Friday, June 6, 2014

snickers, no candy

The most amusing thing about libertarians is this:  all the liberty they endorse revolves around getting rich.  The libertarian is about the moolah, buster.  All the regulations they hate they hate because a regulation hinders moolah manufacture.  All the civil liberties they care about are freedoms impinging on income.  Libertarians see themselves as hard-working, capable strivers whose grasping should not be thwarted.  Humans were put on Earth to get rich, beeeeeeeyoaaaaatch.

Exchange offers sample:

So, everywhere else they have a culture of corruption, bottom up. Here we have top down corruption.

We have to find a way to make this political class wither and die.

Aaaaah, the naivete. If you talk in general enough concepts, you sound wise. Couldn't you have said, "we need to find a way to make people agree with us" or "we need to find a way to eliminate what we don't like in ourselves."

I'm interested in how this person defines "corruption," but I doubt we'll see that. "Corruption" couldn't possibly mean, "corrupted by striving for riches to lord above others." Naaaaah. But what was said in response to the golden quote above? This --

Take the money and power out of politics. End career politics, and make cronyism illegal and severely punished.

Libertarians want money and power themselves. Politics is about people doing shit to get more money and power. How is "politics" different from what libertarians do/want? That's politics too. So genius guy is saying, punish libertarians?

No, that couldn't be. Libertarians aren't "careerist" huh? They are temporary libertarians, huh? And there's no cronyism among libertarians?

I read the comments at reason because generally they're funnier and better-written than those I find at the "leftist" or "progressive" (no difference, despite what a hairsplitting "leftist" will argue) sites. Not because I agree with them.

How could I agree with them?  They're naive little children who want the best toys of any kid in the neighborhood.

14 comments:

Chet Redweld said...

The little peckers are so naive they think Snowden a hero and Greenwald a brilliant analyst.

Which means they are a lot like Tarzie. Now, Tarzie has gone to great lengths to appear critical of GreenSnow, but if you look closely at Re-Tarz's histroy, you see that all Re-Tarz is doing is keeping SnowGreen in people's minds. Still no criticism of motive, impulse or character, and those are the defining features when you want to suss out a liar's lying.

diane! and I'm tough! said...

OMIGOD. You are such a reactionary you think the libertarians are too leftist What a rapist misogynist homophobe who is SOOOOOOO in love with Tarzie.

Tarzie is heroic, and if you paid attention you would see that he is saving Chelsea Manning's reputation. Everything surrounding civil liberties infringement in America turns on Chelsea Manning's reputation. Since Glenn Greenwald isn't praising Chelsea Manning, that makes Tarzie mad. That's what Tarzie is exposing in Greenwald. As a gay man, Greenwald is bound by sexual habit to praise and lionize Chelsea Manning, and since he hasn't done that, Tarzie's nose is out of joint.

You, on the other hand, have made fun of Chelsea -- calling her Bradley -- and you are too stupid to understand Tarzie's brilliance.

It's time for you to die in a fire, asshole.

Chet Redweld said...

Oh I get it, diane.

Tarzie's late-breaking "radical shift" is little more than Tarzie regurgitating what he learned at this blog, and presenting it as his own, where disbelief of Greenwald-Snowden is concerned.

Have you seen Tarzie explain his change of mind/heart/e-stance regarding his former worship of Greenwald and praise of Snowden?

No, I didn't think so.

diane! and I'm tough! said...

You are obviously fixated on and probably obsessed with Tarzie.

Chet Redweld said...

Hmmmm. Well, out of all the motives to discuss Re-Tarz, that's surely one of them. But it's not the only one.

How about this one?

People who think themselves enlightened critics of American political shenanigans cite Tarzie's work as informed, and I like exposing fakes.

Maybe that means I like seeing the helium escape from the hot air balloons piloted by these enlightened critics who cite Tarzie.

diane! and I'm tough! said...

So you like seeing people crash and die?

YOU NEED TO DIE IN A FIRE.

Chet Redweld said...

Don't let me burst your bubble, diane.

rehabilitated snark addict said...

I used to think Tarzie was a master of withering snark, but then I looked into his history of commenting, and read more of this blog's historical content. After that research, I realized that Tarzie stole nearly every single new "I'm criticizing Greenwald" idea from this blog.

I've come to realize that twitter snark isn't what will change people's minds. Mostly because it just plays on prejudices and a feeling of superiority. That's not how people come to see things differently, it's how they reinforce their prejudices!

Thanks for all you do. I used to hear that this blog was what diane tries to describe in her comments, but that's because I was just believing the haters and not actually reading the posts here with an open mind. You've opened my mind. I deleted my twitter account and no longer read that stupid medium. I would encourage any other clear-thinking person to do likewise.

diane! and I'm tough! said...

BULLSHIT.

This blog is a reactionary diversion run by spooks for the RNC.

Chet Redweld said...

Sure it is, diane. In fact, I'm Grover Norquist!

Chet Redweld said...

(diane now reframes her childish whining perspective to include the conclusion that I am, indeed, Grover Norquist)

Chet Redweld said...

(meanwhile, it's well established that Grover Norquist is not funny, which is the dead giveaway here)

diane! and I'm tough! said...

You're NOT FUNNY EITHER, asshole.

GO DIE IN A FIRE. NOW.

Chet Redweld said...

That's the spirit, diane.

This blog clearly is responsible for all the problems you encounter in your life.