Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"Ah See Freedom in the Ahhs of Wild Creatures!"
The witty Michael Idov covered the Libertarian Party convention for The New Republic; I talked to him a bit there, a little bit jealous that he could collect notes and observations without the worry of filing every day. He needed only to file this monster-sized piece, rather innacurately subtitled "the tragicomic demise of the Libertarian Party." He provides some context by quoting reason Senior Editor Brian Doherty.
As Brian Doherty writes in his definitive 741-page tome, Radicals for Capitalism, being a libertarian means "sailing on seas of opposition and indifference with an often bizarre and difficult bunch of shipmates." The movement's embrace of personal freedom is wide enough to welcome a Wall Street wing concerned mostly with deregulation; a sci-fi contingent dreaming of space colonies and immortality; a sizable anarchist (or "minarchist") faction preaching dissolution of almost all federal agencies; and, in the last few years, a steady, surly influx of 9/11 "truthers."
But there's a little proof of why Denver wasn't a "demise." The "truthers" didn't win. I remember running around the convention hall after the fourth round of balloting when supporters of the final three candidates from one state caucused to make their case for their choice. A Mary Ruwart supporter explained that only her candidate would "look into the truth of 9/11." This was sold, by the way, as something that could popularize the party.
Never mind! Idov does a heckuva job capturing the drama of events like the Friday night "alternative debate."
A few doomed dabblers march across the stage, serving up a glimpse into the party's various now-endangered constituencies. Christine Smith, a New Age-y redhead with a musical twang, says things like "Ah see freedom in the ahhs of wild creatures." Alden Link is an older gentleman who talks exactly like Truman Capote, except about the Second Amendment.
And then something electrifying happens. A man from Las Vegas named Wayne Allyn Root saunters to the podium. A ruddy bookmaker and TV sports handicapper who once co-hosted a show with Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder, Root looks like a cross between "SNL"'s Darrell Hammond-as-Bill Clinton and Biff from Back To the Future. He's been itching to diversify from odds-making and TV appearances, and recently wrote the book Millionaire Republican, about "creating personal wealth in the GOP-dominated era." (It came out in 2006.) Soon after, he had his own "Libertarian awakening," as he calls it. Root's brochure baldly paints his candidacy as a pure p.r. project. His detailed "sixteen-year plan" for the party has such milestones as "Wayne hits a local college nightspot and dances with the younger set. The video makes U Tube" and "Wayne becomes a frequent guest on 'This Week with George Stephanopoulos,' Wayne's Columbia University classmate." (Stephanopoulos on Root: "I definitely didn't know him.") His other Columbia classmate? "Barrack [sic] Obama." P.r. gold.
Is this what it looked like on C-SPAN?
|6.16.08 @ 5:04PM|#
You forgot to mention that it was titled "Freedom Freaks". I guess that's only fair, since I refer to those at TNR as "Statist Fucks".
|6.16.08 @ 5:05PM|#
a sizable anarchist (or "minarchist") faction
Um, dude, maybe you need to spend more time on your background
research next time, and less on collecting humourous anecdotes.
Fluffy|6.16.08 @ 5:12PM|#
a siazable male (or "female") faction
Did the article include that line, too?
Seriously, asking what TNR thinks of the Libertarian party is like
asking Pat Robertson what he thinks of Kerry Howley. A) Who would
give a shit? and B) Why would you link to it?
|6.16.08 @ 5:15PM|#
I guess Wayne Allyn Root is what a vice president should be*. An
eccentric, mascot-like fellow.
*If you think VPs should be like rap hypemen.
lunchstealer|6.16.08 @ 5:17PM|#
Doesn't "demise" presuppose life? Not to belittle the crappiness of Bob Barr as a decoder-ring libertarian, but it's not as if the LP has had a particularly enthusiastic candidate in quite a while (I'm too young to be sure about Paul, but I know none of his successors really generated happy-happy buzz, or significant vote tallies).
|6.16.08 @ 5:18PM|#
I miss the great fiction Glass use to write for TNR...these new fiction writers are just not all that good.
lunchstealer|6.16.08 @ 5:18PM|#
Seriously, asking what TNR thinks of the Libertarian party
is like asking Pat Robertson what he thinks of Kerry Howley. A) Who
would give a shit? and B) Why would you link to it?
