GOP: 1. Uncultured, uncouth rich people (i.e. New Money).
‘Cause Gavin basically already did this
GOP
1. Uncultured, uncouth rich people (i.e. New Money).
2. Mormon and Born Again closet cases.
3. Poor people who pretend they are rich.
4. Fat guys in cowboy hats.
5. Christers.
6. Hispanics who really hate gays and abortion.
7. Young people without souls.
8. People who were in the military but never saw combat.
9. Bigots.
10. Zionists.
11. White collar criminals.
12. Private school administrators who still believe in caning.
13. Rapists.
14. The guy who owns the company you work for.
DEMOCRATS
1. Anybody who listens to NPR.
2. Upper class white people who are really uncomfortable with the idea of upper class white people.
3. Your college professors.
4. 99% of all black people.
5. Ex or crypto Communists.
6. Welfare lifers.
7. People who accuse others of racism on a weekly basis.
8. White collar criminals.
9. Zionists.
10. Fussy, bourgeois gay people.
11. Rich people who fetishize “The People.”
12. Rapists.
13. That trust fund squatter who just asked you for a dollar.
14. People who are afraid of guns and violent video games and “the coming fascism.”
GREEN PARTY
1. The most boring stoners in the world.
2. Ex Communists who think voting Democrat is selling out.
3. People who listen to jam bands.
4. That cute lesbian you met on the Appalachian Trail.
LIBERTARIAN PARTY
1. Republicans who openly like drugs and whores.
2. Programmers and other computer nerds.
3. People who get a hard on from a balanced budget.
4. People who talk about “the market” the way Communists used to talk about “the workers.
-POP FOP
Send “Dear Street Carnage” letters to SBTVC@StreetCarnage.com.
Libertarians are stupid fun
you should have made each one a link. redo it so its not so boring.
Libertarians are so fun it is stoopid, and you should like, make it less boring with links or something.
Rose Director all day everyday.
Choosing to be a libertarian is willful political sterilization in the name of apathy and ignorance.
Libertarianism has a theory of tides that refuses to acknowledge the moon.
See minute 1:30 –> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BCipg71LbI
Speaking of the most boring stoners in the world
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQe4XVrJFGQ
@Soo’ Chest:
You’re right. It’s much better to pick one flavor of boot licking state worshiper and root for the team.
@daffy:
Bill O’Reilly is an authoritarian statist, not a libertarian; and you’re an idiot.
I was going to make a joke about libertarians being people who have been arrested for depraved indifference but I wasn’t sure if that was something one could be actually be charged with.
Clark, you are of course correct that Ol’Smelly is not a libertarian. He was simply unknowingly ignorant of the moon, whereas Libertarians, orthodox reductionists that they are, are instead, as I said, willfully ignorant of the moon.
Another way of saying it:
O’Reilly types are too dumb to even know about the moon, while libertarians are at least smart enough to perform brilliant feats of explaining away the moon.
What exactly are we using denial of the moon as a metaphor for? Hidden hand processes?
“depraved indifference”
It must feel good to know that you care enough to wish to control others for their own good.
Clark,
I think you need to get a sense of humor. By the way, I have visited Lysander Spooner’s grave. It says “For Liberty” on it. Have you ever read Men Against the State?
Let’s take for example: Alan Greenspan informing a Senate Committee in autumn 2008 that the “entire intellectual edifice on which modern risk management rests” had collapsed in the summer of 2007.
That was the result of dregulatory libertarian ideology in action IRL, and not the make-believe pseudo-scientific reductionist-determinist fantasy world of academic Marxists/Libertarians.
Knowing the “actual workings” of the “hidden hand” is as real as knowing the mind of a leprechaun. Feed the hungy, heal the sick, and get your head out of the clouds, collidge-boy.
So what’s this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q
^^ that’s easy to answer. he’s a thinking man who’s observant of the basic realities. his vision isn’t clouded with elaborate voodoo theories of invisible hands. the hands are in fact quite visible. and they’re around our necks. every ragged breath we yet manage to draw against the crush is a delicious, cool, liquid thrill!
That’s what David Carradine said…
anarchy
Libertarianism is based on the notion that the initiation of violence, or threats thereof, against innocent people or their property is illigitamate. This is called the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).
The non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism. It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another. That is, in the free society, one has the right to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually agreeable terms. Thus, there would be no victimless crime prohibitions, price controls, government regulation of the economy, etc.-
It only stands to reason that libertarians are for a non-intervention foreign policy.
Like any party there are people calling themselves libertarians who do not believe or follow these principles, and so the disinformation is spread. I don’t find those phonies stupid fun, more like dangerous trolls.
daffy- libertarians hate Greenspan and the federal reserve system. You don’t have to read it, just look at the title of Ron Pauls last book “End the Fed”. Most would point to his loose monetary policy as the main reason for the housing bubble, Tom Woods’ “Meltdown” is about that and pretty much every article on lewrockwell, 321gold or similar sites say it 24-7.
“Knowing the “actual workings” of the “hidden hand” is as real as knowing the mind of a leprechaun”
more of an argument against government interference in the economy.
d-regulator: yes, you are so so right and Marxism as a belief structure remains perfect and unsullied, because Stalin corrupted the purity that Trotsky would have surely maintained.
