*discuss

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, September 19th, 2011 1:38pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter dystopianfuturetoday.

Ayn? LOL Subliminal message or Freudian slip?

air-date? early 2009?

She was being a bit facetious. Not that Palin, Perry, and the rest of them don't try to position themselves as some type of libertarian, so of course a partisan talking head is going to try to pretend she's a libertarian too, especially right after her "side" got their asses handing to them in the recent election.
She was also assuming the "War would be over" (as per Obama rhetoric). How was she to know the global bankers own BOTH parties and the war machine was only getting started?

Also the question wasn't "Who do you back in 2012?", it was "Who is the leading candidate for the Republicans in 2012?"
And for once, she was spot on.

>> ^marbles:

Ayn? LOL Subliminal message or Freudian slip?
air-date? early 2009?
She was being a bit facetious. Not that Palin, Perry, and the rest of them don't try to position themselves as some type of libertarian, so of course a partisan talking head is going to try to pretend she's a libertarian too, especially right after her "side" got their asses handing to them in the recent election.
She was also assuming the "War would be over" (as per Obama rhetoric). How was she to know the global bankers own BOTH parties and the war machine was only getting started?
Also the question wasn't "Who do you back in 2012?", it was "Who is the leading candidate for the Republicans in 2012?"
And for once, she was spot on.


So true... could it mean a title change? I find it a little factious that she laughs at the joke about Ron Paul's age being compared to that of a dog...

Blankfist --><3_<3

I'm convinced that @blankfist and Penn Gillette are the only living market libertarians with a properly functioning sense of humor. My apologies to Drew Carey. >> ^marbles:

Ayn? LOL Subliminal message or Freudian slip?
air-date? early 2009?
She was being a bit facetious. Not that Palin, Perry, and the rest of them don't try to position themselves as some type of libertarian, so of course a partisan talking head is going to try to pretend she's a libertarian too, especially right after her "side" got their asses handing to them in the recent election.
She was also assuming the "War would be over" (as per Obama rhetoric). How was she to know the global bankers own BOTH parties and the war machine was only getting started?
Also the question wasn't "Who do you back in 2012?", it was "Who is the leading candidate for the Republicans in 2012?"
And for once, she was spot on.

FUCK YOU!!!1111!!! FUCKING HELL IS THI$ SHIIET!!11 CHANGIE ET YOU BASTART!!!2

I'm with marbles. Dumb title.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I'm convinced that @blankfist and Penn Gillette are the only living market libertarians with a properly functioning sense of humor. My apologies to Drew Carey. >> ^marbles:
Ayn? LOL Subliminal message or Freudian slip?
air-date? early 2009?
She was being a bit facetious. Not that Palin, Perry, and the rest of them don't try to position themselves as some type of libertarian, so of course a partisan talking head is going to try to pretend she's a libertarian too, especially right after her "side" got their asses handing to them in the recent election.
She was also assuming the "War would be over" (as per Obama rhetoric). How was she to know the global bankers own BOTH parties and the war machine was only getting started?
Also the question wasn't "Who do you back in 2012?", it was "Who is the leading candidate for the Republicans in 2012?"
And for once, she was spot on.




Wait, so was this joke directed at all market libertarians or just blankfist and Penn Gillette? (What's Penn's username btw?)


That's good stuff. Really. You should submit it to the Daily Show.

^Case in point.

Hey, don't forget to tag your sarcasm. Otherwise all those uncultured libertarians won't be able appreciate such clever humor.

^If you really support Ron Paul and his free market economic vision for the country, then why should it matter to you that someone who is kind of a jerk likes these things too? Does Coulter's support somehow diminish the things you find admirable about these two institutions? I hope not, because she probably likes music, pizza and puppy dogs too.

Also, I've not used sarcasm anywhere on this page.

Statist troll is statist.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Also, I've not used sarcasm anywhere on this page.


Oh yeah, sorry. I was talking to myself there. Instead of uncultured libertarians, I actually meant everyone else.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^If you really support Ron Paul and his free market economic vision for the country, then why should it matter to you that someone who is kind of a jerk likes these things too? Does Coulter's support somehow diminish the things you find admirable about these two institutions? I hope not, because she probably likes music, pizza and puppy dogs too.


I appreciate your concern, but you're creating a false dilemma. I want everyone to support Ron Paul. But a fraud is a fraud. Kinda like posting a video as a "joke" when really it's just a lame attempt to associate a candidate with a partisan hack while pandering to your own base for cheap votes. Or maybe my sense of humor just isn't functioning properly again.