A - No one.
B - but it is, on occasion, HI-larious.
|6.16.08 @ 6:10PM|#
Yeah, this is what it looked like more or less on CSPAN and the
various blogs covering it. As a rather radical libertarian myself
(someone tell Idov that anarchist and "minarchist" are not the same
thing), I was disappointed by the fact that the people I was most
inclined to agree with, ideologically, were so batshit insane.
Barr's not perfect, but he's honest, and I'll take honest
imperfection and coalition-building over dogmatic .4% radicalism
with a side of crazy conspiracy theories any day, even if I'm a
radical myself.
And it's a damn crying shame we didn't get Barr/Kubby. Root is an
abomination, aside from how unbalanced he left the ticket.
|6.16.08 @ 6:11PM|#
The good thing, of course, is that no one except Libertarians actually watches the LNC on CSPAN. So none of this really damaged Barr going into the general election.
|6.16.08 @ 6:51PM|#
Andy Craig
6:10 post-What do you mean? Who was batshit insane? How do you know
Barr is honest?
|6.16.08 @ 6:56PM|#
This kind of "hey, look at the freaks!" journalism just perpetuates the BS that anyone that strays from the Dem-GOP talking points is worthy only of ridicule.
Paul|6.16.08 @ 7:11PM|#
Alden Link is an older gentleman who talks exactly like
Truman Capote, except about the Second Amendment.
I like him already.
KSM\'s waterboard|6.16.08 @ 7:13PM|#
The alternative debate wasn't on C-SPAN. Good research.
Good to see you gratuitously sticking up for the official
government conspiracy theory of 9/11, though.
Did you research that as much as the C-SPAN coverage?
|6.16.08 @ 7:22PM|#
"What do you mean? Who was batshit insane?"
Having an charlatan and liar like Hoagland speak at the Convention
was unacceptable in my view. Ditto on pandering to the Troofer
crowd. When you've got those kind of people around, of course no
one is going to take you seriously. And they shouldn't.
Most importantly, though, I recognize the insanity of running a
political party like a dogmatic church that excommunicates
heretics. Ruwart is a nice person and all, but the LP will never be
anything more than a sideshow if insists on ONLY being a radical
party, particularly if that radicalism comes with the disconnect
from reality the conspiracy theory crowd brings with it. There's a
good chunk of the electorate that leans libertarian- we need to be
reaching out to them, not angrily denouncing them as
authoritarians. Barr will do that.
|6.16.08 @ 8:19PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy=
Why would you phrase you post that way? I politely asked him to
elaborate upon his prior post.
|6.16.08 @ 8:22PM|#
Andy Craig and Mr. Nice Guy-
What do you think of Michael Reagan's demand that Mr. Dice be
executed? What do you think the reaction would be if Mr. Dice or
any of the truthers had beseeched their followers to take a
chainsaw to Cheney?
|6.16.08 @ 8:25PM|#
Andy Craig-
In other words, in order for the libertarian party to have a
future, it must ape the GOP and the dems? Become a "big
tent?"
If yes, that prescription has loser written all over it. Look at
us, we are not radical. We just want a little bit more freedom than
they do-come join us.
|6.16.08 @ 8:29PM|#
If yes, that prescription has loser written all over it. Look at us, we are not radical. We just want a little bit more freedom than they do-come join us.
Does not parse.
|6.16.08 @ 8:30PM|#
Andy Craig-
What conspiracy crowd? The one that buys the phantasmagoric
conspiracy fable woven by the government that a handful of arabians
with box cutters were responsible?
Again, can any person here prove with absolute certainty that the
government conspiracy theory is the truth?
