Chris Christie attacks libertarians

I don't know where he gathered the idea that I said ANYTHING about anarcho-capitalism as such in my post.

Did you notice any such?

Nope. I surely did not.

I simply asked, if Rand and Cruz are "Dangerous Libertarians" what word describes Rothbard?

I didn't say anything positive or negative about anyone's views.

What's even more bizarre about this is that Rothbard encouraged electoral activism.

That's refreshing to hear, but some ancaps are constantly calling Rand and others "sellouts", when they wouldn't be even be permitted in the building. Unfortunately, that is the current state of affairs.

(1) There are plenty of non-an-caps among us who do the same thing. So why single an-caps out?
(Especially when there are an-caps who clearly do NOT feel that way.)

(2) Those an-caps who DO feel the way you describe don't want anything to do with the "building."
Given their premises, why should they even want to be "permitted" inside?

(3) FF's point is that your response to his post doesn't have anything at all to do with what he said. He's right.
 
Thanks for the encouragement. This is yet another answer to the people that say "[Insert RINO here] is the lesser of two evils and you're really voting for Obama if you don't vote for him." We have political power, we can force the GOP to keep losing, and we should do it.

Although, we cannot let them forget its us. So don't vote Dem. Vote third party or stay home.

Unless its Rand Paul.

BTW: I don't give a crap about Christie's weight. To make fun of him for that is offensive to fat people, some of whom are likely pro-liberty. I don't know if I'd classify as "Fat" in the same vein as Christie but as someone who is 6 ft. tall and 250 lbs, I'm definitely overweight. And not a neocon.

I give a crap about the fact that he hates freedom. That's my problem. Not his weight.

Are the fat jokes really necessary? Grow up.

I have no problem with fat people until they start imposing their bullshit on other people, then any "flaw" is fair game. Receding hairline? No problem! Unless you're a fascist bastard. Gay? Don't care about that either. Bad taste in clothes? Don't care--until you start passing laws that destroy families. Fish lips? Turtle necks? Bad cosmetic surgery?

I do not give a rat's ass, but when you start messing with other people, I will mock you first--and you should feel lucky that that's all I'm doing.

By the way, Bloomberg is a wrinkly old bastard. And there are plenty of wrinkly old folks who I like a lot.

So yes, the fat jokes are currently necessary. When they aren't...time's up.
 
What's even more bizarre about this is that Rothbard encouraged electoral activism.

Well, yes, but he was an ancap. And so way more "Dangerous" and "libertarian" than Rand, heck, moreso than me too.
 
Is this time for a PAC to release an ad? I would think so, and let the fundraising begin. BUT, Rand should have a very simple answer that would probably unite the Republicans behind him, and force Christie to go Democrat. They've only had 8+ years to figure this out, it's very simple.
 
Nope. I surely did not.



What's even more bizarre about this is that Rothbard encouraged electoral activism.



(1) There are plenty of non-an-caps among us who do the same thing. So why single an-caps out?
(Especially when there are an-caps who clearly do NOT feel that way.)

(2) Those an-caps who DO feel the way you describe don't want anything to do with the "building."
Given their premises, why should they even want to be "permitted" inside?

(3) FF's point is that your response to his post doesn't have anything at all to do with what he said. He's right.

I wasn't bashing Ancaps. I like some Ancap thought, but most of Rand's high profile critics tend to be ancaps. So I felt the need to interject when FF made a great point. Rand may be a "sellout", but Ancaps wouldn't even be allowed to clean the toilets, so their point is almost nullified. Ancaps can't even get a mainstream platform to be heard. So if you're not being heard and growing, then your movement is ultimately stagnant. Ancaps need to get over their hangups and do a better job of getting heard. I believe An Caps deserve a seat at the table in terms of the national discussion.
 
Last edited:
Well, yes, but he was an ancap. And so way more "Dangerous" and "libertarian" than Rand, heck, moreso than me too.

I don't know what words they would use exactly, but if a true Rothbardian ever gains the level of political prominence that Rand Paul has achieved, I would dearly, dearly love to hear whatever words might emit from their mouths just before their heads explode ... (assuming they would make more than strangled, gurgling noises).
 
