Once upon a time, there was a schoolyard which, typically enough, was flooded with children at every recess. As children are inclined to do, a great portion of recess was devoted to arguing over which particular game to play.
Unfortunately, this assembly of children had little reason to debate as their deliberations were always decided in the most predictable fashion. There was in this assembly a school bully, a surly boy blessed with an early growth spurt. His was always the last, the deciding and the overruling vote. Of course, the other children secretly reviled him, but none dared to allow such feelings to surface.
One day, a well-wishing teacher observed the children’s predicament and decided that she would intervene for their betterment. She strode confidently across the playground and moralistically informed the children that they were living oppressed, miserable lives under the thumb of a schoolyard tyrant. She forcefully instructed the children that tyrants were not the sort of people that would be allowed on her playground and told the children that she had an infinitely better method for electing their games.
“Democracy,” she said. “It’s the enlightened way and all the cool kids are doing it. Democracy will solve your bully problem. Henceforth, votes are not to be determined by body weight or looks or skills. Each child, from the meekest wimpling to the belligerent bully, is awarded one vote when it comes to selecting their game of choice.”
The children, even the bully, all agreed that democracy was a very inspiring and admirable idea and agreed to give it a try. The teacher sauntered back to her classroom, suffocating from good feelings about herself.
Now, the good part of the story is that the children were quite earnest and sincere about giving the whole democracy thing a go. The bad part is that on the particular day that the children adopted democracy as their system of governance, the only two games that the children decided were worth voting on were hopscotch and hanging the redheads. There were 20 children and only one of them was a redhead, and he happened to be the bully.
That regrettable day, democracy was a vehicle which permitted 19 children the chance to wreck sweet revenge on the object of their hatred. What the visionary teacher failed to account for is that the process of deciding is frequently, if not always, secondary to what is being decided. Dictators can occasionally be perfectly reasonable, even kind, rulers. Democratic majorities can sometimes be ruthless, even murderous mobs. It’s not unheard of.
Unfortunately, children, even college students, are taught to kneel unquestioningly at the altar of democracy. And because ours is a democratically elected government, we are by implication, expected to display a similar deference to our elected officials.
A monstrous lie that enjoys the currency of truth is that democracy is the great achievement of our advanced age, a magical and mysterious guarantee against encroachments of our liberty by the omniscient and beneficent “will of the people.”
It’s rubbish. But many people, especially Americans, suffer the juvenile delusion that government is something nice, the originator of good things like free speech, schools, etc. Americans would do well to recall the words of their first president who soundly condemned such a notion, saying that “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force.”
We do well to fear the potential dangers inherent in any government, whether such government is of a tyrant or the fictitious “will of the people.” The offended reaction evoked by the recent tea party protests was an embarrassingly public display of this crude idiocy which defers so readily to the democratic process. The tea partiers, I admit, were not altogether homogeneous, and many of them bore the unsettling appearance of neoconservative hacks briefly assuming the sheep skins of limited government for political gain (as they did during the Clinton administration).
But it has been truly disappointing to hear my fellow Americans and the talking buffoons of the media sanctimoniously scold Americans to “put up and shut up.” Such people tell us that our country is a democracy and that the will of the people cannot be ridiculed. Therefore, Obama’s reckless administration cannot be lashed with the scorn it properly deserves. As far as anti-American sentiments go, this could quite possibly be the lowest and most insolent point our country has ever sunk to.
Government, even democratically elected government, is always the same. It is force, a force which can be used for good or bad, right or wrong. Presently, the force of government is being used to bankrupt this nation and saddle future generations with mountains of oppressive debt as failed companies fleeing bankruptcy assume the yoke of governmental control for the promise of security.
Americans have every right to be mistrustful of and even outraged at their government. Still, there are those who insist that we must all hold hands trustingly as our great ship sinks. The oppressiveness of unity is the last curse we need at this developed stage of our decline. Let’s hope that the present discontentment boils into a fury that resists being soothed over and forgotten at the next election. That’s a hope and a change our country would greatly benefit from.
Jeremy Hicks is a 2008 political science graduate, the founder of the Cal Poly Libertarian Club and a Mustang Daily political columnist.
