And don’t forget the best one of all!

Yes, you “win” by being a fucktard who annoys me.  Good fucking lord, it’s like kicking someone and then making fun of them for bruising.  Why am I supposed to be happy about being fucking annoyed by a bunch of self-centered twits?

Libertarians voted for George Bush in 2004 more than all other candidates combined.  This was despite the torture, despite the rape rooms, despite lies of WMDs, despite the sabre ratting vis N. Korea, Iran and Syria, despite all the total fucking imperialist bullshit that they’re supposed to be against if you here the apologists speak…

60% of them voted for Bush in his reelection efforts.  Greater than the general population.  Sure, it was down from 72% in 2000.  Mostly though the change came about because of out-of-control government spending.  And NOT the war or potential threats of future wars. 

I think it’s obvious that the selfish little wankers that make the Libertarians clearly voted their pocket book (tax cuts) issues and were not, in any realistic fashion, turned off by the war, illegal spying on Americans, the bloated military or the rest of the flag-waiving “Patriotic” bullshit that excused an immoral, illegal and costly war. 

BTW, in the second cartoon both the cat and fish were perfect.  However, the dog sounded like any teenager… 

I actually think this whole thing is wonderful fun; I hope Amanda continues forever. I really, really like the No True Scotsman supporters who take such furious umbrage that Amanda uses “libertarian” in the way it de facto means instead of the way that (according to them) it de jure means. Heh.

Awesome, atheist.

Oh, and yes, like any wanker group, if you annoy them they’ll bug the hell out of you…  They’re worse than freepers or Christianistas that way…

I like the argument that the more your statements irritate someone (most often expressed as “I touched a nerve, didn’t I”) the more legitimate they are…you know, rather than the more annoying they are.

The problem with libertarians is, as Franklin so aptly exemplifies for us…is that they tend to be pimply-faced male youths with no girlfriends.  This has less to do with the pimples and more to do with the fact that they say things like “whine whine whine, should anyone be surprised?” about women, and believe that they’re enlightened, but I digress.

The point is, these guys always, and I mean always, have a lot of time on their hands.

Franklin, I think you’re projecting about the whining.  Someone is onto the fact that you and yours aren’t as smart as you think you are, and your response is to waste an enormous amount of time bullshitting in hopes that you “win” by getting the last word.  I’ve seen this happen time and time again, and always with libertarians.  You make fun of them, they rush the post and insist that libertarians shouldn’t be judged by what they do, but by what some person somewhere said the “true” libertarian should do, people argue with them, it gets boring, all sane people quit reading the thread, and you come back a week later and the libertarian geeks are still at it.  Which doesn’t prove that you “win”, but it does convince everyone else that libertarianism is somehow directly caused by an inability to ever get out of the house.

it does convince everyone else that libertarianism is somehow directly caused by an inability to ever get out of the house.

WIN.

Please, Amanda, keep stirring the pot.  There is nothing more hilarious than watching sanctimonious Randroids pretending to be intellectuals and getting upset when we laugh at them.

“You attack…attack…attack, and when people resond, you whine…whine…whine about it.

How surprised should anyone be? “

Awww, isn’t frankie’s terminal case of projection adorable?

LOL.  Here’s one “Libertarian Troll Bingo” on punkass blog from a few years back:

http://punkassblog.com/2007/07/05/libertarian-troll-bingo/

Third comment down:

“If I go to Pandagon, which I do about a zillion times a day, and I see a post that is both a) new to me and b) already up to 100 comments, I don’t even look for there there be trolls. So I haven’t actually read the Sicko comments, but I imagine you could fill all the dots on that card with them.”

“Libertarian” is a word that has been drained of any meaning it might have once had.

In a mirror image of what Jonah Goldberg and the Reichwing did to destroy the meanings of “Liberal”, “Socialism” and “Fascism” (which now have been dumbed down in their use to “not-Conservative”), the word “libertarian” has been claimed by too many people with too many different (and incompatible) interests.  Whatever its (highly arguable) merit might have been, at this point it basically means “I’m too embarrassed to tell people I’m a Republican or Conservative, so I tell people I’m a Libertarian instead.”

So you True Believer Libertarians can argue all day and all night about who is or isn’t a Real Libertarian.  I’m sure it’s a great exercise in mental masturbation.

Meanwhile, the real world has moved on and left your unhinged philosophy of the Universal Selfish Bastard on the dust heap of history, right next to Marx’s philosophy of the Universal Brotherhood of Workers…

Yeah, I have noticed that Libertarians definitely mistake “the last word” for “winning,” and even believe that there is such a thing as “winning the Internet.”

Libertarians are all whiny 14 year old boys.  Even the 50 year old ones.

Oh I love that post MikeEss.

Libertarians are—and I mean everything I’ve ever heard from Cato as well as watching more South Park than is good for anyone—all for lower taxes and less regulation of business, yes?  We’ve had that since Reagan, and it’s gotten even more so over Bush the Younger’s reign.  You broke the world and your only prescription for fixing it is more of the same because clearly what we had wasn’t enough.  Your definitions of liberty seem to leave out a lot.  After all, if the government grants a benefit to one class of citizens, should it not grant that benefit to all citizens?  What is it about the class that gets the benefit that makes them special?

Of course, Mr. Raines, given your contention that rights do not exist at all leads me swiftly to the conclusion that the inside of your mind resembles that which is found at the bottom of CAFO waste lagoons.  But I am, admittedly, biased.

I am a regular reader of both Pandagon and Andrew Sullivan.  I am also a feminist, and definitely *not* a libertarian.  Although there are apparently some ridiculous readers of Sullivan that fit the whiny over-privileged white guy stereotype, he does not himself.  He’s actually fairly reasonable.  Sullivan’s writing style doesn’t require his readers to agree with all his views, and he’s genuinely open-minded about opposing opinions.

His problem is with using this one idiot (which he does not defend) to represent all of libertarianism.  It’s not a very fair tactic to use, and I certainly know of some feminists who I would hate to be associated with.

I encourage you libertarians to please, please, please emigrate to some old offshore oil platform to build your perfect society where you won’t have to cooperate other icky people who are oh-so-much less clever than you. Out in the freedom of the continental self you can toil happily at feeding, clothing and sheltering yourselves without having to deal with the parasites of society. Once and for all you can prove to all us un-Galtish brutes that “civilization” is for suckers. I mean who needs a complex social amalgamation of humans for mutual support and defense? Losers, that’s who! 

