Libertarians; Useful Idiots?

Darla said:
I am posting from my phone and have very little time. I would just like to point out that almost all libertarians I have known are rabidly anti choice. Mister freedom loving superfreak wants to force women to carry and give birth to their rapists children. What could be more authoritarian than forcing a woman to give birth to her rapist's baby? Tha answer is, for a woman, nothing. This is why your cries for freedom fall mostly on white male ears and will always ring hollow. Cawacko is the only libertarian I know of on this board who also supports freedom for women.
Click to expand...

Most libertarians are pro-choice, FYI...
 
Darla said:
I'm usually quite serious, and there is a lot here that is 100% serious, certainly Krugman's piece. However, ever since the little Nancy boys had a level 10 meltdown, I can't help poking them a bit. They are quite fun. I would like to own one as a pet. But I'd muzzle it of course. No way I am going to listen to that 24/7. I would take the muzzle off for parties and such. You can't buy that kind of entertainment at the Party Store!
Click to expand...

Thank you, Goebbels.
 
Darla said:
I am posting from my phone and have very little time. I would just like to point out that almost all libertarians I have known are rabidly anti choice. Mister freedom loving superfreak wants to force women to carry and give birth to their rapists children. What could be more authoritarian than forcing a woman to give birth to her rapist's baby? Tha answer is, for a woman, nothing. This is why your cries for freedom fall mostly on white male ears and will always ring hollow. Cawacko is the only libertarian I know of on this board who also supports freedom for women.
Click to expand...

Darla wishes instead to allow women to jab metal spikes into the unborns head. She prefers that life have no value. That it is ok to kill babies in a violent way if we pretend it is about a 'womans body'. Fuck the childs body or its right to life.

For the record, I don't support forcing a woman to carry a rapists child. The woman obviously has no choice in the pregnancy. In all other cases, the woman does have a choice. A choice whether to have sex or not, a choice whether to use protection or not... but Darla just wants to avoid responsibility for that choice by ramming a metal spike through a childs head. (do note... I used bold for emphasis since the liberals on the board get their panties in a bind if I use CAPS for emphasis on a word... and their panties are already bunched up enough)

For the record, one of the main reasons I am not a registered Libertarian is because of their views on a childs life. But Darla just wishes to pretend she knows what Libertarians stand for. When in reality she doesn't really care, all she cares about is ramming metal spikes in babies heads.
 
I know this will be too complicated for Darla to realize, but the reason why libertarians are split on the issue of abortion (most leaning for it) is that they are all about protecting individual rights.

If the baby is a human person, he/she derives individual liberty needing to be protected.
If the the baby is some grotesque creature, then the woman has individual rights to kill it (presumably for it invading her personal space).
 
Darla said:
Right wing authoritarians are Libertarians in many cases. There is a huge co-mingling. As a woman, perhaps the authoritarianism inherent in Libertarians is more obvious to me.

Their definition of "freedom" is very narrow indeed.
Click to expand...

This would be akin to saying "perhaps the Judaism inherent in Nazism is more obvious to me". You CLEARLY do not know anything about the subject on which you speak.
 
Darla said:
I am posting from my phone and have very little time. I would just like to point out that almost all libertarians I have known are rabidly anti choice. Mister freedom loving superfreak wants to force women to carry and give birth to their rapists children. What could be more authoritarian than forcing a woman to give birth to her rapist's baby? Tha answer is, for a woman, nothing. This is why your cries for freedom fall mostly on white male ears and will always ring hollow. Cawacko is the only libertarian I know of on this board who also supports freedom for women.
Click to expand...
not only do you NOT know Libertarianism, you don't know Libertarians. I also support womens freedom.
 
Darla said:
I think that while Libertarians have far more influence online than they do irl, that to say they have no influence irl would be incorrect. I think that the corporate wing of the Republican party has in the past, gotten into bed with the religious right because it was expedient for them to do so. I think that they are naturally already in bed with Libertarians, and in fact, that the corporate elite really are Libertarians (they all view themselves as John Galt), and while they might not give a shit about the gun issue (after all, we are talking about people who are guarded by the best in the world), they are happy to promote it for several reasons. Some are explained in Krugman's piece which i agree with, and also just to keep their little wives happy. You have to give her something to keep her quiet while you're out drinking with the boys. The her is you in this case, but same principal.
Click to expand...
I think that Libertarians have had it finally sink in that as a third party alternative to our two party system that they are little more than a joke of relatively little, if any, significance.

