Replies

You are wasting your time on the knuckle draggers who can't follow a line of reasoning or engage in actual debate. If they won't understand my cowboys and indians analogy, they sure won't follow the Hegelian references. This forum has slid down hill in the quality of commentary in the last year. Now it tastes kinda like freshly boiled frog legs, best washed down with cheap beer and a winning team on the big screen propagandizer. Go team.

No, it doesn't have a " taste "; it has a FOUL STENCH , from your type.

I've been here for FOUR years. Yes, this site has changed and for the worse. You missed most of the brilliant reparte. You added NOTHING, when you came.

,i.This forum has slid down hill in the quality of commentary in the last year. Now it tastes kinda like freshly boiled frog legs,

I see, you are unable to make others see your "wisdom" so, by definition, that just has to mean that the proles are just too dumb to understand it. Here is a thought; maybe both the message and the messenger are rejected by better minds.

Many of the freepers who identify themselves as "conservatives" seem to be nothing more than Dubya's cheerleaders, no matter what the issue. Look at the "debate" that has ensued - their responses to specifically listed infringements, atrocities and government expansion programs are emotionally-driven childish retorts that "the left" is typically known for. Tex and MJY seem to be somewhat reasonable people still (there is still some debate to be gotten out of you), unlike many others in their camp, so I've taken the liberty to send this response directly to them as well.

These same freepers feel that we're attacking their "conservative" position, which is really a misrepresentation. I'd say we're attacking them for their lack of a position. They talk of conservative principles, but the minute we criticize Bush for worshipping at the altar of the state, we're labeled as disruptors. "We don't understand compromise", "we don't understand popular opinion", or my personal favorite - "we can't just let the other guy in".

Considering the undeniable geometric growth rate of today's Federal government, which as far as I can tell, probably started sometime around 1916 (or would it be 1860's?),one is left to wonder if these freepers have ever questioned how this is possible if "their team" is really fighting for smaller government.

I can only imagine a few possibilities:

They're interested in going to hell at the slowest possible rate - not in reversing the trend - due to fear that no matter how bad "their guy" gets, the "other guy" would have been worse.

They actually quite like government largesse, so long as it's their kind of government largesse.

They're chiefly interested in belonging to a clan that discourages individual thinking and rewards a collective mindset, arising out of a need to belong, no different than their "liberal" counterparts - hence the incessant posting of the number five to "the group", during which they're surely giggling and high-fiving each other like a group of pre-pubescent boys playing spin the bottle with the girls next door.

I can only guess that if they were truly alarmed by our current state of affairs, they'd spend less time calling out the clan with their secret messages and devote a little more time to breaking the cycle. The problem of their guy dialectically implementing a collectivist agenda couldn't exist without their support.

That is to say, you can mock libertarians by telling us we can only dream of creating "sensible policy" or by making fun of the % of the vote we get at the polls, but this is all irrelevant. The truth is, if the pubbies lost a samll fraction of their traditional base to third parties, such as the "losertarians", the party would respond. Dubya might even come back more conservative than Reagan ever was. And of course, the "losertarians" would have won - we don't care if it's "our guy" in the White House, we only care to see freedom advanced - not simply collectivism delayed. Of course, it all requires sticking to your guns, and not waving your pompons and doing a high leg kick when Dubya implements a farm bill that will cost the average family a couple thousand over the next few years, or when he undeniably speaks the U.N. language of globalism.

Want to see if libertarians are just a bunch of whining losers who coo meaningless nothings about freedom? Fine. Let's see if you can actually hold your ground (if you can stick to your principles) to reverse the trend of government explosion for the first time in 100 years or so. I think you'd then see overwhelming support for Republicans from many in the libertarian camp (myself included).

That would be real change, for a change.