Where is the fraud? Are you saying she doesn't like free market economics or Ron Paul? Is she lying? I think the real issue is that you are afraid to admit the similarities between the market libertarian movement and the far right.

I thought the title was funny. But then I'm not libertarian, so I guess that doesn't count.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Where is the fraud? Are you saying she doesn't like free market economics or Ron Paul? Is she lying?


Are you really that slow? Refer back to my first comment. Partisan politics means political theater. I'm sure you can find clips from a few years ago where the people on the left were vehemently anti-war, the same people are now calling for war in Libya and Syria. (And continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan) This is what partisan politics is--a fraud.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I think the real issue is that you are afraid to admit the similarities between the market libertarian movement and the far right.

I think the real issue is that you have no idea what freedom means. It has nothing to do with left/right or deciding which side is better at economic central planning. That is a lose/lose proposition.

You have been deluded into believing that a very fundamentalist form of capitalism is freedom, and as is with all fundamentalists, you believe your way is the only way to salvation.

It's blankfist.


>> ^marbles:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I'm convinced that @blankfist and Penn Gillette are the only living market libertarians with a properly functioning sense of humor. My apologies to Drew Carey. >> ^marbles:
Ayn? LOL Subliminal message or Freudian slip?
air-date? early 2009?
She was being a bit facetious. Not that Palin, Perry, and the rest of them don't try to position themselves as some type of libertarian, so of course a partisan talking head is going to try to pretend she's a libertarian too, especially right after her "side" got their asses handing to them in the recent election.
She was also assuming the "War would be over" (as per Obama rhetoric). How was she to know the global bankers own BOTH parties and the war machine was only getting started?
Also the question wasn't "Who do you back in 2012?", it was "Who is the leading candidate for the Republicans in 2012?"
And for once, she was spot on.



Wait, so was this joke directed at all market libertarians or just blankfist and Penn Gillette? (What's Penn's username btw?)

That's good stuff. Really. You should submit it to the Daily Show.

@gwiz665, it's the one sockpuppet you statists would never expect me to create! Bwahahah!

The only delusion is believing you have to sacrifice individual sovereignty to exist as a society. Arguing about what "form" of capitalism is freedom makes no sense. Either one exists for him or herself, or he/she doesn't exist.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I hope not, because she probably likes music, pizza and puppy dogs too.

Ann Coulter loves puppies... for dinner.

How would a "free" market guarantee individual sovereignty? >> ^marbles:

The only delusion is believing you have to sacrifice individual sovereignty to exist as a society. Arguing about what "form" of capitalism is freedom makes no sense. Either one exists for him or herself, or he/she doesn't exist.

Cat got your tongue, @marbles?

@dystopianfuturetoday

Sorry for the delay friend. Replying to internet statist's illogical question was not a high priority. I see you were pregnant with anticipation though!

Individual sovereignty isn't protected by a "free" market. You're thinking ass backwards. A free market is the result of ensuring individual sovereignty.

Circular reasoning.

Says the guy who doesn't know what a market is.

But I guess those founding fathers and framers of the Bill of Rights were just a bunch lunkheads.

Ironic quote of the day:
"As one of Jefferson’s favorite books, Gibbon’s ‘Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,’ so luminously argued, there is no surer sign of a country’s cultural and political decay than obtuse blindness to its unmistakable beginnings." - Simon Schama

More obtuse blindness.

>> ^marbles:

More obtuse blindness.


Lol

I study this stuff. It's strange that Mericans have this romanticised view of their Constitution, Bill o rights, Puritans and the founding fathers, but the humans were just human, and the documents were just documents: Imperfect. Not holy writs and prophets. The USA did not get rich and prosperous on its founding father's ideals, but the backs of slave labour, massive natural resources and comparatively few wars at the beginning.

To think that "As one of Jefferson’s favorite books, Gibbon’s ‘Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,’ so luminously argued, there is no surer sign of a country’s cultural and political decay than obtuse blindness to its unmistakable beginnings" means one should look at the beginnings and say: "Wow everything was awesome then!" is romanticising history. All that stuff I mentioned above which you ironically called 'obtuse blindness' is deeply ingrained not only in the US' history but also the constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I have read both documents, unfinished drafts, rewritings, documents about the discussions and much more such tedious stuff: It's all deeply political, partisan even then and not! perfection. I know that it's much easier to think that libertarianism is the goto-solution for everything, but it isn't. Nothing is.

How many false arguments can one put in a post?

Protecting individual sovereignty is always the best solution and like I previously eluded to, sacrificing individual sovereignty to exist as a society is not only delusional thinking, but self-destructive.