I have asked this question before. The burden is upon the
proponent. My position is that I don't know-but I certainly don't
buy the assertions of the state or any of its toadies.
|6.16.08 @ 8:33PM|#
But liberty mike, by negating the "government-sponsored" viewpoint, you are making a statement.
|6.16.08 @ 8:37PM|#
The libertarian party will never win with a me too philosophy.
Why go for the cheap immitation when you can have the real statist
thing?
Andy Craig, is it your opinion that it would have been better had
Henry and Jefferson been less radical?
|6.16.08 @ 8:41PM|#
The point is that the burden is upon those who contend that the
government conspiracy fable is true.
Given the government's historical propensity for prevarication,
isn't it just plain common sense to be most skeptical of its
pronouncements?
The truthers do not have the institutional record of deceit that
the government has.
|6.16.08 @ 8:43PM|#
liberty mike,
Political parties are dynamic. There are some theses on which
adherents to a libertarian philosophy should all agree on, but
everything else is open for debate.
|6.16.08 @ 8:45PM|#
The truthers do not have the institutional record of deceit that the government has.
On the other hand, how many conspiracy theories would you say resemble a delusion a paranoid schizophrenic suffers from?
|6.16.08 @ 8:50PM|#
liberty mike -
Have you done much research into the 9/11 conspiracy and the 9/11
truthers? After reading their arguments, which do seem fairly
convincing, have you gone forward to read the many people who
debunk their arguments by showing their quote cherrypicking and
poor science? I was one of those people who was awed by Zeitgeist
and started to feverishly research into 9/11 conspiracy theory.
Then my sense of fairness got the best of me and I actually read up
on the other side of the story, purported by independent
scientists, not the government, and the more I read from both sides
of the issue, the more it seems to show that the way they said
things happened is probably the way they happened. Is that
definitive? No, of course not, but to say that 9/11 truthers are a
bit wacky is, in my opinion, right on the mark.
jimmy|6.16.08 @ 8:59PM|#
the government also tells me it's flooding in iowa. i refuse to believe it. those film clips are so fake.
GILMORE|6.16.08 @ 8:59PM|#
But there's a little proof of why Denver wasn't a "demise."
The "truthers" didn't win.
Did he claim that they "won"? The mere presence/prevalence of the
goofballs at the convo would be enough for many to be like, "ah
crap. can we not fill a hall without having these bozos?"
Its depressing at the very least
GILMORE|6.16.08 @ 9:05PM|#
liberty mike | June 16, 2008, 8:25pm | #
Andy Craig-
In other words, in order for the libertarian party to have a
future, it must ape the GOP and the dems? Become a "big
tent?
No, just laugh the assholes out of the medium sized tent, and loan
them a small one near the landfill outside of town, where they all
can fervently agree that The Evil Conspiracy Is What Makes Them
Marginal And Generally Disliked
Really, it will probably work out best for everyone that way
GILMORE|6.16.08 @ 9:13PM|#
liberty mike | June 16, 2008, 8:41pm | #
The point is that the burden is upon those who contend that the
government conspiracy fable is true.
I suggest Karl Popper for a start.
Before that, reread the whole thing about argumentum ad
ignorantiam
http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html
Guy Montag|6.16.08 @ 9:21PM|#
"Ah See Freedom in the Ahhs of Wild Creatures!"
Dave, bud, if you are trying to "speak Southern", please stop it.
You are hurting my ears/eyes.
If you are making fun of that TNR fairbankser, then never mind my
previous comment and well done.
Guy Montag|6.16.08 @ 9:23PM|#
Wait, 'liberty mike' is asserting that the burden of proof is on
the accusor, after his trolling the McCain/Vidal thread?
Yes, joe does have a new handle.
Guy Montag|6.16.08 @ 9:26PM|#
On the other hand, how many conspiracy theories would you
say resemble a delusion a paranoid schizophrenic suffers
from?
But the Moon landings must be fake, since the only evidence we have
of the moon being real is from the government.
Don't try to say you were not talking about the Moon landings
either. You used the code of Moon landing believers.
