Skip to comments.Penn Jillette is a ‘nutty ******* peacenik’ who wants the government off your back
Posted on 05/07/2013 8:22:51 AM PDT by rktman
LAS VEGAS My whole libertarian approach comes out of being just a nutty f'ing peacenik, magician Penn Jillette confides backstage at his show, a few hours before he is set to perform.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
I agree with him most but not all of the time...His show Bull$hit debunked many liberal myths...from global warming to the benefits of organic farming...to the cynical liberal curbs on free speech...and the show did this with humor, intelligence and without the shrillness of so many left and right partisans...
He is amazing on Celebrity Apprentice. Very astute.
I like guys like Penn Gillette.
He may be the diametrically opposed viewpoint from me, but he has the ability to reason, listen to argument, and not have a personal reaction to it.
That is very rare these days.
I disagree with Penn on many points but give him credit for arguing his points rationally and logically and not accepting liberal BS. He is coherent. Where I almost always disagree is at basic starting points and that’s OK, I can agree to disagree on that basis. I’m sure I’d enjoy a discussion over a cup of coffee with him and that we’d walk away freinds.
It really boils down to common sense (one freakin’ word) and logic. None of which the radical left wing extremist demokkkrat scumbag socialists use even if the actually have some. Some of the videos are priceless. Well until youtube gets their subscription program in place. Guess they don’t make enough off the advertisers.
Or boiled-down a bit differently, it’s “too little government” vs “too much”, or to err on the side of freedom vs the side of centralized control by a handful who think they’re smarter than the rest.
I know which side I’d take in a heartbeat.
No doubt. Leave me alone. If I need your help, I’ll let you know. Otherwise, butt out. Kinda how I feel about it.
Did you send this to difi? Probably wouldn’t get it.
I agree with you, I don’t always agree with Penn, but I would LOVE to have him as a Neighbor, he very much lives his philosophy and will admit when he was wrong in the past about something.
He is very much a passionate thinker and thoughtful person, not some libertarian drone who only recites talking points.
I am pretty sure we can all agree that Penn is a modern day philosopher.
Pretty sure everyone is breaking some law, rule or regulation as we speak. Err, write. Gotta love those rules and regs that carry the weight of law even though congress never approved them. WTF? How is that right?
I think his comment on why he’d be such a terrible politician, is exactly the kind of attitude that would make a good politician.
It's actually worse than that. There are so many laws that you don't have to even guess if you're law abiding because NO ONE is.
My biggest beef with Libertarians is their foreign policy. I’m all down for a libertarian leaning fiscally responsible domestic model but we can’t be pacifists on the world stage.
May God Bless all those who stand up for the freedom of the individual.
I just finished it and there was one really weird thing: Not only does he agree with me on every single issue brought up in the article, but he even articulates the same core reasons for those beliefs, and some of those reasons are rather obscure.
He and Jean Simmons are my evil twins. Both have the same political/social world view as me, right down to many of the detials, except I’m a Christian and neither one of them is. However, Penn reminds me of myself BEFORE I was a Christian, regarding his take on Christianity. I wonder if he will ever come to the Christian side.
It’s actually worse than that. There are so many laws that you don’t have to even guess if you’re law abiding because NO ONE is.
*I live in the Cornbread Mafia area. The whole thing is basically chronicled in the song “Copperhead Road”. It began with the Catholic community bootlegging in a “how to obey God’s laws while disobeying man’s laws” sort of way, spurred by prohibition. When they were all caught a few years back, out of 40-70 who went down (I forget the number), not a single one turned on the others. They all went to prison for varying terms.
Yeah. I like to say that I would never vote for a candidate that WANTED the office he was running for. And his comment about him being more effective as a loose canon is exactly what I used to say about Rush Limbaugh when people were suggesting he run for office. I still say it about Palin.
Penn never fails to bring up really good points and articulates them extremely well.
Too bad he reportedly doesn’t drink because I’d love to chat with him over a beer.
...but we cant be pacifists on the world stage.
I read a novel a couple decades ago called “The Fatherland”. It is an alternate history read where President Kennedy is headed to Berlin to celebrate Hitler’s birthday in the early 60’s. Since the US never entered the war, the USSR was decimated and Germany has become sort of the equivalent of the USSR in the 60’s regarding Europe. But there is a detective story in it where Germany has this amazing secret. In the end it turns out this secret is that they exterminated millions of Jews.
