kraychik

It's an op-ed. I think it's you who doesn't know what an op-ed is. I skimmed through it, it's nothing I don't already understand in much greater detail. Well, classical liberalism is a few centuries before Rothbard's time. More importantly, show me in your own words where he associated libertarianism with the left, and, more importantly, how this supports the false claim that libertarianism's roots are with the left? Again, only if one doesn't understand the left can one actually believe that these opposing ideologies are reconcilable, let alone one being the progenitor of the other.

Actually, no. I make coherent arguments, and you point to political op-eds as "proof" that left-wing libertarianism isn't a contradiction in terms. It's not a strawman, it's an illustration of your absurd premise that a Wikipedia article is somehow evidence of "left-wing libertarianism" not being a non-sequitur. Here is it, again, for your enjoyment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism No, you're manufactuing a political history that you know nothing about. Get back to me when you've read the Cliff's notes on Locke and Montesque. You're so out of your league and I think you know it. Leftism is contrary to the values of libertarianism, which I've already explained is simply a rebranding of classical liberalism. Sort of how communists renamed themselves to socialists, then to left-wingers, got away with actually naming themselves liberals (when they are entirely anti-liberty), and now are progressives. This is a history of rebranding with the left. So you're like bleeding heart, you also don't understand the values of the left and the right. Considering that the right is about the individual and the left is about the collective, libertarianism is by definition a right wing ideology. Classical liberalism is essentially the polar right end of the left/right spectrum. Sorry to burst your bubble. The left has never been about increasing the sovereignty of the individual, although you tell yourself that in order to perpetuate self-delusion. By definition the left opposes individual sovereignty in favour of greater governmental control. The left and the right directly translates to statism vs. individualism.

Actually, Hamas and other "Palestinian" and Arab groups intentionally use so-called civilians as human shields. Even worse, more often than not the so-called civilians voluntarily offer their services as human shields to dissuade Israel from striking a target. I remember hearing some stories from folks about how Israel had done its usual round of pre-strike warning, sending out mass text messages, leaflets from the air, radio and bullhorn announcements, in order to advise presumed civilians from evacuating an area targeted for destruction. What did many of these so-called civilians actually do? Well, they all gathered on the rooftop of course, playing a game of chicken. Israel, acquiescing as it often does to "international pressure", chose not to strike the target. This is a bind Israel always finds itself in, where it compromises the likelihood of securing its military objectives in order to reduce the likelihood of harm befalling presumed civilians. Giving out advance notice of a pending strike is not how you win a war, but this is a product of how modern warfare is prosecuted by free nations with leftist influence. America and Canada did the exact same thing in Afghanistan, with RoE that extend an advantage to the terrorists. And why? In order to appease the usual suspects from the left who masquerade as "human rights activists".

What? He said he was "cut"? I don't understand.

Why don't you tell us more about post-1967 settlements (do you now know what a settlement is in the context of Israel?) were at the root of the Jewish-Arab conflict that begun in the late 19th century? I'd love to hear it.

You're confusing parties with ideologies. While there is overlap between, say, the Republican party and conservatism, they are not one-in-the-same. You're an Alex Jones type of guy, right? You're perfect for this forum, fitting right in with bleeding heart and and BubberMiley.

You realise that BubberMiley is also a chew toy for me, right?

Those are your words, not mine. The original stupidity came in the form of a claim from our esteemed socialist bleeding heart, who claimed that libertarianism is a product of the left. Put another way, he claimed that libertarianism has its ideological roots in the left. Of course, one must not understand what the left is in order to say such a thing. Libertarianism is simply a modern rebranding of classical liberalism, which overlaps greatly with contemporary conservatism in the American and Canadian contexts. "Left-wing libertarianism" is a contradiction in terms, and one must not understand the left in order to believe that increasing/preserving social liberties (same-sex marriage doesn't belong in this category, by the way) is a leftist pursuit. It is not. So an op-ed filled with contradictions and false premises somehow changes anything I've said? I'm well aware of the limitations of the left/right paradigm, and I know that people are more complex than these simplistic labels and can have varying opinions on various issues; a conservative opinion on one issue and a leftist opinion on another. I know that Ron Paul and his devout followers subscribe to certain narratives that are associated with leftism. That doesn't means that libertarianism is left-wing, though. And it certainly doesn't mean that libertarianism is an offshoot of leftism. Are you now going to provide me with an article outlining free market communism and tell me that it isn't a contradiction in terms because there's a published article out there on the internet somewhere trying to reconcile the irreconcilable?