Kolohe|6.16.08 @ 10:22PM|#
Yes, joe does have a new handle.
My guess is the former Neil of the Freedom Swatch.
Guy Montag|6.16.08 @ 10:25PM|#
My guess is the former Neil of the Freedom
Swatch.
Caesar?
Perhaps, but they all seem so joeish.
|6.16.08 @ 10:30PM|#
Of course, if all these guys are Cesar it would mean he'd gone through some sort of fragmenting psychosis worthy of a Philip K. Dick character.
Guy Montag|6.16.08 @ 10:32PM|#
Is this what it looked like on C-SPAN?
Well, no, it looked less organized than that description on
C-SPAN.
|6.16.08 @ 10:34PM|#
So, it must have been the only time C-Span was watchable to
somebody with ADHD.*
*then again, maybe not.
Guy Montag|6.16.08 @ 10:38PM|#
Of course, if all these guys are Cesar it would mean he'd
gone through some sort of fragmenting psychosis worthy of a Philip
K. Dick character.
Not sure who that is, but it sounds creepy.
BTW, you are missing "Rambo" on SPIKE*
Not affiliated with 'film' maker, Mr. Spike Lee.
|6.16.08 @ 10:40PM|#
In other words, in order for the libertarian party to have a
future, it must ape the GOP and the dems? Become a "big
tent?"
Uh, yeah. Pretty much. You won't make a difference in a democracy
if you don't win elections, and it takes a big tent to hold 50.1%
of the voters.
I think this year was a once in a century chance for a major
political realignment, as in, one party dies and another takes its
place. Maybe we'll get another one in a few years. But the libs
blew this one. Hard.
|6.16.08 @ 10:41PM|#
Tchh, oh yeah, I remember that controversy. Mr. Spike Lee, you
are a card*. The Rambo movies are aaight, Guy, but I'm waiting for
the G.I. Joe film**!
*Whatever that means
**Ohhh yeah
Guy Montag|6.16.08 @ 10:43PM|#
Uh, yeah. Pretty much. You won't make a difference in a
democracy if you don't win elections, and it takes a big tent to
hold 50.1% of the voters.
Surrender monkeys, gold standard nuts and conspiracy freaks can't
take over the nation?
Say it ain't so RCD!
Guy Montag|6.16.08 @ 10:45PM|#
Art,
Mr. Spike Lee brought suit against the owners of SPIKE TV with the
notion that they were playing off of his name and had several
celebrities attest to the fact that they were confused by the name,
thinking it had something to do with the 'do you know do you know
do you know?' fellow.
Guy Montag|6.16.08 @ 10:46PM|#
Ooops, misread your "you are a card" thingie and thought you were not familiar.
Guy Montag|6.16.08 @ 10:50PM|#
For those of you not familiar, the "gas pump" is the portion above ground, that has the hose that goes into your car. When you run over them, the gas does not spew into the air like a geiser. All you have is a hole in the ground without any pump attached any more.
|6.16.08 @ 11:06PM|#
Take our the sarcasm and the minor points he got wrong and I'd say it was a more balanced piece than anything I ead by Weigel. He does buy into the smear of Ruwart which takes one short section out a broader context. But that sort of thing aside it was relatively accurate and less biased than Mr. Weigel articles.
|6.16.08 @ 11:54PM|#
Is this what it looked like on C-SPAN?
Mostly, but on C-SPAN some nerd would come on the phone every once
in a while and yammer on and on...
Just kidding! Love, ya, Dave; and I really
appreciated your various commentaries and your blogging.
Well, I've been wearing my Libertarian decoder ring for more than
two decades, so I am likely completely disqualified from judging
how normal people would perceive things. Oops, normal people don't
watch C-SPAN, so... whatever they are.
Certainly there were moments where there was slow-mo
disorganization, but I think that's standard fare for C-SPAN --
think House floor vote totals cranking in, or professorish book
author on the contribution of the women's auxiliary during the
Battle of Nashville before Civil War Buffs Anonymous.