Jer-
Of all your articles, this was perhaps your best. At least for me, it was very enjoyable to read.
And what is the only source of prevention to this tyranny? The US Constitution.
Great job
The playground analogy represents what is called: majoritarianism. We have a Bill of Rights, separation of powers, and countless other institutional roadblocks set up precisely for thwarting the tyranny of majority.
So your account of democracy is embarassingly juvenile, at best.
To argue that media commentators who mocked the "teabaggers" events are part of some liberal-majority conspiracy to shoot down the brave, "grass-roots" inspired, revolutionaries is, well, predictable given that the right’s only material these days is comprised of perpetuating a liberal-conspiratorial myth replete with background images of Nazi Germany and the Bolsheviks.
In reality, the democratic majority has been in power a little more than 100 days.
In reality, most of the people at those events were either "neocon hacks" (as you mentioned) or people legitimately frustrated with the bailouts.
But guess what, EVERYONE is frustrated with the bailouts. So channel your revolutionary rage to the people responsible–the crooks on wall street. But–oh wait, I guess if you’re a libertarian those guys are your champions. But then… why would you be pissed about the bailouts…? Oh right, because you would rather the entire world economy collapsed onto itself– because that would be consistent after all with libertarian ideals. Do I have this right?
No one in this new administration is getting off thinking about giving away loads of money and climbing further into debt. The idea is to "save" the country from the mess Bush (41), Clinton, and Bush (43) got us into.
Point being: stop turning every stupid opportunity for drama into a creepy-cabalistic-glenn beck inspired point about tyranny.
You guys LOST. I know… ’94 was fun. But you have less than 20 months to prepare for Midterms. So why don’t you focus your energies properly, stay out of the limelight for a while, and stop making asses of yourselves so you even have a chance during the mids.
You say the US Constitution protects us from this tyranny yet it hasn’t.
The majority are voting themselves other peoples’ property/money. Obama campaigned on taking from those “fortunate (as if luck had everything to do with their success) and giving it to people that didnt earn it.
Democracy is doomed to fail once people realize they can vote themselves others property and unfortunately they have realized that.
No redistribution of property occurred– much less is in the works, legislatively. You sound like you’ve been watching too much Hannity.
The Obama administration hasn’t introduced sweeping socialist tax hikes on the rich either (myth #1). In fact, no family (making 1/4 mil+) will pay higher tax rates than they paid in the 1990s (and we know how much the rich suffered in the 90s).
Another fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
For you to believe that we live in a pure meritocracy (which you obviously do) means that you buy into another myth (myth #2). Your views are obviously based on myths which you bought into only because of your existing instincts and inclinations due to your station in life. There’s no point in saying anything else.
Audrey-
Thank you so much for clarifying exactly what I beleive, after all you know better than I what I think. I’m curious to know though what my “existing instincts and inclinations due to (my) station in life” are. This sounds fairly typical of liberals like yourself, always talking down to folks that you perceive to be simple and uneducated. My degree in engineering and ability to produce goods/services couldn’t possibly be a match for your liberal arts degree.
So when Obama talks of removing the cap of income taxed for social security, that isn’t a redistribution of wealth? If I pay more into social security than I get out of it, then obviously its going to someone else.
When Obama gives “tax breaks” aka welfare checks to the bottom 40% of people that already do not pay any taxes other than payroll (which is for their own social security and medicare) and funds them by taking from those greedy, evil, top 5%, isn’t that a redistribution?
By continuing to give money to the failing auto companies, isn’t he redistributing the wealth of tax payers to the pockets of his campaign donors?
Although his universal healthcare plan has zero details as of yet, do you really think he is going to pay for it by taxing the bottom half of wage earners? If he pays for the health services of those unable to pay by taking from those that are, isn’t that a redistribution?
Audrey, I know its a fact you lefties hate, but the top 50% of tax payers pay 97% of all taxes yet its the bottom 50% that reap the majority of social services. That in and of itself is a redistribution of wealth. Although these numbers are from the Bush era, Obama isn’t going to start making the bottom 50% pay their fair share anytime soon.