This is the inevitable consequence of governmental direction of the economy. Massive inefficiencies and corruption. As Romney said, Obama isn't just picking winners.... he's picking losers. This is faux venture capitalism with taxpayer money (mostly borrowed), often going to Obama supporters and bundlers (unions, "green energy" firms, etc). EDIT - Perfect example of what we're talking about: STIMULUS-FUNDED WORKERS PAID TO PLAY CARDS

Well, it's certainly not over, it's gonna be a close race. But the media palace guards are circling the wagon and doing everything they can to shield Obama from his endless failures and gaffes. Remember, they need to preserve the facade that he is a "deep thinker" with a "curious mind" (Brokaw's own words), and a great speaker. Nevermind the fact Obama stated that lower gasoline prices during Bush's presidency were a function of "the economy being on the verge of collapse". Oh yeah, Biden also stated yesterday that American forces were active in Iraq and Iran (he kinda got Iran confused with Afghanistan), but of course, the narrative is that Sarah Palin in inept while Biden has "foreign policy credentials".

Honestly bleeding heart, you are low-hanging fruit for me and it's just me being a bully by using you as a chew toy. It's nothing personal, I'm sure you're a nice person and all, but you really need to educate yourself about some basics when it comes to politics. Once that happens, you won't be using non-sequiturs like leftist libertarianism, or pretending that libertarianism has its origins in the left. Put down the Chomsky and get the Cliff's Notes on Locke or Montesque.

Perhaps this is sort of your saving grace, because you can be forgiven for your absurd political commentary because of your massive political ignorance. If you were actually knowledgeable, perhaps we'd have to suspect nefarious motives. In a way, this political ignorance explains a lot of what we get from both you and fellow socialist BubberMiley.

Exactly, a Wikipedia entry. Case closed.

You keep proving my point, statism IS leftism. The right pole of the political spectrum is inherently anti-state, or conversely, ultra-individualistic. Again, this is elementary. All you do is put on display that a grasp of the most basic political terms is outside of your understanding. This is why you regularly throw these terms around in nonsensical and contradictory statements. Although I'm not big on recommending that people use universities as their primary sources of political education, you certainly do prove that in many cases you get what you pay for. Case in point, a Wikipedia political education from you. I found more nonsense for you to continue with your internet (mis)education, free market communism! Enjoy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

So this is where you got your political (mis)education? Hahahaha! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Like I said... baby steps. We'll talk about what constitutes "serious disarmament" when you learn the difference between the political right and the political left. Once we do that, we can move along to nonsensical contradictions like left-wing libertarians and free market communists.

Apologies in advance, I just cannot let you get away with the monumental stupidity and political ignorance from someone who puts on a facade of actually being familiar with basic political concepts. Most people grasp these terms before they even take their first "Introduction to Political Science" course (which you've obviously never done, not that that is essentially a bad thing...). But here you are, a patron of a political board, and you literally don't even know what the terms 'left' and 'right' mean in political discourse. I'm being completely sincere when I say I've never met anyone this political ignorant in such an environment. This is a new low (or high, from an entertainment perspective).

Of course, originally a leftist ideological movement. Because libertarianism has its roots in statism (another term you demonstrated not to understand). You what libertarianism used to be called before folks like you discovered the internet? Classical liberalism. I suppose classical liberalism was also originally a leftist movement?

More appeasement, he's continuing the philosophy of his undergraduate days: UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT NOW!

Not sure how many of you folks caught this (virtually all leftists on this board clearly do not follow the news), but Obama recently described the terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate and the murder of four Americans as "not optimal" while doing a hard-hitting interview with the brilliant Jon Stewart. The mother of Christopher Stevens has responded to this callous description of the murder of her son: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/slain-libya-diplomats-mother-my-son-is-not-very-optimal-%E2%80%93-he-is-also-very-dead/ “My son is not very optimal,” Smith told the Daily Mail. “He is also very dead." Here was a pretty emotional and brief interview she did with Anderson Cooper, diplomatically chastising the lies she's been fed from Obama and his administration about the circumstances that led to the murder of her son. http://on.aol.com/video/mother-of-slain-official-demands-answers-from-obama-517504454 This is, of course, a pattern of detachment from Obama. We saw the same absurd non-reaction to the mass murder at Fort Hood, where it took him a few minutes of giving "shout outs" to irrelevant Native Americans before actually acknowledging what had happened. He heaps more outrage at a YouTube video he falsely blames for the terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate than he does on the actual terrorism itself.

So did you figure out the difference between right and left yet, as it relates to political discussion? