purely on a cost basis, for example, as if natural resources are indefinite.
Remember 20 years ago when he was actually kind of amusing?
I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS A DEBATE WHEN PEOPLE GET SICK DO THEIR MILLIONS OF DOLLARS JUST SUDDENLY DISAPPEAR?!
| Register or login To Post a Comment|