But it seemed exciting, and I even thought things like Christine
Smith protesting how All Is Lost off stage gave it drama -- in a
kind of American Idol way -- that would pique the interest of
non-Libs who happened to tune in. (Again, if you can happen to tune
in to C-SPAN.)
(continued... damn browser can't stand my long commentary; same
way with my friends...
|6.16.08 @ 11:56PM|#
There was the unavoidable oddness -- Guy Fawkes, the neo-pagan
delegation, Jingozian nominating his rival -- but I thought it came
off as, like, Northern Exposure / Gilmore Girls type quirky, not
Twin Peaks / The Prisoner.
And might I note that I see the nomination of Barr not as a
sell-out to the right wing, but as a sell-out to the politically
competent (which is probably a good thing).
My point being: per the... I don't know, "pure" libertarianism
caucus, we have to reach out to the left wing. Very good point;
however, if you couldn't get left wing bodies into the convention
hall BEFORE the vote, why the hell do you think you'll succeed in
that strategy in the general population in the 163 days until
election day?
It's been pointed out other places on Reason blogs that Barr was
vunerable for things he's said and done in the last six months.
Rather than focus an attack on that, the focus was on things he's
said and done that he now recants. It seemed to me that the
Puritarians were on some weird dog whistle frequency that I could
kinda hear but couldn't figure out what it meant.
I haven't quite done the math, but it seems like if the "pures" had
organized and united, they might have picked Barr off, or certainly
gotten a balanced ticket with Kubby. Instead it seemed like they
watched this slow motion train wreck unfold and scratched their
heads, thinking, "what is it that those politician-type people do
in these situations?"
Finally, to the article itself, it was ignorant, mean,
self-contradictory... and funny. But I think he really misses the
mark in that it is probably much funnier to the l/Libertarian
reader than the general public.
Flip to a random page of It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand
and start reading, and it is much, much funnier. And insightful,
and true.
surprised no one said this yet|6.17.08 @ 12:37AM|#
Reason just links to TNR in gratitude for destroying Ron Paul.
Guy Montag|6.17.08 @ 8:35AM|#
I must have missed the post about the Al Gore circus last night.
Did anybody watch it?
The clips I saw, Mr. Gore sounded like that Priest who filled in
for Rev. Wright after Sen. Obama left his last Church.
robc|6.17.08 @ 9:38AM|#
The mere presence/prevalence of the goofballs at the
convo
They will be at th big 2 conventions too. Apparently the Dems and
GOP cant fill a convention hall without them.
robc|6.17.08 @ 9:39AM|#
An example of my 9:38 post:
Sure, the LP ran blue skinned guy. But he didnt win. The Dems
actually voted Cynthia McKinney into office multiple times. Which
is worse?
Guy Montag|6.17.08 @ 9:43AM|#
robc,
Waithing in the wings for one of the trolls to call you a racist
for that :)
|6.17.08 @ 10:04AM|#
Sure, the LP ran blue skinned guy. But he didnt win. The
Dems actually voted Cynthia McKinney into office multiple times.
Which is worse?
Both represent a loss for the Forces of Good. Hard to say which is
worse - a crackpot in Congress who probably didn't really make much
of a difference, or a crackpot not in the White House, who probably
also didn't make much of a difference.
|6.17.08 @ 10:05AM|#
For being anti-blue?
Hey, he was the one who said he was in need of a dye and in need of a dye I'm in need of a dye I'm in need of a need I'm in need of a dye.
economist|6.17.08 @ 10:06AM|#
Giving the libertarian party a wider appeal isn't necessarily
"Me-too" statism. If you explain how your basic philosophy differs
from the other parties' philosophies and propose policies based on
that philosophy, even if they are imperfect, you are not betraying
your principles.