Happy you will be eating undercooked fish and sleeping on bales of seaweed until one day, at the age of 43, you will die of a minor infection and your fellow deep-thinking Randians will divide up your possessions up via gladiatorial combat in the thunderdome! Then they will toss your body to the sharks and you will leave the world no poorer for your passing.

Yes. Totally do that. Just fucking leave the rest of us to figure out how to run a complex and technological society here in the real world while you go wank off to your Mad Max fantasies.

Seriously, do that. We’d pass the hat for you, but I am sure you wouldn’t want the help.

Wow, I wonder if Franklin is related to parrots?  His post here is an echo of what he wrote on another post.  It’s so cute how he seems to think that people will listen to him if he just repeats the same thing often enough.

“BTW, in the second cartoon both the cat and fish were perfect.”

I dunno.  I’ve met more than one cat that got where they are now by hard work and perseverance.

The thing I tend to notice about libertarians is that while they’ll pay lip service to their open mindedness on social issues, social issues don’t motivate them.  The economic side is where their passion lies.  Taxes and regulation are the great travesties, and those are the great injustices they’re motivated to rid the world of.  Their attitude on the social stuff is that they’re “willing to concede” that intellectual rigor requires them to agree that abortion and drugs should be legal, and that gay people should be able to get married and adopt children.  But they don’t really care about that stuff because only idiots take drugs and have sex outside of marriage, and who cares about gays.

“Happy you will be eating undercooked fish and sleeping on bales of seaweed until one day, at the age of 43, you will die of a minor infection and your fellow deep-thinking Randians will divide up your possessions up via gladiatorial combat in the thunderdome!”

...those damn bacteria!  Can’t they see I’m a Man of the Mind, a natural Leader of Humanity, a Randian Superman?  How dare they attack my magnificent mind and body like that…

The award was garnered because of Marcotte’s characterization of all libertarianism, not because many of Thiel’s particular views are worth defending.

Has the man never heard of hyperbole? I am certain Amanda knows that not all [L/l]ibertarians are crazy-misogynist douchbags. It’s just 99% of self-proclaimed “libertarians” you run into on the internets.

Also, the strongest defenses provided so far have all been of the “Courtier’s Reply” variety—“don’t ague against the libertarianism that seems to be practiced by the majority of people you actually encounter, instead you should argue against these policy papers by Libertarian Thinktanks that 99% of the people who consider themselves libertarians have never read.” Pfft, fuck that ‘no true Scottsman’ nonsense.

Damn!  He absolutely nailed it!

He’s actually fairly reasonable.

hmm, that’s damning with faint praise if ever I heard it.

I agree with Mantis.  Libertarian tendencies aside, let’s keep the cat-bashing to a minimum.

LOL when I first saw atheist’s comic I thought it said “Atlas Shagged”

LOL MikeEss

So you True Believer Libertarians can argue all day and all night about who is or isn’t a Real Libertarian.  I’m sure it’s a great exercise in mental masturbation.

Meanwhile, the real world has moved on and left your unhinged philosophy of the Universal Selfish Bastard on the dust heap of history, right next to Marx’s philosophy of the Universal Brotherhood of Workers…

perfect!

hey tend to be pimply-faced male youths with no girlfriends

I don’t think we really need any qualifiers here.  They in fact have no friends of any sort since they are so totally self-centered and annoying.

So what is the difference between Libertarian and libertarian?  I have always used the capital letter, just like I do with any other political party, but it seems like some people are making a distinction.

The cat is perfect, yeah. A lot of cats have libertarian tendencies.
However, they are cute and people like to take care of them. That’s not libertarian at all.

Their attitude on the social stuff is that they’re “willing to concede” that intellectual rigor requires them to agree that abortion and drugs should be legal, and that gay people should be able to get married and adopt children.  But they don’t really care about that stuff because only idiots take drugs and have sex outside of marriage, and who cares about gays.

Or they take a page from the big book of Ron Paul and “concede” that abortion, drug criminalization, and gay marriage bans are bad except for this mine quibble of bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit so they’ll have to support it after all.

It’s classic Spectering.  “Oh yeah, I really really don’t like it, so I assure you that I’m very reluctant to vote for it.”

Libertarians:  The Party of Fucking Worthless

I dunno.  I’ve met more than one cat that got where they are now by hard work and perseverance.

Clearly you haven’t met mine.  All too willing, and nay, eager, to spurn the society that has nurtured them since birth and cleans their litter box twice a day.

The difference between the Randian Atomic Supermen and obsessive cartoon fans? A mere matter of degrees..

take such furious umbrage that Amanda uses “libertarian” in the way it de facto means instead of the way that (according to them) it de jure means

Not surprising. Most libertarians only care about the “de jure”, not the “de facto”. They think facts are messy, they despise empiricism and are idealists who glorify pure reason starting from ‘first principles’. If the real world doesn’t work out like their theories ‘built from first principles’ would, then it’s the fault of the real world. So if we’re experiencing libertarians being jackasses, that just means the people claiming the label aren’t close enough to the libertarian they’ve built up entirely within the confines of their genius minds.

You’d have a point, Melissa, if Thiel’s post wasn’t pitch perfect class libertarian whining.  I used it to represent, because it was representative. 

Also, No True Scotsman would think otherwise.

Hey—serious question for people who actually have friends (Franklin, feel free to sit this one out). I know one dude who is very “hands off” and feels that government bureaucracy is hopelessly broken (even down to stuff like USDA inspections). He believes strongly in feminism, gay rights, and doesn’t engage in racist gun fantasies. He didn’t care for Ron Paul one bit and generally votes Dem ticket. I have NEVER heard him describe himself as a Libertarian, he prefers the term Anarchist. Has anyone else encountered this—ie, people who are actually consistent in their views going by some other identifier than Libertarian?

I like the fact that libertarians are saying you’re not talking about real libertarians as you comment about an article written by a libertarian writing at Cato. And it’s responding to the main article (by Patri Friedman) that says libertarians should forget about democracy and go do some seasteading. Is that what you really want to direct us to?

You attack…attack…attack, and when people resond, you whine…whine…whine about it.

How surprised should anyone be?

For crying out loud, Franklin, What did I tell you?

First, the word is Respond. It has a P. Proofread your work. Try using Firefox or Google Chrome. These have built in spellcheck features that underline all typos for you with red. You should know if anything is wrong, so even a cursory glance would show you the problems.

Second, again tone. You write 2 sentences, and you can’t manage consistent tone. You’re speaking to Amanda. Your second sentence should be “How surprised can you be?”