I’m not a repub, I am a believer in the US Constitution. I beleive in choice and I especially beleive in freedom. When the federal gov passes legislation that prevents me from opting out of social security (the financing of and benefiting from) and forces me to pay into government healthcare (medicare and the coming soon universal healthcare) that takes away my choices, that takes away my freedom, and that is Unconstitutional.
PS. I don’t watch Hannity, I actually can’t stand the guy. But given your rhetoric its probably safe to say you watch Olberman and Maddow. If thats the case your two favorite talking heads are getting killed in the ratings (not that popularity has any bearing on truth but just thought you’d want to know)
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/17/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-april-16/16968
And please don’t make a comeback like “well that just proves there are more white,racist, homophobes than progressive thinking idealist that knows how the world really works.” I simply included the link for your reference.
Hahaha yeah I should really learn how to build something or understand the periodic table… then my life would be worth something. Liberal arts is for lovers, what can I say?
Or maybe YOU should take a polisci class to learn about government, politics, and get some real stats.
But then you’d have to endure 1-2 hours with artsy stoner/slackers. Trust me, it’s hell.
A text search for ‘tax’, ‘property’, and ‘redistribution’ yielded no hits. While certainly this is implied, current tax policies aren’t nearly as significant as current spending and ever soaring government debt. At some point in the future, when we can borrow no more, we will either have to raise taxes, or inflate our way out of the mess.
While picking on the Obama administration may not be fair (do we expect McCain to have done much differently regarding the financial bailouts or stimulus?), the point still stands. I think the article would have been best served by sticking to the general behavior of our government rather than the current administration in particular.
Perhaps you have no issues with the government use of force, but it certainly irks me that this is the most ‘just’ way of doing things. A recent case of two retirees accused of tax evasion involved a standoff with an FBI, and eventually the two being dragged out of their home. I can’t help but imagine that the labor costs for all the federal agents exceeded whatever payment they expected from this couple. I conceed its ‘fair’ to pay for public goods such as roads, the fire department, etc. (not that income taxation is the only way of going about this) But what is it about person A making more money than person B that necessitates that they pay for person B’s healthcare, education, and the like? And why must that be accomplished with the threat of force? Certainly you can argue its necessary, but its hard to say its just unless you believe that person A is necessarily better off at the expense of person B. Is this a zero sum game?
Regardless of your feelings above, I would like to see more cooperation between young people of different stripes. Students recently took to the streets in Moldova to protest the re-election of the Communist government, but this is not to say they are die-hard free marketers. These people recognize what we desperately need to – our real opponent isn’t across the aisle, but those that have something better to do than ride around intoxicated on a Thursday night. Thats right, the old folks. Much of the stimulus package and perhaps eventual socialized medicine will benefit those already established in life than it will us. This is especially true of retirees. We are not combatants in a ‘class war’, but a generational one.
If the rich took all their money and went south of the border for two or three generations this country would survive and within a few short years thrive again. If all the poor went south of the border for two or three generations and the borders closed this country would, in a few short years crumble from decadence and cease to exist. Look what Republican rule has done in this country since 1980. Republican rule has so assaulted the poor and middle class that it can no longer claim a viable force for good both at home or abroad. When Obama tries to re-assert the value of common good Republicans assault him with vitriol and half-truths. Because of Republican rule we as a country have been so weakened by greed both for power and money that what once was called a vice is now called a virtue by Republicans. Get all you can for yourself no matter the consequences for your fellow countrymen. Republican ideology is a self-centered megamaniacle animal ruled only by instinct with no higher value than a dog eat dog mentality! And Jeremy Hicks has the temerity to hope that the next election takes us back to that sick twisted destructive mentality of Republican ideology! Dream on Hicks. The mendacity of the Republican Party has been exposed and rejected.
Jason, it’s highly dishonest and malicious of you to make the allegation that Mr. Hicks wishes for a resurrection of the GOP next election. What a ridiculous and unsupported statement! What temerity! OK, it helps your weak little rant, but is there even a shred of substance to your accusation? Look at the column that he’s writing… It’s a LIBERTARIAN column. (Look up that foreign word if you need to). Also, notice that Mr. Hicks very rarely, if ever, has nice things to say about Republicans, quite the opposite in fact. If you’ll actually read the article above you might notice this bias…
Just because Mr. Hicks may be calling your favorite party to task does not mean that he is endorsing Republican leadership. You are the sad product of a political environment which rigidly enforces this insane position that if it’s not Left, it must be Right, and vice versa. Congratulations, you’ve reached the height of mainstream, bland thinking. Do yourself a favor and pull your head out of this pathetically limited framework before you make any more confused and idiotic attempts at labeling.