That said, a system where the majority of voters are looking for a
candidate who promises them low-cost gasoline, "free" health
insurance, and (this kind of conflicts with the first one) zero
carbon emissions by 2010, even a moderately libertarian candidate
would lose.
economist|6.17.08 @ 10:08AM|#
Cynthia McKinney got to have 1/435 of the vote in the House. That's too much.
|6.17.08 @ 10:09AM|#
"Reason just links to TNR in gratitude for destroying Ron
Paul."
Do you actually believe things like this? Because it defies logic.
1) TNR did not "destroy" Ron Paul. He's doing fine, and won about
as much support as he could. Ron Paul did not respond to the
newsletters in a very politically intelligent way. 2) The idea that
Reason would want Ron Paul "destroyed" is just nonsense on stilts,
except to people that think that any criticism of a person is de
facto hatred.
Guy Montag|6.17.08 @ 10:20AM|#
For being anti-blue?
Only from the 'sane' Leftist trolls, if we ever get one.
I probably waived off the likely suspects already.
|6.17.08 @ 10:33AM|#
Robbie and others-
Still, no person has proven the veracity of the government
conspiracy fable. Instead, what most posters do is engage in ad
hominem attack after ad hominem attack; if one questions the lunacy
of the state sponsored conspiracy fable, one is met with
sensational accusations of being a kook or a nut or a crackpot.
Very telling.
I do not proclaim to be an expert on 9/11; I suspect, though I do
not know for sure, that no poster here is either. Thus, who has the
stones to challenge David Ray Griffin to a public debate. I would
love to see Mr. Weigel go against David Ray Griffin.
|6.17.08 @ 10:38AM|#
Economist-your post at 10:06 a.m.
The first two sentences of your post would appear to support the
proposition that libertarians should stick to their principles in
order to distinguish themselves from the parties of state.
|6.17.08 @ 10:43AM|#
R C Dean-
If you immitate the two parties of state, you have already lost.
Who is interested in a "libertarian" party that is soft on statism,
soft on eliminating entitlement programs, soft on assasinating the
alphabet soup agencies andcomfy with the welfare state? Voters
already have that option.
|6.17.08 @ 10:55AM|#
People don't like radicalism in their candidates. If your ultimate intent is to convince voters rather than to "remain ideologically pure" then you have to make concessions and compromises. If your want to remain "pure", then you can stay irrelevant.
|6.17.08 @ 11:07AM|#
If you asked Barr, I doubt he'd defend keeping the Dept. of Education, etc. One sign of a political candidate who knows what the hell he's actually doing though is that he focuses on pushing the parts of his platform he thinks will be best received. That's how you actually bring people in.
|6.17.08 @ 12:18PM|#
The obtuseness of liberty mike is starting to bore, no?
Question for the commetariat: liberty mike, idiot, or satirist?
Guy Montag|6.17.08 @ 12:34PM|#
Question for the commetariat: liberty mike, idiot, or
satirist?
Can you reframe the question as a choice between joe or Caesar?
J|6.17.08 @ 1:08PM|#
R C Dean | June 17, 2008, 12:18pm | #
The obtuseness of liberty mike is starting to bore, no?
Question for the commetariat: liberty mike, idiot, or
satirist?
He claimed to be real when I asked this, but I am leaning towards
satirist.
|6.17.08 @ 1:38PM|#
The truthers do not have the institutional record of deceit that the government has.
And the Gub'ment does not have the reputation of asylum escapees
that the Troofers have.
There is nothing so batshit insane that some Troofer will put up a
website about it. Laser beams brought down the WTC! The buildings
collapsed at free fall speeds! Fire can't melt steel! Missile
strike on Pentagon! They did it to hide the truth of the Amero!
|6.17.08 @ 1:43PM|#
RC Dean-
Do you have a problem with those who are demosnstrably more
intelligent than you and can convey their thoughts in a more lucid
manner than you?
|6.17.08 @ 1:46PM|#
There are no so batshit insane as those who continue to cling to the PHANTASMAGORIC FANTASY that arabians armed with box cutters caused the problem. What lunacy.
|6.17.08 @ 1:48PM|#
I see that none of the lunatics have the stones to debate David Ray Griffin. Probably becasue they know that Griffin would embarass their statist scrotum sucking asses.