Third, ellipses are not serial commas. Better would be “You attack, and attack, and attack.” This is what repetition for emphasis is supposed to look like. What you post sounds like you have a stutter, or possibly some type of seizure.

You can see into someone’s soul by their passion; how they fight for what they believe in. Your words give the impression your soul has all the fire and focus of dish water.

Please take pride in your work. A job well done is satisfying in itself. Please. I beg you. Stop sucking.

“Please. I beg you. Stop sucking.”

Fucking hilarious.

If the True Libertarians really cared about their creed, they’d do something about all the False Libertarians out there using fraud (and occasionally force) to besmirch it. Or?

“Please take pride in your work. A job well done is satisfying in itself. Please. I beg you. Stop sucking.”

No Galtopia For You!...

Not surprising. Most libertarians only care about the “de jure”, not the “de facto”. They think facts are messy, they despise empiricism and are idealists who glorify pure reason starting from ‘first principles’. If the real world doesn’t work out like their theories ‘built from first principles’ would, then it’s the fault of the real world.

So in other words, they’re economists!

Mighty Ponygirl - a friend of mine fits that desciption. He mistrusts government and is a gun owner and is very concerned with Second Amendment rights but he tends to be progressive socially and is a card-carrying member of the ACLU.  I’ve “accused” him of being a libertarian but he disavows the term.

Mighty Ponygirl, it seems like libertarianism, which was originally just about a hands-off government, took a very weird, very non-libertarian turn during the Bush administration, as exemplified by some of the nonsense that came out of the Cato Institute during that 8 years. (As such, Andrew Sullivan has definitely not noticed.) You now have self-described libertarians who think GTMO is just dandy. I’m sure your friend is responding to that, and I have a couple of self-described “anarchist” friends who sound like yours. Although of course, anarchist isn’t exactly the right term either. Honestly, it’s just that a lot of older white guys totally lost their shit after 9/11, moving everything in a more authoritarian direction regardless of their self-described political philosophy, and now we’re left with a different political landscape that we all have to navigate and factions we have to name.

Liz212—I don’t think he *ever* identified as a Libertarian (it’s hard to say), so I don’t think he’s reacting to a taint on the libertarian name more than simply that he was never able to sign on to the philosophy in the first place because he saw too may inconsistencies.

Heh. I said “Taint.”

Mighty Ponygirl, I’ve known some people like that.  My first serious boyfriend considered himself an anarchist, and he was more feminist than I was at that time.  I would actually consider his views to be what the definition of “libertarian” is theoretically.  I never agreed with him on his anarchist views, but he was really active in protesting racism and sexism.

“Socialism” ... (which now have been dumbed down in their use to “not-Conservative”)

Yeah, I love how they did that.  Maybe in a couple years we can rally for universal health care and the right wing will scream “but that’s socialism!!!!eleventy-one111!!” and we’ll be like “so were city buses, who cares?”

“Clearly you haven’t met mine.  All too willing, and nay, eager, to spurn the society that has nurtured them since birth and cleans their litter box twice a day.”

Some do that, yes.  Others spend a year sneaking into your house at every opportunity in the hopes that someday you will get tired of throwing them out and let them stay, or perhaps not notice that you’ve somehow acquired an extra pet.

karpad _

I’m going with seizure disorder.  Cuz then I can feel sorry for him and have confidence that he can be helped.

Otherwise . . .

kinda reminds me of this

Really really ridiculously simplifying, but as far as I can tell, libertarians and anarchists are sort of the everyday equivalent of fascists and communists—one group’s on the right, one’s on the left, but there’s a lot of overlap between the two.

In other words, an anarchist is a left-wing libertarian, though unlike libertarians they’re usually honest enough to admit that they personally would be beaten to a pulp in an anarchist society.

I believe ‘Syndicalism’ is the closest leftist counterpart to Libertarianism. It embraces privatism but denies both capitalism and state-socialism. A heady mix destined to make Libertarian heads asplode.

Andrew is the one looking like an idiot here.  Has he ever actually spoken to a libertarian about their politics?  They are fucking nuts.

Two of mine: (based on actual people I know)

A libertarian is just a Republican who doesn’t want to accept responsibility for their awful policies.

A libertarian is a Republican who likes to smoke pot.

OK.  THIS is brilliant (from the Truthiness Encyclopedia):

A libertarian is something like a Republican, except different. More precisely, libertarians are defined by the following equation:

Libertarian = Republican - Jesus + pot + hot sexy gun-toting naked chicks.

Libertarians are conservatives, but without the balls. Some say they are pussy Republicans, like a clone of Ron Paul and John Stossel.

I just don’t understand what is Sullivan’s faux bewilderment about here?  He is acting as if Amanda has gone off half-cocked when she writes that libertarians support war.  Does he think that the google can’t find his comments (which I don’t need google to remind me of, I’ll paraphrase from memory) about “the antiwar left” during the early days of Iraq?

He called us a fucking fifth column.  Traitors.  He was definitely part of the you are with us or you are an enemy of the United States of America, and someone better shake that motherfucker’s head until he remembers that he supported the Iraq war, called those who didn’t traitors, and now has the blood of only God will ever know the real number, of human lives on his hands.

So STFU Sullivan.

A libertarian is just a Republican who doesn’t want to accept responsibility for their awful policies.

So, basically, a Republican.

So what is the difference between Libertarian and libertarian?  I have always used the capital letter, just like I do with any other political party, but it seems like some people are making a distinction.

Oh who knows catgirl.  You ask 50 of them that question, you’ll get different answers.  They can go and on and on about capital L and small l and classic l.  I finally started calling the ones on my political message board, small L, half caf, extra foamy, double neo, libertarians.

They’re out of their minds.

Part of the problem with the bad language of “libertarianism” is that it starts with a corruption of the word “liberty”.  They rail like hell against political coercion, and ignore other restraints on liberty such as sheer necessity (you have to eat, to poop, to breath and to drink - therefore you have to worry about food contamination, sewer systems, air quality and water delivery) and economic coercion.

A libertarian wouldn’t have a problem with a boss sexually harassing a worker.  If she/he doesn’t like it, she/he can quit, after all.  And she/he has a perfect right to trade sexual access to her body for a promotion, or a raise, or her job continuing tomorrow - right?

If you want to puncture the dreams of Libertarians, ask them how toilets will work in Libertopia…

Sully is the definition of the privileged white man.