Lucas, socialized medicine as Republicans like to call it will help the young by a thing called preventive medicine and has the potential to save America trillions over the long haul. Republicans are dead-enders in that they don’t have the ability to think long term. Preventive medicine will allow the older generations to live longer healthier lives. Thats long term thinking that benefits you but Republican greed prevents you from seeing it!
Jason, wow how naive you are!
Aren’t you in college to better your future prospects of a good paying job? If so, then that makes you greedy.
Would you work 40 hours a week for someone that didn’t reward your efforts with money? Of course you wouldn’t, and that makes you greedy.
Greed is not a bad thing at all, it makes the world go round.
Do you think the farmer that supplied your food to the grocery store did so out of his own benevolence? He didn’t. He did so to make a buck and provide for his family and buy things he wants.
Do you think someone would go through 8 years of medical school work anywhere from 20-80 hours a week at a job full of responsibilities only to receive a pat on the back? Even doctors are greedy in that they wouldn’t be doing the job if it didn’t afford them a nice house, a nice car, vacations, enough cashflow to pay down their hundreds of thousands of dollars in student debt, to go a long with the quenching of their desire to help out those in need.
Also, it was Obama’s chief economics advisor Larry Summers that in 1998 under President Clinton deregulated the financial markets with the Glass-Steagall act repeal. Learn some history.
And in response to your wild accusation that “if the rich took all their money for two or three generations….this country would survive.”
I ask you how would it survive? The top 5% of taxpayers (those greedy rich people) pay 75% of all taxes. So who would fund all of your social programs? The top 5% of income earners own about 60% of all the capital in banks which is used by banks to loan to people that don’t have enough cash to buy a home or a car or a college education outright. So where would the capital come from to loan out if not from the rich?
Those “greedy people” are the ones that want a better life for themselves so they go out and start a company that employees people. Or they educate themselves, work hard, and rise to the top of a company and manage it. There would be no one to work for if all the business owners/ managers left.
And if you had your way and greed was eliminated, no one would have any incentive to take a risk and start their own business.
Who do you think hires people out of college, a blue collar worker on an assembly line, or the greedy capitalist that risked his money to build the assembly line?
Your vision of how swimmingly things would run if the producers in this country all left is so naive its almost cute.
Jason,
While I believe tha socialized medicine is inevitable and may result in decreased cost to the average American (in addition to a number of drawbacks), you are simplifying things to say it is beneficial to the young. It may very well be less costly than private insurance, but the cost will fall disproportionately on the younger generation.
Presumably it will be implemented similarly to Social Security. As you may be aware, Ida May Fuller,the first recepient of Social Security paid $25 into the system and received $22,888 over the remainder of her life. End of life healthcare costs are astronomical, and even with strict rationing will likely remain so.
Regarding preventative medicine, there are a number of private healthcare providers already making this a major priority. Kaiser Permanente must see some sort of financial incentive (decreased hospitalizations, etc.) in order to justify their ad campaigns telling us to excercise and eat better. There is certainly more work to be done here, but I don’t see where socialized medicine is necessary for a greater emphasis on this.
Bastiat, at least attempt honesty! Mr Hicks purity of ideology was lost before you were even born. Reagan killed Mr Hicks political persuasion off in the 80’s. Now, you call yourselves Libertarian just to give yourselves that little tingle and so you can say you aren’t part of either party and therefore falsely believe you can’t be held responsible and self righteously think it gives you free reign to criticise. But in reality there is not a hairs difference between you and every Republican who dressed up on April 15! And Bastiat the truth is very malicious to partisan hacks. You boys get out of that little cf circle you’re in and stop feeding yourselves your delusions of grandeur and maybe just maybe reality will creep back into your lives. Because now LIbertarians (Republicans) have about as much relevence as a fart in a tornado. And that is just the way I like it.