Where libertarians are FINALLY starting to show some relevence is by building coalitions within the Republican Party. Particularly with the angry white guy crowd. They certainly had a significant influence on Bush administration policy. However, that alarmed a lot of people in that it helped confirm what most people suspect. That given the opportunity a Libertarian ran government would prove hoplessly inept and incompetent.

Still, not that much has changed, The Libertarian party is still the province of angry white male internet warriors. They would have far more significance if they joined the Republican party out right.
 
Darla said:
I am posting from my phone and have very little time. I would just like to point out that almost all libertarians I have known are rabidly anti choice. Mister freedom loving superfreak wants to force women to carry and give birth to their rapists children. What could be more authoritarian than forcing a woman to give birth to her rapist's baby? Tha answer is, for a woman, nothing. This is why your cries for freedom fall mostly on white male ears and will always ring hollow. Cawacko is the only libertarian I know of on this board who also supports freedom for women.
Click to expand...

Not to derail the thread with the meaning of terms but I will say I am a Republican with libertarian leanings. I say that because there is a difference between socially conservative Republicans and libertarian leaning Republicans like myself. But there is also a difference between Republican leaning libertarians like myself and true Libertarians. True Libertarians would look at someone like myself and laugh if I claimed to be one of them.

So I'm not trying to label other people but I would say more of what you see on this board are people with libertarian leanings (the little l as it is called) but aren't true Libertairans (the big L).
 
Derp Derp said:
I think that Libertarians have had it finally sink in that as a third party alternative to our two party system that they are little more than a joke of relatively little, if any, significance.

Where libertarians are FINALLY starting to show some relevence is by building coalitions within the Republican Party. Particularly with the angry white guy crowd. They certainly had a significant influence on Bush administration policy. However, that alarmed a lot of people in that it helped confirm what most people suspect. That given the opportunity a Libertarian ran government would prove hoplessly inept and incompetent.

Still, not that much has changed, The Libertarian party is still the province of angry white male internet warriors. They would have far more significance if they joined the Republican party out right.
Click to expand...

What big influence did Libertarians have on the Bush Administration?

No Child Left Behind (nope)
going into Afghanistan (nope)
going into Iraq (hell no)
Pill Bill (nope)
attempt at private accounts for S.S. (yes)
Sarbanes Oxley (nope)
TARP (nope)

What else would you like to add?
 
cawacko said:
Not to derail the thread with the meaning of terms but I will say I am a Republican with libertarian leanings. I say that because there is a difference between socially conservative Republicans and libertarian leaning Republicans like myself. But there is also a difference between Republican leaning libertarians like myself and true Libertarians. True Libertarians would look at someone like myself and laugh if I claimed to be one of them.

So I'm not trying to label other people but I would say more of what you see on this board are people with libertarian leanings (the little l as it is called) but aren't true Libertairans (the big L).
Click to expand...
Yea well the real difference between a Republican leaning Libertarian and a "True Libertarian" is that the former are relevent and of significance and the latter are pretty much a joke and are hardly worth a thought.
 
cawacko said:
What big influence did Libertarians have on the Bush Administration?

No Child Left Behind (nope)
going into Afghanistan (nope)
going into Iraq (hell no)
Pill Bill (nope)
attempt at private accounts for S.S. (yes)
Sarbanes Oxley (nope)
TARP (nope)

What else would you like to add?
Click to expand...

He is yet another moron with no idea what Libertarians stand for. So he makes these absurd statements and hopes the other liberal idiots will jump on his bandwagon and start parroting the same stupidity, much as they did for Darla's moronic comments.
 
I do love how he parrots the 'they are starting to attract the angry white guy' crowd... if they repeat it enough, it becomes real to them.
 
cawacko said:
What big influence did Libertarians have on the Bush Administration?

No Child Left Behind (nope)
going into Afghanistan (nope)
going into Iraq (hell no)
Pill Bill (nope)
attempt at private accounts for S.S. (yes)
Sarbanes Oxley (nope)
TARP (nope)

What else would you like to add?
Click to expand...
OK, well maybe I did overstate their having a "signiicant" influence on the Bush administration. Though you must admit that their influence on environmental issues and laizzes-faire business regulations and some influence on the Bush administration which is vastly more than what you can say about the Libertarian Party actually influencing anyone.
 
Derp Derp said:
They certainly had a significant influence on Bush administration policy. However, that alarmed a lot of people in that it helped confirm what most people suspect.
Click to expand...

Just to add to my other post remember during the Bush Administration most of their supporters were being labled neo-cons? Well neo-cons are about the exact opposite of Libertarians. Neo-cons (who support big government) had a big influence on the Bush Administation. Libertarians did not. BIG DIFFERENCE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top