You can see this in his response to the Iraq War.  The Iraq War was awesome, and everyone who opposed it was a liberal fifth columnists (his words) who hated America, until Bush was against civil unions.

Within days, the Iraq War was based on lies and the worst foreign policy mistake ever and Bush was the awfullest President in the history of awful.

Not tough to figure out Sully.

Libertarians are conservatives, but without the balls. Some say they are pussy Republicans, like a clone of Ron Paul and John Stossel.

OK, now I’m picturing Paul with Stossel’s mustache.

Gah!

“Libertarian” is one of those words that probably sounds better in the original French.

He never called anyone who didn’t support the Iraq war traitors.  You may not be aware, but the internet lets you search for facts instead of spewing incorrect gibberish. If you were actually interested in not being ignorant, you could find where and when he made his fifth column comment.  Additionally, he actually apologized for using the fifth column phrase just days after it was published.  How about coming up with some new material.

I like Scalzi’s take as well:

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2002/03/22/i-hate-your-politics/

Libertarians: Never got over the fact they weren’t the illegitimate children of Robert Heinlein and Ayn Rand; currently punishing the rest of us for it. Unusually smug for a political philosophy that’s never gotten anyone elected for anything above the local water board. All for legalized drugs and prostitution but probably wouldn’t want their kids blowing strangers for crack; all for slashing taxes for nearly every social service but don’t seem to understand why most people aren’t at all keen to trade in even the minimal safety net the US provides for 55-gallon barrels of beans and rice, a crossbow and a first-aid kit in the basement. Blissfully clueless that Libertarianism is just great as long as it doesn’t actually involve real live humans.

Libertarians blog with a frequency that makes one wonder if they’re actually employed somewhere or if they have loved ones who miss them. Libertarian blogs even more snide than conservative blogs, if that’s possible. Socially slow — will assume other people actually want to talk about legalizing hemp and the benefits of a polyamorous ethos when all these other folks really want is to drink beer and play Grand Theft Auto 3. Libertarianism the official political system of science fiction authors, which explains why science fiction is in such a rut these days. Libertarians often polyamorous (and hope you are too) but also somewhat out of shape, which takes a lot of the fun out of it.

Easily offended; Libertarians most likely to respond to this column. The author will attempt to engage subtle wit but will actually come across as a geeky whiner (Conservatives, more schooled in the art of poisonous replies, may actually achieve wit; liberals will reply that they don’t find any of this humorous at all). Libertarians secretly worried that ultimately someone will figure out the whole of their political philosophy boils down to “Get Off My Property.” News flash: This is not really a big secret to the rest of us.

Fortunately, whenever I picture Stossel, it’s always in this context.

Fortunately, whenever I picture Stossel, it’s always in this context.

Haha, I love that clip.

Stossel is such a ginormous tool.

I have a quick suggestion for Mr. Raines in particular and for Libertarian trolls in general.

Look, I’m perfectly willing to entertain the notion that maybe all you Libertarian types really are intellectual titans. I’ll happily pretend that your trollish little drive-by comments are actually exquisitely formed and perfectly devastating bon mots that blast apart all the arguments that we liberals here are making, thus exposing our hypocrisy and intellectual bankruptcy. I’ll even assume that you refuse to post more than two sentences at a time because your endlessly-fulfilling life as a pistol-packing billionaire special forces industrialist doesn’t leave you with a whole lt of time for commenting on blogs; it certainly couldn’t be that you just don’t have the wherewithal to engage in substantive discussion.

Yes, I’ve always been willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to you, but then you had to ruin it. Look at this first comment on this thread. Do you see that? Do you see what you did there? Now I envision you sitting in front of your computer in a dank basement, Clearasil fumes wafting visibly around you as you scream at the ceiling like a crazed howler monkey, relentlessly hammering the Refresh button for hours, waiting for Amanda to make a new post so you can show her who’s boss by making the all-important first comment. I’ve been trying to envision Libertarians as the world-straddling colossi they perceive themselves as, but dude, you just totally killed the fantasy. Great job.

So here’s my suggestion: Don’t do that!

You’re welcome. And remember, knowing is half the battle! The other half is engaging in empirical research to test whether your knowledge has any real-world validity. I don’t know why I feel compelled to point that out in any discussion of Libertarianism.

P.S. I’ve noticed that this advice might not be of much use to the sub-category of Libertarian who posts massive, unformatted copy-and-pasted screeds about the necessity of hoarding guns and gold to thwart the encroaching tyranny of the New World Order. I don’t want them to feel left out, so I’ll give them a bit of advice too: Keep in mind that the survivalists of today are the CHUDs of tomorrow.

God helped me I actually watched his “Stupid in America” report and he was so obviously cherry-picking his reporting that I wanted to punch the TV. He never showed the “International test” that was delivered to american and european high school students that proved how “dumb” we are. If he wants to talk about how SIMPLE the test is, why not let the viewing audience have a sample of some of the questions? Because they might be questions about Geography or French History or the Metric system? Then he goes on about how GREAT charter schools are, and how they’re the solution to the problem of the public school system, which is so incredibly broken. And he NEVER talks about Michigan, where Charter schools were introduced as a way of breaking the backs of the teacher’s union, and how they’re now ghettos for problem kids, and frequently they return to the public school system anyway—with more behavioral and learning problems than when they left for charter school utopia. He never talked about how non-public schools don’t have the same teacher certification requirements, resulting in the teachers not requiring the same levels of education and accountability as public school teachers, generally being paid less, and usually not having any of the benefits that go along with being a public school teacher.

There was once time when I substituted at a parochial school (I could do that because I had never taken so much as an intro to ed class in college and I was unemployed and they needed a warm body—but that’s ok, neither did the person I was subbing for). One day I asked the class of 2nd graders what book they were reading, and I was delighted to discover they were reading Charlotte’s Web. So I suggested that since we’d finished up our lesson a little early, that they could have a few minutes to read the book. They looked at me weird for a minute and said “That’s our bad book.” I was like “uh, what?” and they explained that they were assigned reading explicitly as a PUNISHMENT when they were bad. Private schools FTW! (OK, in fairness, when I told the headmaster about this, he was more than a little pissed off and took it up with the teacher on her return).

You broke the world and your only prescription for fixing it is more of the same because clearly what we had wasn’t enough.