Fred, put your thinking hat on. Try critical thinking and not just parrot the Limbaugh/Hannity/RNC line. Republicans are such drones adn so attached to the public tit its no wonder they can’t think clearly.
Heres something to think about Fred:
From Steve Pearlstein Columnist:
I have in front of me the latest report from the Tax Foundation showing how much each state gets back in contracts, benefits and subsidies for every dollar of taxes paid. And it shows that, with a few exceptions, the anti-government red states are the net winners in the flow of funds while the pro-government blue states are almost all losers.
Among the biggest winners in 2003, for example, were
New Mexico, at $1.99 for every tax dollar paid,
followed closely by Alaska, (Sarah Palin is such a hypocrite!)
Mississippi, (Halley Barbour is a mooching drone)
North and South Dakota,
Alabama
and Montana — the "red-ink states," as Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group calls them.
The biggest loser was New Jersey, at 57 cents per dollar paid, followed by blue states Connecticut, New York, California, Massachusetts and Illinois.
Take your Republican ideology and stick it up that drug induced oxycontin laced hack LImbaugh next time you visit him so he can tell you what to think.
Jason-
You sound like a total degenerate. If you’re going to engage in a discussion at least discuss the issues at hand. The article and following discussion has nothing to do with partisan talking heads so why do you bring them up?
Not everyone that disagrees with a large expansion of government is a republican and not everyone that doesn’t approve of Obama is a racist. Obama doesn’t get 100% approval within his own party so either those 20% are really closet racists or they “put on their thinking cap” and refuse to blindly approve of his actions at every turn.
Jason-
Wow, considering how tolerant you liberal always say you are, you sound awfully full of hate for anyone disagreeing with you. Why is that you’re only "open-minded" if you beleive in far left ideologies?
I like how you argue things (typical democrat and republican style)by not even addressing the issues brought up. Instead you just start throwing out Olberman and Maddow put downs.
#1 You said how evil greed was and I showed just how you yourself are greedy.
#2 You said that this country would be fine if those evil 5% of greedy corporate and business people left and I argued that the U.S. would not.
Instead of reading the first line of someone’s response to you and then trying to insult them, why not try to form a coherent argument for why you think that (in this case) greed is bad and you are not greedy, and why if 60% of all the capital and 100% of all the producers left, the U.S. would still be able to survive.
Also, please give up your typical Olbermann and Maddow poor attempt to label me as a republican or Hicks for that matter. I am a libertarian. I beleive in the individual. I beleive in a strict interpretation of the US Constitution. I beleive in freedom from an oppressive government and freedom from others (cavemen) voting themselves (using the club) one’s earnings.
What do you beleive in?
As a democrat (or centrist) I agree that Jason’s reasoning seems to be far more blindly emotional then purely logical. However, what I take offense to in Hick’s article is the pure "bashing" of the anything different then his own view point using hyperbolic similes instead of facts and logical reasoning.
Fred,
#1 all you did was show your specious argument shallow.
#2 you are entitled to your opinion even if its not well thought out and wrong.
Ceranna,
Most Republicans on these forums are Will. I have no desire to discuss adnauseum Republican/LIbertarian ideology because it has been proven to be flawed and degenerate because it appeals to the basest instincts of the animal. There is no truth to trickle down economics and absolutely no validity to pure constitutionalism that LIbertarians worship.
Fred says:
I beleive in the individual. THE EPITOME OF THE GREEDY ME GENERATION THAT IS THE ENEMY OF A DECENT HUMAN SOCIETY. IT IS THE DOG EAT DOG SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. IT HAS NO PLACE IN HUMAN INSTITUTIONS. WE ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER. liBERTARIANS HAVE THE SAME COLD HEART OF THE REPUBLICAN.
I beleive in a strict interpretation of the US Constitution. IN A GROWING CHANGING SOCIETY THAT CHILDISH MENTALITY IS WHAT PRODUCES OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBERS AND ASSASSINS BECAUSE IT IS NOT WORKABLE IN A GROWING SOCIETY WITH liBERTARIANS/REPUBLICANS IN IT.