I wasn't bashing Ancaps. I like some Ancap thought, but most of Rand's high profile critics tend to be ancaps. So I felt the need to interject when FF made a great point. Rand may be a "sellout", but Ancaps wouldn't even be allowed to clean the toilets, so their point is almost nullified. Ancaps can't even get a mainstream platform to be heard. So if you're not being heard and growing, then your movement is ultimately stagnant. Ancaps need to get over their hangups and do a better job of getting heard.

You aren't bashing an-caps? What do you call the above? "clean the toilets" ... ? What the hell is that even supposed to mean?

And what in the world makes you imagine that saying such things isn't going to be regarded as contemptuously insulting?
 
You aren't bashing an-caps? What do you call the above? "clean toilets" ... ? What the hell is that even supposed to mean?

And what in the world makes you imagine that saying such things isn't going to be regarded as contemptuously insulting?

I'm saying that the current political climate is so toxic that an caps are considered the fringe of the fringe.
 
I'm saying that the current political climate is so toxic that an caps are considered the fringe of the fringe.

No, you weren't. If you were, you could have simply said what you just did to begin with.
(Though even that would still have had nothing to do with anything FF said.)
But you did not. You bashed. Then you claimed that you weren't bashing.
(You were also unfairly lumping all an-caps together for purposes of your bashing.)
I'd rather have the "Rand is a sellout" an-caps - they may be wrong, but at least they aren't hypocrites.
 
No, you weren't. If you were, you could have simply said what you just did to begin with.
(Though even that would still have had nothing to do with anything FF said.)
But you did not. You bashed. Then you claimed that you weren't bashing.
(You were also unfairly lumping all an-caps together for purposes of your bashing.)
I'd rather have the "Rand is a sellout" an-caps - they may be wrong, but at least they aren't hypocrites.

I wasn't bashing. I was simply making a harshly worded point. Rand can't be criticized when he's actually being heard nationwide and making incredibly powerful enemies in the process. His critics aren't being heard. No one is discussing the non-aggression principle, state coercion and the like, because an caps want to largely wallow and moan. They need to get out there and weasel their way onto a network or something.
 
Last edited:
Isn't this the guy Coulter supported before she decided Romney was "the most conservative candidate"? I believe members of the Old Right should take Christie up on his challenge and sit across from families of 9-11 victims. They deserve to know the truth. They deserve to know the pursuit of empire and forging a new world order caused blowback resulting in the 9-11 attacks. They deserve to know war profiteers exploit this tragedy to continue to line their pockets full of cash.
 
I have no problem with fat people until they start imposing their bullshit on other people, then any "flaw" is fair game. Receding hairline? No problem! Unless you're a fascist bastard. Gay? Don't care about that either. Bad taste in clothes? Don't care--until you start passing laws that destroy families. Fish lips? Turtle necks? Bad cosmetic surgery?

I do not give a rat's ass, but when you start messing with other people, I will mock you first--and you should feel lucky that that's all I'm doing.

By the way, Bloomberg is a wrinkly old bastard. And there are plenty of wrinkly old folks who I like a lot.

So yes, the fat jokes are currently necessary. When they aren't...time's up.


you'll get much further if you attack his ideas rather than superficial traits like hair line and weight. It's akin to the MSM attacking Ron Paul's hand gestures and presentation rather than his ideas.
 
you'll get much further if you attack his ideas rather than superficial traits like hair line and weight. It's akin to the MSM attacking Ron Paul's hand gestures and presentation rather than his ideas.

They're jokes, OK?

Jokes.

They have no other "political" meaning other than to poke ribald fun at a fascist gasbag, which, honestly, is really the only treatment they all deserve, to be mocked and made fun of.

Jokes, man.

I'm an older crotchety fucker, and I swear I have a smaller stick up my ass about things than many people around here do.

Lighten up and laugh.

Otherwise you'll burn out to a crisp...trust me, I know.
 