Just goes to show that libertarians and people on the far left have more in common than they want to admit.  True believers on the left will insist that the real reason the USSR failed was because it wasn’t communistic enough.  That somehow if the government had gotten people to abide by communism just a little more whole-heartedly (inevitably by force, because humans tend to be a little selfish), then it would have worked and somehow those inevitably repressive authority figures would have found it in their hearts not to take advantage of the situation.

Communists want to believe people can be made not to be selfish; libertarians want to believe people can be made not to be altruistic or not to be concerned about their own security, health, and safety if they can’t live up to the Randian ideal.  And somehow all this will make us more free.

@ Mighty Ponygirl re: Anarchists:

Hi!  How ya doing?  I prefer “anarchist”, but I am aware of the fact that we are never, ever going to what what I consider to be an ideal society (I believe that hierarchy is evil), so I use the term “Libertarian socialist”.  I vote Democrat, but I do not consider myself either a Dem or a Social Democrat.  I would absolutely love, love, love to see us split into three parties - Libertarian, Democrat, and Progressive.  Guess which side I’d be on?

Either way, I’m one of the ones you’re talking about.

Yeah, the tendency of conservatives and libertarians to complain that throwing money at a public school system that hasn’t been adequately funded since desegregation doesn’t work never ceases to amuse.  I also find hemorrhagic cystitis amusing as all hell.

Ha, my husband used to be a what INTPagan calls a “Libertarian socialist”, except he called himself a reactionary or classic Socialist - he believed that the ideal society called for small agrarian communities founded on French principles of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. Of course, he recognized that such a society was nothing more than a daydream.

I myself believe in the power of a well-regulated bureaucracy to prevent tyranny and corruption.

INTPagan—assuming you’re living in the USA—is calling yourself an “anarchist” any less fringe than calling yourself something with the word “socialist” in the title? (I’m not trying to be an ass—I’m genuinely curious about the semiotics of identity politics)

No, but since I’m going for pragmatism, pragmatically, I am a socialist. 

In my ideal society, it’s anarchist, because, again, I really do think that hierarchy is responsible for most human suffering; however, I also realize that we are nowhere near a point where that is going to be accomplished without causing more suffering than there already is, so I am willing to make a pragmatic concession and simply be a libertarian socialist.  I mean, I know what my personal beliefs are, and they don’t line up perfectly with anything, but they are far more along those lines than along Democratic lines, because Democrats, frankly, have way, way more faith in government than I ever will.  I simply think that, since it looks like we’re going to have a government of be damned, I want the best functioning government possible, big or small.  My political beliefs are pretty fringe, but I am willing to do whatever work is necessary to ensure that we have the best that we can have on a large scale, and that includes voting for candidates who may not represent me fully, but who are the best that I can get in a given situation.  This changes my vote from location to location, by the by.  I never side with Libertarians, because I believe that business is an even more evil form of hierarchy than democracy since it is driven by greed rather than by plurality (not to mention that human rights are pretty low on their totem pole of shit that matters), and I never, ever side with the Republicans, because holy fuck human rights and holy fuck business, it’s like everything I disagree with rolled up into a big ball of fuck right off, hell no.  So, where I am, Dem it is - although I prefer Green.

I also believe that, if we’ve gotta have government, one that represents the people by representing the majority while protecting the minority is ideal.  I like what we have; I just think it’s very, very broken.

keshmeshi—

Indeed, libertarians are the Marxists of the right wing. In more ways then one.

*government or be damned.  Dammit.

Communists want to believe people can be made not to be selfish; libertarians want to believe people can be made not to be altruistic or not to be concerned about their own security, health, and safety if they can’t live up to the Randian ideal.

Oh, people will still worry about their health and welfare if they can’t meet the Randian ideal.  They’ll just express it with pitchforks and snipers rifles.

And, you know, that’s all part of the Beauty of Selfishness.

If the real world doesn’t work out like their theories ‘built from first principles’ would, then it’s the fault of the real world.

“The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.”

- Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

Essie the Elephant wins.  ^.^

BTW, in the second cartoon both the cat and fish were perfect.  However, the dog sounded like any teenager…

I was pretty damn libertarian-ish myself as a teenager (first sci-fi novel was by Heinlein!) But then I got better.

If there is virtue in selfishness, as Ayn Rand argues, why shouldn’t I vote for Democrats, since they represent my financial interests best?

It’s really Nietzsche they believe in, that they are ubermensch.

they explained that they were assigned reading explicitly as a PUNISHMENT when they were bad.

...ouch.

Back in high school, when I was more concerned with ideal politics rather than practical politics, I considered myself a libertarian. Ideally I thought our society was simply too large and couldn’t work, and wanted a form of tribalism that gave people options to pick what type of society they could live in (I’m a big fan of Daniel Quinn). I was always FAR more concerned about social issues than economic ones, and back in 2000 would have voted for Gore (I was 16).

Then, I woke up and realized that there was no way this could work in reality, and generally strive to get the best functioning society that we can get with what we have. Thus, I almost always vote for Democrats and identify as a liberal.

Pretty much, Ashley.  Daniel Quinn has wonderful, wonderful ideas that are horribly, horribly impractical.

Michigan, where Charter schools were introduced as a way of breaking the backs of the teacher’s union, and how they’re now ghettos for problem kids, and frequently they return to the public school system anyway—with more behavioral and learning problems than when they left for charter school utopia.

Mighty Ponygirl, I love you.

I will put in a good word for libertarianism (and Marxism) in one respect. Both offer decent critiques of certain aspects of society. But their proposed solutions suck.

stormhit, you fucktard: Sullivan used the term “Fifth Column”.  Which is a fancy way to say “traitor”.  Leave it to a libertarian to be like, “Nuh-uh!  He didn’t say cat!  He said feline!”

I can’t find Sully’s putative apology on the intertrons; does anyone have a link?  I know wingtards are allergic to them.

“He never called anyone who didn’t support the Iraq war traitors.  You may not be aware, but the internet lets you search for facts instead of spewing incorrect gibberish. If you were actually interested in not being ignorant, you could find where and when he made his fifth column comment. 

Not in the context of Iraq, but shortly after 9/11 he declared the entire democratic voting half of the country a “fifth column”.

“Additionally, he actually apologized for using the fifth column phrase just days after it was published.  How about coming up with some new material.”

Ah, no. He explained his original comment away and denied he had ever made it. That is rather the opposite of an apology.

No, he did not and does not look good in this matter.

By the way, did I mention how much I love the Pandagon community?  You guys are so funny and smart.

I was pretty damn libertarian-ish myself as a teenager (first sci-fi novel was by Heinlein!) But then I got better.

