MICHAEL MEDVED: Losertarians Choose Porcupine for Mascot

Michael Medved Radio Show

[kuma]

Can porn affect the decisions of pubescent youth? Of course it can and in many ways.

Besides someone already made the point that if someone is in jail for porn it's child porn. However, adult porn has side effects as well. Knew a woman who left her husband cause he was a porn addict. What made him an addict was he cared more about the porn than his marriage. In all fairness she was lulu in the head too.

[Xenalyte]

Hey, I gotta make some noise every so often - especially when some yahoo thinks he can plunk me in County just like THAT.

[Kuksool]

{The constant bashing of Libertarian potential allies by the mosquito faction gets real old.}

You're tired of the LP bashing already? The 2004 campaign hasn't started yet. Next year there will be plenty more LP bashing threads. 2 years ago when Jim Jeffords switched parties, many people on FR blamed the LP. They argued that the GOP would have still controlled the Senate even with the Jeffords defection if it weren't for those LP cnadidates "stealing" votes from the GOP in the 2000 election. I think that is utter nonsense. No political party is entitled votes. Candidates have to win the confidence of people in order to "earn" their votes.

[LibertarianInExile]

No, no, no, he's saying that he read porn and it made HIM want guys, and that conflicted with the holy Bible's clear statement that "God hates fags." That's why it should be banned, so you don't have to worry about it affecting you similarly.

By the way, I'm in agreement with you--no amount of porn could make me want a guy.

Sheep, however, I gotta give some thought, after reading my wife-swapping, heroin-snorting, pimping pal's copy of Agnophilia Monthly. Maybe they're not so baaaad.

ROFLMAO. Again. God, Medved's fans make me laugh. Just thinking about them crossing themselves at that last paragraph makes me chuckle. Especially since most of them easily and excitedly imagined Mary havin' a little lamb...in the Biblical sense.

[Between the Lines]

Hey - I represent that statement!

Maybe this one belongs to you.....

[dirtboy]

Better take guns away, too, they might cause crime.

And that's a typical Libertarian knee-jerk response - instead of addressing the consequences of legalizing drugs, you just spout inanities. I am not in favor of the current WOD approach. But I'm also not gonna pretend that drug abuse is somehow victimless and the consequences of such are limited to the abuser.

[dirtboy]

There is a price to pay for using the powers of the state to enforce someone else's idea of morality.

There is ample precedent for trying to define a risk level of potential harm and finding a point where intervention is warranted, as opposed to the often-held Libertarian position of waiting for harm to occur before mandating a government response. It has nothing to do with morality per se - a drunk driver killing someone is problematic no matter what your sense of morality may be. So society, having not taken drunk driving seriously prior to 1980, has attempted to define an intervention point, even though most drunk drivers never harm anyone - the concept is that the potential for harm, the actuarial risk level, warrants stopping that action BEFORE harm occurs.

Now, the big question becomes, where is the line drawn, and how do we enforce it? I think most folks would find a .1 or .12 BAC level, coupled with a cop noticing impairment in a driver, to be grounds for stopping. I myself believe that drunk driving checkpoints and a .08 BAC level to be taking matters too far. But just because the anti-drunk driving crusaders have taken things too far, it does not mean that the underlying concept is flawed, just the execution.

Likewise, with drugs, there is a threshhold, a risk probability, for each drug. I think pot is on a par with alcohol, and therefore should be treated in a similar manner. But harder drugs are up there with drunk driving as a risk factor for harm and society wrestles with how to deal with them.

[The Green Goblin]

Can't we just arrest all the Libertarians and throw them in jail?

Spoken like a true statist. America is still the land of political freedom, so you can stuff it where the sun don't shine...

[Admin Moderator]

knock it off.

[verity]

Notable absence of 'skid marks.'

[Man_of_Reason]

I've been a Libertarian since the founding of the party in the mid 70's. I've done volunteer work for them in 4 different states over the years. I send them cash on national and state levels.
Apparently some have missed my sarcasm.

[Man_of_Reason]

A simple question and I'm not trying to be argumentative. Why is it that some freepers can be consistently rude, hostile, argumentative, threaten physical violence to others, be complained about regularly, have their comments pulled but yet they remain to continue the behavior to an ever increasing degree?
There's a real distinction between having "fun" and being mean.

[The Green Goblin]

Apparently some have missed my sarcasm.

Sorry about that, but with all the statist kooks running around in this forum, sarcasm should definitely be labled as such...

[headsonpikes]

"Show me one 'elephant' with any balls...."

It's a good thing I lack the computer skills to post nature pics. ;^) Okay, we're talking metaphorically. Ron Paul, for starters. He don't step on no rattlers, nor sit on no porcupines. ;^)

[DAnconia55]

Well I wasn't counting Ron. :)
HE is just a really really large porcupine.

[LibertarianInExile]

If you don't like things the way they are, then tell you what, leave them the way they are and they won't get better. I'm not advocating a liberal approach--I'm advocating a completely free market approach. Let people buy what they want. You're saying that we should be concerned about the consequences, and the question is, WHY? What, constitutionally or morally, calls us to intervene in others' behavior or the results of it, if it physically or financially causes us no harm?

If you want to tell me that with legalization under the current system I am harmed by paying medical care for addicts and by the DUIs that addicts would have and the care for the children of addicts and the psychological harm done to these kids, well, I'm with you, but who says that legalization has to include care for this stuff? Why is that a given? We sure don't mind providing this kind of care for alcoholics and their kids--why is this the argument AGAINST legalizing something that in the cases of many drugs are simply not as evil in their effect as 'ol demon rum.

[Kevin Curry]

Not only is booze legal, but it's taxed, too.

It isn't taxed sufficiently to pay for all the costs of alcohol use and abuse imposed on other citizens.

Libertarians want a system where other taxpayers subsidize the addictive and destructive indulgences of the irresponsible. How do they justify such vile socialism? Through the mechanism of denial, e.g., "It don't harm nobody but the user."

[Kevin Curry]

If you want to tell me that with legalization under the current system I am harmed by paying medical care for addicts and by the DUIs that addicts would have and the care for the children of addicts and the psychological harm done to these kids, well, I'm with you, but who says that legalization has to include care for this stuff? Why is that a given?

It is political reality, you libertarian FEATHERHEAD!

You have NO chance of implementing a "free market" system of dealing with these destructive behaviors. Only a fool would believe otherwise.

[LibertarianInExile]

Slavery was political reality...
The WCTU was political reality...
Segregation was political reality...
Jimmy Carter was political reality...

once upon a time.

At some point, your 'just say no' philosophy will meet the same end, Mr. Curry. It will be a free world, that individuals make their own choice to say no in, without people like you looking over their shoulders, simply because humanity wants just that. Humanity doesn't want to be assigned responsibility for cleaning up the messes of individual members of that society, no matter how hard you scream that 'it's our duty.' The upward march of humanity does not include collective responsibility.

You'll simply have to accept that the political reality as you imagine it to be now won't long remain. And you'll have to learn to live in that free world, which probably won't appreciate your pious moralizing.

So to get ready for that day, you should visit a nearby sawmill. They could probably remove, clean off, process, and put to good use that 40 foot stick up your ass.

[jmc813]

The owner of this site calls Libertarians "our friends". That must irk you Christian Socialists to no end.