The only violence at town halls is caused by union thugs and the idiot Glenn Beck deserves defense?
oh
And of course, liberals are the only people who want to censor.
You know, I remember a time when I had to explain to a die-hard Republican that because I was a libertarian, I was not a liberal Democrat.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Grift,
"Thugocracy" is from our resident Republican.
"Boycotts" I'll give you for now, since it was Tom. I haven't read it yet though. Spending time with the family this weekend, saw this come through on twitter, figured it was about us.
The fact that one of your commentors promoted one of RedStates campaigns is telling
Obviously, I'll get back at some point and let you know.
For now, off to lunch and then more golf (XBox 360) with brothers and dad.
Have fun! :D
Libertarian, Liberal Democrat. Tomato, To-mah-to.
Either way, you're going STRAIGHT TO HELL!!!!
enjoy the trip,
Icarus
James: A man ought to be able to say what he is and that be the end of it. But with all due respect, I have always regarded you as more of an Independent than a Libertarian.
My parents should be back in North GA by now, and my wife is watching a scary movie (yes, I'm too chicken to watch them with her), so I just had a chance to read both of the above mentioned posts.
I do have a slight problem with Bill referencing Human Events, since they tend to be too neocon/socon for me, but that is my personal preference and the article isn't mine. Otherwise, I really didn't see anything blatantly objectionable there.
Similarly, with Tom's post, he actually DID point out the hypocrisy of both the left AND the right when calling for boycotts. Hell, I'll be honest here, I STILL haven't bought anything from the Dixie Chicks since 2003, though I really do like "Not Ready to Make Nice". Again, I was offended by the song when it first came out, but it is one of few country songs that hits that spot when you're in a FTW (original meaning, not current meaning) mood.
So what, exactly, is your problem here?
When the criticism is trending one way, you should be concerned.
And a libertarian would never support voluntary military intervention in another country.
Period.
Grift,
Boycotts isn't just criticizing the left, but the right as well. They were ready to destroy the Dixie Chicks just because they spoke their minds. It's just how it goes.
For the record? I agreed with them 100% back then, and still do.
I simply think that calling for a boycott because my proposed solutions aren't the same as yours is silly at best. And it's idiotic the way both sides argue that the other is doing something morally wrong when it's really just the same thing that they'll do when they get the chance.
You know, it's ironic that a libertarian would confuse a boycott (personal and rather democratic) with censorship (authoritarian and legally binding). In fact, as a believer in true freedom of speech (no matter how they offend my bleeding heart sensibilities...), I think that situations like these are one of the few times that money SHOULD talk loudly.
When Don Imus was originally fired from his radio show for disparaging the Rutgers women's basketball team, it wasn't a knee jerk reaction from the top--it was in response to so many advertisers pulling their dollars. The market was at work, if you will.
I'm not confusing the two. Others have. They have screamed "censorship" when those they agreed with are boycotted, but it's all good when they're doing the boycotting. The Dixie Chicks weren't censored. The government didn't make radio stations quit playing their music, they opted to in order to not lose listeners.
Don Imus wasn't censored either, you're right. It was a boycott.
My opinion is that boycott is the first response for most on either side, when I think it shouldn't be. I never said boycotts were wrong, only that they shouldn't be the weapon of first resort. Agree, disagree, that's cool. Disagreement is fine with me :)
Post a Comment