I generally consider it a sign of a bright teenager that he flirts with Libertarianism/Objectivism in high school. I consider it a sign of a bright adult that he’s abandoned Libertarian/Objectivism before he graduates high school (the same can be said of prescriptive Marxism, except you get until the end of undergrad to bow out).

It’s no surprise that we find so many arrested-development cases amongst Libertarians and Objectivists—such as the ones appearing in this thread.

I can’t find Sully’s putative apology on the intertrons; does anyone have a link?  I know wingtards are allergic to them.

I don’t recall him ever directly apologising for the disgusting “Fifth Columnist” remark ...

The middle part of the country—the great red zone that voted for Bush—is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead—and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column. -

[original URL - ]http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/thewar.php?artnum=20010916]

... except for covering himself with this weaselly “retraction”:

I have no reason to believe that even those sharp critics of this war would actually aid and abet the enemy in any more tangible ways than they have done already. And that dissent is part of what we’re fighting for. By fifth column, I meant simply their ambivalence about the outcome of a war on which I believe the future of liberty hangs. …

[original URL - ]http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2001_09_16_dish_archive.html]

Emphasis mine: you may not be sending actual CARE packages to AQ, but you liberals hate liberty just as much as they do.

BTW, here’s his “Oops I made a boo-boo about Iraq” article—4 years later. And that only came after he realised that the Cheney adminstration, his champions of liberty, was about as enlightened as the Taliban on the topic of legalising same-sex marriage—while the “decadent left” seemed a lot more concerned about the “future of liberty” in this regard.

By the way, did I mention how much I love the Pandagon community?  You guys are so funny and smart.

If we’re poor and don’t have Paypal accounts, so there’s no way you can flatter money out of us, are we still funny and smart?

Ah, the email continues.  I get one from Crisco Fisticuffs that says:

“Heard it, libertarian whiners.  Now kindly fuck off.”

What a snooty little twat.

/right back atcha

It’s sad to see him flatter himself with the word “snooty”, which implies class, or “twat”, which is a lovely organ, though I know he’ll have to take my word for it, because no amount of porn consumption in the world can get him past looking to touching.

He never called anyone who didn’t support the Iraq war traitors.

Nice try, but up until 2006 Sully considered the Iraq War a critical part of the GWOT. So for at least 3 years (2003 to 2006) he did indeed clearly hold to the implication (per the 2001 column I quoted above, the non-apology follow-up, and numerous other columns) that liberals were undermining the fight for liberty.

If someone with Sully’s intelligence and education is unable to BS us with hair-splitting weasel words, did you really expect a sub-par intellect like yours would do any better?

You attack…attack…attack, and when people resond, you whine…whine…whine about it.

You’re not sharp enough to know the difference between whingeing and laughing, I take it.

<blockquote>By the way, did I mention how much I love the Pandagon community?  You guys are so funny and smart. </blockquote
D’AWWWWWw…. we love you too, Amanda! (and Jesse, and Pam, and Auguste…)

Amanda: I meant everyone but you, Pony. :p

He never called anyone who didn’t support the Iraq war traitors.  You may not be aware, but the internet lets you search for facts instead of spewing incorrect gibberish. If you were actually interested in not being ignorant, you could find where and when he made his fifth column comment.  Additionally, he actually apologized for using the fifth column phrase just days after it was published.  How about coming up with some new material.

Golly, you’re right!  Let’s take a look at Sully’s post on that subject from 9/19/2001.

I was talking about a few intellectuals and their cohorts who clearly do feel ambivalence about America fighting and winning this war. But these broad categories of “blue” and “red zones” can be misleading and unhelpful. I won’t use this shorthand again. Ditto the shorthand of “fifth column.” I have no reason to believe that even those sharp critics of this war would actually aid and abet the enemy in any more tangible ways than they have done already. And that dissent is part of what we’re fighting for. By fifth column, I meant simply their ambivalence about the outcome of a war on which I believe the future of liberty hangs. Again, I retract nothing. But I am sorry that one sentence was not written more clearly to dispel any and all such doubts about its meaning.

It’s ok, because when he called people fifth columnists he was only talking about those who disagreed with a blind rush to war.  While their dissent is a right our ancestors fought and died for, Sully still believes its not unreasonable to call those who don’t get behind Bush’s crusade against the Moslems traitors.  He wasn’t talking about you, dear reader, no, he meant that block that wishes to see America conquered by the terrorists, which was large and significant enough to be a major problem, as we saw when thousands of smelly hippies joined al Qaida and started bombing military bases and malls.

He pointedly refused to retract his “fifth column” statement, and made a non-apology apology that he wasn’t more clear that by “fifth column” he was talking about a figment of his imagination, and not about the millions in the anti-war left who spent the next three or four years being called traitors by the right-wing, until it turned out in 2006 that Bush wasn’t conservative and Iraq never happened.

A better apology might be something along the lines of, “I’m very sorry about accusing millions of people with treason, a capital crime, before waiting to see if any treachery actually happens, which in this case it clearly didn’t.

When you accuse someone of treason, you are saying that person should be executed.  It is not something to be tossed around lightly based on a fucking whim.  Sullivan can go to hell.

I’ll take Virgin Objectivists for $500, Alex…

What a snooty little twat.

What does “Crisco Fisticuffs” mutter to himself at the conclusion of every attempt to chat up a woman?

Dammit, missed the close quote.  Someday I’ll make a comment without a typo.  Someday.

Doubt that anyone will read this far down the thread, but one of the possibly significant differences between libertarianism and anarchism is that they come from very different places. 

Libertarianism is fundamentally about property rights.  In short, that the most basic right of people is their right to own property as individuals.  Hence taxes being the #1 important issue for most libertarians.  Stuff like abortion and marriage hardly even register, because they are not property issues.

Anarchism is fundamentally about distrust of state power and authority.  It comes in many flavors, which is why you certainly get anarchists who are essentially libertarians.  But one of the other common types is a sort of communalist anarchism—more or less communist philosophy + distrust of central authorities and hierarchies.  Leftist anarchists are more likely to be in that camp, I would guess.

I was pretty damn libertarian-ish myself as a teenager (first sci-fi novel was by Heinlein!) But then I got better.

That’s actually a common malady. the nerdly types (myself included) frequently have a stage where they really, really want things to have answers. Societies problems aren’t a perpetual and continuously generated byproduct of human nature, but simply an equation that has yet to be properly applied. They’re difficult, and require a genius to shape an answer, but there must be an answer. Like Fermat’s Last Theorem.