Thomas Mullen: Libertarians to Chris Christie: Is life so dear, or peace so sweet?
http://communities.washingtontimes....arians-chris-christie-life-so-dear-or-peace-/

Yes, it is dangerous, but to what? It is dangerous to the bloated national security state, which tramples the liberty and dignity of every American under the pretense of protecting them from what Charles Kenny recently called the “vastly exaggerated” threat of terrorism.

Chris Christie shamelessly invoked the image of “widows and orphans” of 9/11 in an attempt to discredit any resistance to the federal government’s complete disregard for the Bill of Rights. He then echoed former NYC Mayor Rudy Guiliani in claiming some imagined authority on the matter because he is the governor of the state “that lost the second-most people on 9/11.”

Newsflash to Governor Christie: You have no more moral authority on this subject than the U.S. Congress had legislative authority to pass the Patriot Act.

Christie doesn’t understand that the power that legislators may exercise is limited to what was delegated to them in the Constitution. He seems to believe that power changes depending upon how he “feels.”

“I think what we as a country have to decide is: Do we have amnesia? Because I don’t,” he said. “And I remember what we felt like on Sept. 12, 2001.”

Ignoring the cheap tactic of trying to paint libertarians as “unfeeling” or not having sympathy for the victims of 9/11, there is a simple answer to Christie’s question.

“We as a country” decide questions like this through Article V of the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment forbids the federal government from running programs like the NSA’s. Only an amendment that revises or repeals it can change that.
Until then, the federal government does not have the power to do what it is currently doing, regardless of any terrorist attacks or how Christie feels about them.

Amash’s amendment should be unnecessary, but it is preferable at the moment to the remedy offered in the Declaration of Independence for a government that exercises power not given to it by the people.
[...]
The truth is that no security measures will ever be able to make Americans 100 percent safe from harm. There is absolutely nothing the U.S. government could do right now to prevent Russia or China from launching a nuclear attack on the United States. What makes one unlikely is the ability for the United States to retaliate and the lack of any good reason for either country to do so. The United States doesn’t routinely commit acts of war against Russia or China.

Perhaps that strategy might also be effective in preventing terrorism.

Regardless, the government can’t stop the next terrorist attack any more than it has stopped any previously. What it can do is continue to erode American liberty. This country is already unrecognizable as the same one that ratified the Bill of Rights. The Chris Christies and Michelle Bachmanns (she’s “one of them”) of this world are too busy cowering in fear to be concerned with “esoteric” subjects like the liberty and dignity of the individual.

Their opinions are not important. The people will decide whether a false sense of security is worth their liberty or not.

The first shot in this war has been fired. Amash lost the opening battle, but so did the colonists at Bunker Hill.

The real question that the American people will have to answer is this:

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
 
Thomas Mullen: Libertarians to Chris Christie: Is life so dear, or peace so sweet?
http://communities.washingtontimes....arians-chris-christie-life-so-dear-or-peace-/

Thought we won at Bunker Hill?
On June 17, 1775 the Battle of Bunker Hill took place. It is one of the most important colonial victories in the U.S. War for Independence. Fought during the Siege of Boston, it lent considerable encouragement to the revolutionary cause. This battle made both sides realize that this was not going to be a matter decided on by one quick and decisive battle. When the British planned to occupy Dorchester Heights on the Boston Peninsula, the colonists became alarmed at the build up of British troops off of the coast. The colonists decided that action had to be taken so as to stop the threatening British movement in this territory to protect themselves from an attack. The Battle of Bunker Hill started when the colonists learned about the British plan to occupy Dorchester Heights. The colonists were understandably shaken by this news. They thought of this as the last straw, and they had to protect their land and freedom.