I beleive in freedom from an oppressive government IF THAT WERE HONESTLY TRUE THEN YOU WOULD VOTE DEMOCRATIC EVERY ELECTION CYCLE BECAUSE NO GOOD THING HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY A REPUBLICAN THE LAST 30 YEARS. OR A liBERTARTIAN.
and freedom from others (cavemen) voting themselves (using the club) one’s earnings. AGAIN THE COLD DARK HEART OF THE liBERTARIAN HEART ON FULL DISPLAY. liBERTARIANS AND REPUBLICANS LIVE IN THE COLD DARK WORLD OF THEORY AND PRETENTIOUS STYLE BUT NO SUBSTANCE OR RELEVENCE TO THE NEEDS OF EVERYDAY AMERICANS. THEY LIVE IN A DARK DREAM WORLD OF ME ME ME NOT KNOWING FOR A SOCIETY TO BE SUCCESSFUL ESPECIALLY IN A COUNTRY AS EXPENSIVE AS AMERICA WE MUST BE OUR BROTHERS KEEPER.
Strict constructionist = domestic terrorist? Scalia may be a jerk, but I rather doubt he’s bombed any abortion clinics recently.
The problem with an expansionist view of government rights and responsibilities is at some point expedience takes precedent over individual liberties. Please see Kelo v. City of New London for an example of this, and how liberals and libertarians are often in agreement on very substantive issues.
A constructionist view is not to terrible of a roadblock, even for the most amibitious initiatives. The income tax didn’t pass constitutional muster so they tacked it on as an ammendment. Is it too much to ask that serious changes to the government undergo a vote at all political levels?
Bahahahahahahhaha bahahahhahahaha
Jason, wow you truly have fallen off the deep end.
The US Constitution is the only thing that protects our right to freedom from tyranny.
In case you missed it, the U.S. became the most powerful country on Earth in just 200 years b/c of individual rights.
Jason, you do not have the right to the fruit of my labor but you do have the right to remain hateful and ignorant and full of the belief that you are incapable of living a productive life on your own and that only a nanny state can sustain your being.
Bahahahahahahhaha bahahahhahahaha the jokes on you Fred. Fred you have every right in the world to not pay your taxes, if you earn any taxes lol! I will be in the courtroom with pen and ink to take every sound of your wimpering “dontputmeinjailwiththosepeople!”
And the very fact this country is still here means the Constitution is working DESPITE the fact Republicans/LIbertartians are trying to destroy it. And the Constitution got a little stronger the other day when Arlen Specter flipped the Republican/LIbertarian Party the bird and joined the Patriotic heroic Democratic Party! I just hope some nutbag right wing wacko doesn’t try to kill him.
Jason you literally make absolute zero sense.
#1 I didn’t say I wasn’t going to / didn’t think taxes were neccessary, I don’t even know how to have a discussion with you, you just pull stuff out of a hat.
#2 Good ole Arlen changed parties but hey, I DONT CARE, I’m not a republican, how thick headed are you? And plus, he only changed parties bc he was going to lose his own primary. His voting future will remain more republican than democrat, he’s voted against card check, and health care reconciliation and the President’s budget already. Only you would be naive enough to think switching the letter in front of your name would change your voting pattern.
#3 The authors of the US Constituion were libertarians, thats why they wrote it to protect the individual, not to create a nanny state. The reason the creators of this country didn’t have a government ran healthcare system, a government ran retirement program, a government ran food stamp program, was bc they didn’t beleive those programs were the proper role of government; if they did, we would have had those programs since the beginning. Also, income taxes are relatively new b/c the US Constitution as originally interpretted didn’t allow/ warrant them.
You sound so much like Wesely Mouch, I’m not sure if you are trying to be funny.
blah blah blah blah LIbertarian dribble. The founding fathers would laugh at todays Libertartian, tell you its rude to interrupt adults and send you to the blackboard to write, “I will stop wasting America’s time” 10000 times. Fred you claim a privilage of the founding fathers you can never have claim to.
Wow your comebacks are incredible. Thank you for helping me see the light with your articulate response to every single fact of mine with simple and conscise reasoning that is so profound and yet really says nothing at all.