Libertarianism has many, many things that appear to the nerdly types quite well: It emphasizes fairness in absolute terms. Nerds love fair play, because in legitimate contests driven by talent and intellect, we tend to excel. The idea of “the only advantages you have are what you make yourself through hard work” is appealing. We’re used to actually working to be good at something.

The only way to get over it requires legitimate soul searching. Not all of us make it. Examining privilege is hard work, and tends to paint very unflattering portraits of the subject. If someone is convinced they got where they are through hard work, showing them that they got there through more than a little unfair blind luck tends to put them into crisis mode.

Some eventually learn that declaring “Here is our level playing field, so everything is fair” is actually setting a set of conditions that might be “fair” for one person, but actually sets them as advantageous over others. Saying “talent and intellect should be the defining characteristics of success” sounds fair to someone with talent and intellect. Saying “genetic purity should be the defining characteristic of success” sounds fine for nazis. Either group can advocate for a system where the rules of success are driven by that factor, and all other things will be equal. That doesn’t actually make it fair.

Andrew Sullivan is a wuss who doesn’t have a comments section.  That makes him exactly like Glenn Reynolds, who I studiously ignore.  Next.

The only way to get over it requires legitimate soul searching.

That and life experience. A lot of these guys (and they’re mostly guys) don’t exactly get out a lot. They live in a metaphorical (or often literal) “parents’ basement of the soul.” Which would also explain why they have trouble searching such a dark and depressing place.

Doubt that anyone will read this far down the thread, but one of the possibly significant differences between libertarianism and anarchism is that they come from very different places.

Unfortunately, when applied in the real world, both curl around and end up in the same place: de facto feudalism.

Yeah, my way out of libertarianism was suddenly finding myself a single parent, and then my dad lost his job - woke me up *real* quickly.

Yeah, my way out of libertarianism was suddenly finding myself a single parent, and then my dad lost his job - woke me up *real* quickly.

Mmm - it’s difficult for anyone who’s had to deal with a two year old to talk seriously about the “virtues of selfishness”...

“I was pretty damn libertarian-ish myself as a teenager”

This falls in line with the “Libertarians = Republicans + pot” meme. Mostly because I liked pot and didn’t yet know the difference between democrats & republicans (which probably has something to do with the pot now that I think about it).

I was an lefty anarchist as a teenager. Then I grew up, learned about society, and became a liberal.

I think teenagers are either libertarians, anarchists, marxists, or apolitical. If they grow up, they leave those political philosophies behind.

A tapeworm would be even more appropriate. There are wild fish and feral dogs and cats, but a tapeworm can’t live without its host.

Wow, thanks Gracchus.  I was feeling kind of bad that I wasn’t around to defend my own claim, but I couldn’t have done it as well as you did anyway.

And Jrod too!  Great posts.  That’s the other thing about republicans and libertarians.  You always have to go and prove what they already well know.  It’s so annoying.  And then they will just wait another couple of weeks, and start making the same false claims again.  It never fails.

Ben I will tell you the difference between marxists and libertarians, as they get older, and the ones who stick to their political philosophy.

Marxists are fucking awesome in bed.

Marxists are fucking awesome in bed.

I agree wit this.

As I’ve never met a libertarian woman, I can’t comment on libertarians.

Marxists are fucking awesome in bed.

“My man, you have nothing to lose but your chains.  And I ain’t lettin’ you out of ‘em yet.”

A more proper way to express the sentiment, Amanda, is

“the libertarians are free to eat my poo”

The problem with them is they are full: to be libertarians, they would have to already consumed a great deal of poo.

Marxists are fucking awesome in bed.

Beard rash, though…

Well yes, cats ARE libertarians, as all who cohabit with cats know.

I do like the tapeworm idea, it would be easy to draw….just draw a flat square emitting a text balloon.

Hey, to get back the original “whackaloon” post . . . how does Thiel think Paypal constitutes a newer, freer currency when every account has to be connected to the old system via a credit card or bank account? Isn’t it more like an expansion of the old system? And did he say something in the beginning about not believing in the “inevitability of death?” What the hell does that mean?

And did he say something in the beginning about not believing in the “inevitability of death?” What the hell does that mean?

It means he’s a transhumanist. Transhumanism is the technophilic brand of utopianism that says one day very soon, in this world where 1 in 3 lives without clean drinking water, technology will make everyone’s lives awesome. We will have flying cars and robotic maid/lovers and twitter with our minds and it will be great, as everyone will magically benefit from being affluent and white because technology is magic.

The fear the left has of libertarians is palpable.
The evidence is the preceding posts.

Better, Franklin. You managed a consistent voice this time. That’s good.

However, You are not addressing any audience. That’s bad.

Rhetorical questions and statements are useful, but if that’s your only voice, people will assume you are talking to yourself. A good troll wants a fake dialog going. Like how I’ve addressed every single post of these critiques to you personally? Your failure to respond to these directly means I’m winning. that’s how trolling works. Unanswered nonrhetorical statements are admitted as factual. It’s like Policy Debates. Not only does a fake dialog make you “win,” it also is much, much better for angrying up the blood.

You could easily have turned your rhetorical comment into a direct accusation. That would have been good. That likely would have merited a response along the lines of “Yes, we fear Libertarians the same way we fear giving a 6 year old a bucket of pudding and a box of matches. He might not do any harm we can’t fix, but we know better than to let him make a mess and possibly injure himself.”

And then it’s a conversation, trolls trolling trolls. That’s a fight you can actually win! Come on, Franklin! You can do it! Be the troll I know you can! Your country is depending on you!

I had my libertarian phase but eventually grew out of it.  My local Libertarian Party chapter was a joke.  They reminded me a little of the Judean Peoples Front (or was it the Peoples Front of Judea?).  For the most part it was the same six or eight people, most of whom were oddballs, as I guess I was at the time.

Though I had read Rand’s The Fountainhead, I never considered myself a Randoid and I didn’t really care about Objectivism.

Libertarianism did make me very selfish though.  I used to whine about having to pay Social Security taxes.  “That money won’t be there for me when I retire, so why can’t I just be allowed to divert it into my IRA?”  All we had to do was eliminate various government agencies and slash government budgets and privatize everything and we would be rich because we wouldn’t have to pay taxes anymore.

But like I wrote above, I outgrew it.  Getting married and having kids.  Seeing how important my mom’s monthly Social Security payments were as they became her greatest source of income last year after the interest rate for her Vanguard money market fund reduced her monthly interest income by almost two thirds. 