[h=3]Synopsis:[/h] On June 15, 1775 the American colonists heard news that the British planned to control the Charlestown peninsula between the Charles and Mystic Rivers. Bunker's and Breed's Hill on this peninsula overlooked both Boston and its harbor, thus making the hills critical vantage points. In order to beat the British to the high ground, General Prescott took 1,200 of his often times undisciplined, disobedient, and sometimes intoxicated soldiers to dig into and fortify Bunker Hill with the cover of night on June 16.
When dawn broke, the British were stunned to see Breed's Hill fortified overnight with a 160-by-30-foot earthen structure. The British General, Gage, dispatched 2,300 troops under the command of Major General Howe to take control of the hill. So it came to be that General Prescott did not actually fortify Bunker's Hill, but Breed's Hill instead. How did this happen? One proposed idea is that Colonel William Prescott, since fortifying the hill in the middle of the night, chose the wrong hill. Another theory is that the map the Colonel used was incorrect, since many maps during this period had commonly misidentified the hills. Another suggestion, and probably the most practical, is that Breed's Hill is closer to where the British ships were positioned allowing the colonists a better attacking position than at Bunker Hill. Regardless of the reason, the Battle of Bunker Hill actually took place on Breed's Hill.
The fighting began as soon as the day did. As soon as the men on British frigate awoke they opened fire on the colonial fortifications. Carol McCabe states that one soldier wrote there would be firing for about twenty minutes, then a lull, then the ships would start firing again. At about 3:00 PM Thomas Gage, the British commander, ordered men to try and take control of the hill. It took Gage this long to issue a command due to a shortage of boats and an unfavorable tide. Peter Brown, an American soldier, would later write about this, “There was a matter of 40 barges full of Regulars coming over to us; it is supposed there were about 3,000 of them and about 700 of us left not deserted, besides 500 reinforcements. . . the enemy landed and fronted before us and formed themselves in an oblong square. . . and after they were well formed they advanced towards us, but they found a choakly [sic] mouthful of us.”
When the British forces were firmly established on the ground at the base of the hill they proceeded to charge. The British just expected to march up the hill and just scare the colonists away. The British Regulars advanced with bayonets fixed; many of their muskets were not even loaded. The British troops, wearing their bright red wool jackets and weighed down by heavy equipment, marched up hill over farm fields and low stone walls hidden in the tall grass.
As the colonists saw this massive red line approach slowly and steadily, they remained calm and did not open fire. The fact they waited so long to commence an attack was that General Prescott has been assumed to have given the famous order, "Don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes." If this command was given it would have been to either help preserve their already low ammunition supplies, and to help keep the men from shooting out of their capable ranges. Once the British came within range, the colonists began firing, and the British soldiers started to fall rapidly. The British forces were driven back twice, but on their third and final thrust forward the British were able to break through the colonists' line, overrunning the tentative American fortifications, thus taking the hill. The colonists had run out of ammunition and supplies. The colonists fled back up the peninsula since it was their only escape route. This battle, which lasted for approximately three hours, was one of the deadliest of the Revolutionary War.
Although the British technically won the battle because they took control of the hill, they suffered too many losses to fully benefit from it. The British had suffered more than one thousand casualties out of the 2,300 or so who fought. While the colonists only suffered 400 to 600 casualties from an estimated 2,500 to 4,000 men. Besides having fewer deaths than the British, the colonists believe they had won in other ways as well.

[h=3]Effects:[/h] The Americans had proved to themselves, and the rest of the world that they could stand up to the British army in traditional warfare. And only a few days later, George Washington would lead a group of men up to Dorchester Heights, aiming their cannons at the British, and then watched the Red Coats retreat from the hill. So even though the British had won the battle, it was a short lived victory since the colonists took control of the hill again, but this time with more soldiers to defend it. The Battle of Bunker Hill was important for a variety of reasons. The first one being that it was the first battle of the Revolutionary War, and because of the fierce fighting that defined the battle it foreshadowed that it was going to be a long, close war. Another important event that came from the battle was that it allowed the American troops to know that the British army was not invincible, and that they could defeat the British in traditional warfare. The losses experienced on the British side also helped to bolster the colonists confidence. So it came to be that the Battle of Bunker Hill would be the foundation that the colonists would look back to for the many battles that occurred during the American Revolution. The first being that the British suffered heavy losses and would no longer convinced of a victory when they went to battle the colonists.

I don't see the same caliber of people around me today.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top