> more of an argument against government interference in the economy.
you have doctrinaire and hence unreasonable contempt for any duly elected government’s ability to reasonably guide economic behavior. In other words, you have dogmatic insistence that any and all empirically-guided pragmatic policy is necessarily impossible. In short, and again, this reveals you believe in a reductionist fantasy.
Which category do fascists belong to?
Whoever is in power, so that leaves out the LP and the GP.
-daffy
There has never been a humane communist regime. Marxism is inherently totalitarian. It recognizes no moral limits on the state. It’s the most convenient ideology for aspiring tyrants; it also retains its appeal for intellectuals, who have proved equally skillful at rationalizing abuses of power and at exculpating themselves. Yet somehow Trotsky would have been the one exception?
@ jdeep6: as you mentioned before tho, and I agree it’s important to keep clearly always in mind: wannabe fascists-by-temperament can be currently not in power; think of contemporary nazi-lovers.
I’m sure there are also plenty of fascists-in-waiting inhabiting the GP and LP. The urge to fascism is elemental in humans. It’s of a piece with our hormonal structure. The only path to deter its hateful hand, which ever-quests toward the levers of State power, is constant vigilant goodhearted (note I pointedly say goodhearted, and not doctrinaire) cooperation.
@ chico. read the thread again. My pretend-extolling of “pure” Trotskian Marxism was sarcasm directed at the “pure” libertarian fantasist aka d-regulator.
@ daffy
good point. little fascists are everywhere, but without power on the world stage they are only that, little shits. i’m thinking of my old gym teacher, the soup nazi and so on.
no I’m not saying greenspan wasn’t a libertarian because he wasn ‘t hard core enough,I’m saying heis vision wasn’t a libertarian one, which would be no fed, a gold standard (or something similar) and much higher interst rates. look at amy of the debates between grteenspan and ron paul on youtube and you will find it pretty easy to see who is the libertarian and who is the supply sider, milton friedman guy.
Gothca daf. not a big fan of sarcasm myself, but I see it’s muy popular here.
More on “the old man”
After given free rent by supporter Diego Rivera in Mexico Trotsky returned the favor by screwing his wife Frida Kahlo. The surrealist Kahlo made a self-portrait for him, which he left behind when he and his wife moved out. Dickwad.
From what I’ve read about AG he was okay in his early years, but then, out of the blue, sold his soul to satan. He did did a complete about face, making some libertarians scratch their heads and proclaim him some kind of alien life form.
the whole point of the austrian theory of the business cycle is that credit inflation causes malinvestment which leads to the inevtiable bust. That’s exactly what greenspan did, he left interest rates low and more or less intentionally created the housing boom. It’s not a conspiracy theory Paul Krugman has acknowledged this (and in fact, agreed with it at the time shows what he knows) . Your dad would agree with it.
I know what you are saying about people who believe the market will sort everything out and that that is in a weird way a demented version of libertarianism/ business idoltry though. Like poeple who thought Iraq would naturally work out because the mission was good intentioned or something.
This neoliberal idea of supply side economics is rather naive IMHO. It goes on the basis that the rich will naturally invest in new business ideas if they have more money to throw around. Despite the idea that free market capitalism is gleefully anarchic and pro risk, actually existing capitalism, especially since the recession, is rather risk adverse. Read Daniel Ben-Ami for specifics.
Say a company makes 2 mil in revenue with a rather bureaucratic and stodgy business model, chances are they will keep this model despite the fact that they can make 15 mil in annual revenue by adopting new or riskier business methods. Babbittry, as HL Mencken called it.
Babbittry, oy vey that is so so so so so fucking true. I have personally seen, up close, over the past ten years, a total of over $100 million+ investment offers being rejected by various $2 million-to-$20 million revenue range co.s that were struggling due to lack of growth capital/cashflow. The investment offers were good, professionally tendered, and with reasonable terms. The offers were rejected for emotional/utterly irrational reasons, and the various rejecting companies shortly afterward went under due to lack of investment capital! Business thinking is wildy wildly irrational. A biz owner will gleefully scrooge every fucking penny out of his spat-upon employees for 30 years, and then as he’s ready to exit, at the peak moment at the 11th hour, he’ll walk away from a buyout offer of $20m, and within 2 years his company will be dead and be worth maybe $750k hard assets only. It happens more often than not.
So, you may wonder why this is. Well, here is why: read it and weep, Austria and Chicago: for the third time I offer this strikingly clarifying work to this readership, maybe someone will actually read them this time: Don’t front like you know economic theory until you’ve been shot out of the these two blazing rocket launchers:
1) http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/1/01/040813BN_Dominant_Capital_&_the_New_Wars_(2PageView).pdf — (from anno 2004 AD, just as Iraq and all that shit was fully flyin out of the fan.)
2) The further, year 2010, deepening understanding of just how it is that your sphincter is getting exercised:
http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/289/03/20100700_bn_systemic_fear_modern_finance_future_of_capitalism.pdf
For those who have ears, let them hear. The rest of you go back to the pee-filled kiddie pool, where you belong.
btw, for better comprehension, since the first piece I linked to gives the more basic layout, the two pieces should be read in chronological sequence, as presented.