Guy Montag|6.17.08 @ 1:49PM|#
Missile strike on Pentagon!
I am still waiting for that one to morph into a Bradley Fighting
Vehicle, based on reports from TNR's Private Scott Thomas
Beauchamp.
Guy Montag|6.17.08 @ 1:50PM|#
robc,
Im leaning towards adding him to my filter. He bores
me.
Way ahead of you brother!
|6.17.08 @ 2:02PM|#
Ever notice that those who can not compete want to take their
ball and go home. What winers.
Guy and robc, that includes you as well as RC Dean. Intellectually
inferior. One tell tale sign is the resort to adolescent sarcasm
when confronted with facts and opinions that you cannot counter in
a serious manner.
|6.17.08 @ 2:50PM|#
You mean opposed to resorting to calling people "scrotum sucking
asses" and referring to Arabs as "arabians"? But what do I know,
you're "demosnstrably" more intelligent than any of us.
Filtered.
|6.17.08 @ 3:23PM|#
Do you have a problem with those who are
demosnstrably more intelligent than you and can
convey their thoughts in a more lucid manner than you?
This one goes in the joe'z law Hall of Fame. Never let it be said
that you didn't contribute to H & R, liberty mike.
|6.17.08 @ 3:25PM|#
What winers.
You see how clever this is? liberty mike lets the reader make up his or her own mind as to whether those he criticizes are "whiners" or "winners". Top drawer stuff.
economist|6.17.08 @ 3:26PM|#
So we've agree that the Libertarian Party attracts its share of nuts? Imagine that?
Guy Montag|6.17.08 @ 4:17PM|#
So we've agree that the Libertarian Party attracts its share
of nuts?
Although I take great humour in pointing at the fringe "nuts" who
glom onto the LP, I really do think that they get more than their
share.
|6.17.08 @ 4:19PM|#
There are no so batshit insane as those who continue to cling to the PHANTASMAGORIC FANTASY that arabians armed with box cutters caused the problem. What lunacy.
Which one does the batshit lunatic choose? Terrorists or frickin
laser beams? Terrorists hijacking a plane or the claim that flight
77 never crashed into the Pentagon? Terrorists armed with makeshift
weapons or a massive conspiracy to cover up the theft of the gold
reserves hidden underneath the WTC?
|6.17.08 @ 4:22PM|#
I really do think that they get more than their share.
Yeah, the nutcases in the two major parties seem to be well-concealed behind legions of "normal" people. No such luck in the LP.
Marcvs|6.17.08 @ 4:33PM|#
Yeah, the nutcases in the two major parties seem to be
well-concealed behind legions of "normal" people. No such luck in
the LP.
Stop by Daily Kos or Free Republic some time (or LGF, Red State,
etc.) They're trainload-sized cases of Planters. Politics attracts
nuts.
economist|6.17.08 @ 5:07PM|#
Back in my more right-wing days I posted on Free Republic, where I was one of the more libertarian posters. Some were normal, but quite a few were indeed fucking batshit insane. (Example: John Kerry wanting to establish his own national religion)
|6.17.08 @ 5:10PM|#
My favorite Troofer "troof" is that no airplanes hit the WTC
buildings. Un-freaking-believable. Thousands of witnesses and live
broadcasts as they happened, yet this claim is still being
made.
Not all Troofers argue this. Most are still sane enough not to
espouse this daffy belief in public. Yet notice that Troofers DO
NOT DENY THIS claim! There is no infighting among the
conspiratoids. They would rather laugh about boxcutters than to
dare disagree with another Truther belief, no matter how
bizarre.
Most of the claims that Truthers say are "plants" to discredit the
movement are in the Loose Change video. Yet that same video remains
the central bible of the movement. The whole fire melting steel
thing is mindbogglingly stupid, yet it's still a core belief. Rosie
O'Donnell is a hero to them for speaking the troof on television.
Truthers have ceased to think for themselves.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245