Fred you have no claim to any discourse in America. America has rejected the LIberterian Party! When was the last time you contributed anything to the dialogue of any recent national or even state election? Your guy in 2008 was Bob Barr! Fred come on! Bob Barr? Bob Bar IS a Republican! America won’t even allow you on the debate stage! Sure some of your ideas are quaint but really your strict adherence to the mixture of Republican/LIbertarian dogma no matter how you couch it in the founding fathers ideals is nothing but the rantings of an ideological right wing scary person who stands on the street corner with a sign America doesn’t care to read because its not worth the possible automobile accident! FRED FRED Dude get real.
How ironic that a liberal would be insisting that the ideas and voices of a minority party have no place in America….arent liberals suppossed to be open and tolerant of all ideas?
And once again another terribly ironicly profound point that America wont even let the Libertarain Party on the debate stage. But its not America that wont let the libertarians on, its the people from the two main parties. Every national poll that asks about third party candidates and Presidential debates shows the public by substantial numbers open on including more parties than repubs and dems.
It was Obama and McCain that would not agree to having them on stage.
JASON JASON JASON dude im trying to get real, but Im just SO SCARED of my CRAAAAAAZY ideas that support individual rights (including gay marriage you dip, your latest humanitarian cause)….but oh LOORDIE please help me JASON. YOU have clearly seen the light….please help me JASON….please HELP ME GET REAL. Your unsubstaantiated comebacks the dont even warrant a response bc they are so riddled with generalities and insults and newspeak that no mere mortal as myself could profess anything to counter your arguements JASON.
Fred don’t you get it? If America wanted what BOB BARR was giving away you would have had a place on the stage. The message would have resonated with the American people. But alas, flipping through the channels they stopped on your speech and with one voice said, “YAWN” and moved on. You can blame the two party system but in the end it lands squarely in your LI/bertarian lap. Another reason why America doesn’t like you Fred is you’re so vitriolic in your speech. Bob Barrish.
Jason-
If anyone on this entire thread appeared vitriolic it would be yourself. You could easily be confused with having terrets and your lack of any factual arguement other than name calling and simply trying to label anyone with differing views than yourself as right-wing racisct extremeist completly discredited yourself. You seem to have a lot of growing up to do.
M
Maria your dna is so saturated with limbaugh/hannity/savage juice you wouldn’t know the truth if it pimp slapped you.
Haha the joke is up. No one could really be this partisan…..right?
For your sake Jason, I hope you are not really being serious. If so, there are counselors on campus and even better for you, they’re free…..you obviously have a lot of pent up rage to deal with.
Anyone that blindly follows any political party with complete disregard for opposing views and factual substenance to back up their own opinion is ignorant. But anyone that becomes so defensive and needs to lash out during civil discourse might be a little sick in the head w/ a dash of insecurity.
Fred one thing you and your cohorts must know I could care what a hypocrite says! You Republicans and LIbertarians are master name callers and you think I care that you are offended? Are you so dull in your understanding fellows? One thing I found out about Republicans/erelephants and ‘LI’bertarians is they love to dish it out but are little girls when it comes to taking it. You people must think no one notices when you people name call and insult! Are you so very dull? So lets just leave it there girls.
By the looks of it, you are the one doing all the name calling and insults. You dont even know a thing about Maria yet bc she calls you out all of the sudden her “dna is saturated….” For all you know she couldnt been a flaming liberal.
Thank you for taking out your aggression towards anyone that disagrees with you or dissaproves of your poor attempts at a conversation by name calling and CAPITALIZING meaningless words for emphasis. This truly shows you are a little little man.
Really, you should check out the counselors on campus, Im sure theyre great and you obviously have serious daddy issues.
Just because you can’t see the world outside your little quarantined right wing conservative wacko ideology you resort to personal attacks! I insult the Republican/irrelephant LIbertaritn Party and you take it personal and attack me. Thats the difference Bastiat. I’m done with the multiple personalities of the Republican/irrelephant LIbertartian Party. I have a life I suggest you get one. SEE YA WOULDN’T WANNA BE YA!
Jason, trolls don’t have lives and that is exactly what you are: a troll. One who goes around inciting arguments with harsh words with little to no substance with the intent to cause the same reaction of those on opposites sides to make them look bad. Only it hasn’t worked this time and you are left looking like the fool. Please, go back under the bridge before the billy goats come down there and teach you a lesson.