Bush’s first term with Republicans in control of congress also greatly disillusioned me and now I consider myself to be a liberal.

I was cured of both Libertarianism and NiceGuyism, so if I can do it, then there’s hope for other guys out there with the same afflictions!

Heh - maybe there’s something about liberal pagans that makes them lean towards anarchism, but I know plenty who ended up weirdly Libertarian (my misogynist ex-husband included).

Meanwhile, the real world has moved on and left your unhinged philosophy of the Universal Selfish Bastard on the dust heap of history, right next to Marx’s philosophy of the Universal Brotherhood of Workers…

No doubt you can come up with plenty of substantive criticism of Marxists, but this isn’t it. The “dustbin of history” Reaganite talking point doesn’t work when there are Marxist parties winning democratic elections in Latin America today. And I’ve never heard a Marxist say that there was any “universal brotherhood of workers” that would naturally arise and be unstoppable; the understanding is that workers have more interests in common with each other than with bosses (uncontroversial) and bosses have undue coercive influence over the opinions of workers who are dependent upon them (also uncontroversial, see fear-mongering over the Employee Free Choice Act). So rather than any natural brotherhood, there’s an issue of false consciousness that leftists continually struggle against, recognized by anyone who’s tried to organize a labor union or convince poor white people not to vote Republican.

Kiri-kin-tha was a Vulcan scholar and follower of Surak’s teachings. Kiri-kin-tha’s First Law of Metaphysics is “Nothing unreal exists.”

Thus I refute thee, Franklin Rained.

I was an lefty anarchist as a teenager. Then I grew up, learned about society, and became a liberal.

I think teenagers are either libertarians, anarchists, marxists, or apolitical. If they grow up, they leave those political philosophies behind.

I notice you feel so entitled that you continue this dismissive name-calling against left anarchists even when INTPagan is offering the option of reasonable discussion instead. She’s never shown herself here to be immature, dogmatic, or incapable of nuance. It might be more interesting to talk to her than burn bridges.

induces Hector to show up here… “Boyz rule, girlz drool!”

Moi?

Franklin:

Let’s call your comment what it is. It’s not truth, or even an argument—it’s an intimidation tactic to win the argument by creating self-doubt in your opponents.

Libertarianism isn’t a philosophy; it’s a revenge fantasy. I think that sums up 90% of mainstream libertarian thinking right there; the rest is context.

I was politically informed as a teenager, and pissed off that I couldn’t vote during the 200 election.  My social studies teacher actually taped the presidential debates and we watched them in class.  I was better informed than half the people who were actually allowed to vote, and the candidate’s policies directly affected me.  Bush’s education programs made my high school worse right away.  I wish people wouldn’t assume that teenagers are so uninformed about politics.  Yes, my political position has changed slightly from when I was a teenager, but it will also likely change again in the future.  I think that the voting age should be lowered to 16.  Maybe teenagers would be better informed about politics if they had the right to do something about it.

Let’s call your comment what it is. It’s not truth, or even an argument—it’s an intimidation tactic to win the argument by creating self-doubt in your opponents.

Sadly, it’s not even particularly intimidating. It’s an empty schoolyard taunt, divorced from the topic under discussion.

Great post Amanda.  Not long ago, I saw this statement on Ayn Rand fanboys that cracked my shit up:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

That made me laugh and laugh when I read it.

@ asdf at 10:02 PM

Thanks - I appreciate the thought.  I also get what they’re saying, though, because there are a lot of anarchists you meet, both in high school and out, who pretty much just want to be able to do whatever the hell they want, and the word “anarchy” sounds cool to them, so they go around spray-painting anarchy symbols and saying other dimwitted things.  I’m not going to fall into the same trap here that the libertarians do because, well, there are a lot of idiots who call themselves anarchists without understanding the entire ramifications of the word, and they tend to be more representative of the mainstream anarchist viewpoint than the anarchists who, you know, read.  No true Scotsman my ass.

But, still, thanks.

Conservatives are stuck with bible-thumpers, Liberals are stuck with DFH’s, and Anarchists are stuck with hooligan punks and taggers.  Libertarians are stuck with Ayn Rand and Glenn Reynolds.  Ew!

Thanks, all. These takedowns of libertarianism are fantastic. I have a few friends who still insist on evangelizing the Libertarian view, so, if y’all don’t mind, I’ll be filing these remarks away for later use. (If I’m ever inclined to argue with them again, which I might not be.)

For the record, I was a political junkie as a teenager, too. Back then, I was a Republican who thought Ronald Reagan was teh awesome. I grew out of it. Critical thinking helped.

Easily offended; Libertarians most likely to respond to this column. The author will attempt to engage subtle wit but will actually come across as a geeky whiner (Conservatives, more schooled in the art of poisonous replies, may actually achieve wit; liberals will reply that they don’t find any of this humorous at all).

Ironically, this part made me laugh.

it’s difficult for anyone who’s had to deal with a two year old to talk seriously about the “virtues of selfishness”

You’ll notice that none of Rand’s Master Race characters have families or kids. There’s a reason for that.

Frankie is overdue for the banhammer.

G’bye, troll.

Franklin, you appear to devote more time to thinking “Is that gay?” more than 90% of gays do themselves.

What that says about you, I dunno.  Perhaps contact with a living adult woman would help, instead of your mortal agony that AMANDA will never like you, no matter how many inept post you make here.

Hope that helps you.

That is really just more of the usual SHUT UP when you don’t like someone’s politics.

Like the gem you started this thread with?

Still smarting, I see.

You haven’t displayed any desire to engage in political dialog, unless you believe that abuse is the proper way to begin such an engagement, then you start clutching your pearls when you’re not given the respect that you no doubt believe is your due no matter what stupidities you manage to remember from 6th grade.

By that standard, you must be in some serious-ass pain.  If you lived in CA, I’d get you to the nearest medical MJ dispensary, as that would provide you the symptomatic relief you obviously need, and improve the quality of the rantings you leave here as well

Weiner Boy

I should revise my original evaluation, you spend more time on dick jokes than 90% of American heterosexual adolescent males.

You forgot a period on your last sentence, Franklin Rained-out Dickless boy.

Mayor: Is this true?
Dr. Peter Venkman: Yes it’s true.
[pause]
Dr. Peter Venkman: This man has no dick.

Sure it does, now get to bed before your Mom has to drag your dickless ass from the basement for the 4th night in a row….......