Utterly Meaningless

*”Which begs the question — is Bush a lame duck among bloggers?”*

Is that a trick question?

He’s always been lame. Duck, not so much. Flaming idiot more like……

“It splits the Republican party and pushes Latinos to the left. A win/win as far as I’m concerned.”

Who does that help, exactly? Empowering the Democrats won’t help immigrants or latinos. I guess it will make you feel better, though.

You continue to title this blog “A Democratic/Libertarian-leaning edu-blog” despite a complete absence of any content that could be mistaken for libertarian. (Unless you equate libertarian with being anti-Bush or anti-religion, which I would not.)

Small “L” libertarians and the Democrats share a common purpose in defeating the party of endless wars of aggression and deficit spending. Or are those no longer libertarian principles worth fighting for?

Seems to me that empowering Democrats would help just about everyone that isn’t more interested in warmongering and greedy acquisition of wealth at the expense of anyone who gets in your way.

And I think the “Metro” series of posts, though exceedingly local, tie into small “L” libertarianism. They’re part of a larger battle against being forcibly annexed into either the city proper or a new Metro government. North Carolina’s annexation laws are described in a brand new John Locke Foundation report as “trampling on civil rights, voting rights, and property rights.”

Yeah, I’m far from the cutting edge of libertarian thought and my politics have certainly drifted left these last 5 years. But that, I think, is a result of utter frustration with the “see no evil” GOP Congress and with Bush/Cheney’s warmongering. The Libertarian party is hapless and useless. If we are to prevent war with Iran it will be the Democratic Party that leads the opposition. Anything that helps them prevent WWIII is a good thing.

The problem with trading republicans for democrats is that all we really do is trade deficit spending on war for deficit spending on social programs.

If we are going to give up on a constitutional govt then I guess spending that doesn’t directly kill people is an improvement. However, as long as Ron Paul continues to get press I will hold out some tiny sliver of hope.

The problem with trading republicans for democrats is that all we really do is trade deficit spending on war for deficit spending on social programs.

A decade ago I’d have agreed. But the Dems have been living uder Paygo when they’re in charge. It was the GOP that scrapped it.

“Small “L” libertarians and the Democrats share a common purpose in defeating the party of endless wars of aggression and deficit spending. Or are those no longer libertarian principles worth fighting for?”

Funny, last time I checked, it was the Democrats that started every major American war of the 20th century. History aside, I’m far from convinced that a President Gore would not have started a war with Iraq. Indeed, Bill Clinton had eight years to end the crippling sanctions against Iraq and withdraw U.S. personnel from the Gulf region. He did neither. Nor will a second President Clinton or other Democratic nominee end the underlying U.S. policies that make “endless wars of aggression and deficit spending” necessary. The welfare state and warfare state are on in the same, something you’d recognize if you removed your head from the Democratic Party’s ass.

And one more thing, Daryl — libertarians don’t support state control of health care and the internet, two things you’ve championed on this website. Unlike you, I consider violence against Americans on par with violence against Iraqis and other individuals. And I sure as hell don’t invoke science when it’s convenient (i.e. evolutionary biology) and ignore it when it’s not (i.e. economics).

FDR bombed Pearl Harbor? I thought it was the Germans. 🙂

Leaving “Animal House” aside, check out the new masthead.