So, why do I bring this up? Because it seemed unthinkable that who we thought were just a participant in a war that they won could actually be guilty of such atrocities, and that information could be hidden for so long. And then it hit me, that is EXACTLY what happened in the real world - except it is the USSR that won and Germany that was decimated. regarding the USSR. It is argued that they murdered far more Jews than Hitler did, but this did not become “common” knowledge until just the last 20 years or so. And they have just sort of been given a pass.
In the real world, it is why the Germans were initially seen as liberators when they entered the Ukrane. That is, until they rounded up the Jews.
Achievement of happiness requires gaining and keeping real goods such as health, wealth, and knowledge. The science of economics is able to demonstrate that gaining wealth requires prosperity, and prosperity requires economic progress, and that economic progress is best attained with a modern division of labor, which requires natural rights and free markets.
Of course we all know we just can't have alternate viewpoints on liberal networks.
Just think how horrible the world would be if we hadn’t gone to VietNam?
I saw his show in Vegas.. what a great person.
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers — and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system.”
Quote by: Ayn Rand
Source: “Atlas Shrugged”, Part II, Chapter 3
Jillette is a libertarian, he’s also an atheist...what’s the difference? Not a whole lot that I have seen.
Atheist libertarians can go to hell. Matter of fact they will, regardless to how well they articulate their anti-socialist position, all whose names are not written in the Lamb’s book of life will be thrown into the lake of fire, Rev. 20.
“You can go to hell,” just an idiom, I really don’t want you atheist libertarians to go to hell. God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
I am a Christian first, conservative second (not libertarian, they are not conservatives), American third.
Then it's also your biggest beef with the Founders.
Is it even possible to have a nation of innocent men?
Aren’t we all guilty of original sin? Don’t we all need salvation?
“Penn Jillette is a nutty ******* peacenik who wants the government off your back...”
Good luck with that; the sort of meddlesome Old Ladies attracted to careers in government nowadays are attracted quite specifically because it furnishes them the opportunity to f*** with everyone and stay quite fixedly on everyone’s back.
They’re the as*hole in-your-face weenies that everyone warned you about as a kid, now grown and become even more self-important.
> Then it’s also your biggest beef with the Founders.
Do you think a Libertarian president would have waged the Quasi War with France, the First Barbary War, the War of 1812 and the Second Barbary War?
“Is it even possible to have a nation of innocent men?
Arent we all guilty of original sin? Dont we all need salvation?”
Well, yes according to God’s laws. However, man’s laws are a bit different.
Nobody said we had to be pacifists. We simply let the world know that each nation is now responsible for their own national security. No more “peace keeping” or “nation building”. Our foreign policy should be “F*** with the United States and we vaporize one of your cities. Do it again and we vaporize your country.”. No need for boots on the ground. No need for American troops in a hundred countries.
Minding our own business is not pacifism. Pacifism is for cowards.
You need to study history just a bit more and find out why America got into those wars.
I find it hard to believe a nation could exist without someone stealing something.
Who gets to determine the level of f***ing that warrants vaporization? Big f***s or little f***s, any f***cks?
That would be the Commander In Chief in accordance with a Constitutional Declaration of War. It’s all written down somewhere. Some really smart guys did it back in the late 1700s. You should look it up. It’s pretty interesting, actually.
I don’t know what you are saying or what point you are making. It is not a requirement for any nation to have folks who steal, however every population has evil members that do steal.
You are conflating some issues and are missing the point of that Rand quote.
It’s a response to Rand’s quote in #28 about there being no way to rule innocent men. That’s true, but a nation of innocent men, doesn’t exist. It sounds good, but that’s all.
The “ruling innocent men” is not meant to be the collective men. It is the individual man. I am difficult to rule if I am “innocent.” In this case, innocence would be defined as having not taken an action that requires a government action. So, if I am not fearful of government action I can not be “ruled” by the government.
How do you instill fear in those innocent men? You pass so many laws that you can “crack down” on everyone, whenever you please, because they are all now guilty.
In other words, you pass so many laws that each individual is now enslaved!
I understand that but it mentioned a nation of innocent men and that is what I respondedto
So what are your thoughts on Ronald Reagan supporting the over throw of the bullies in Nicaragua? Now I dont think we had boots on the ground, but it was important for us to straighten out our back yard, so to speak.
Reagan did the right thing in the wrong way. He should have told Congress to kiss his Presidential ass because the Hughes Amendment was un-Constitutional to begin with.
He’s a very smart guy indeed.I disagree with some of his positions...and agree with others but he’s a formidable intellectual ally,or opponent,depending on *your* position on a particular issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.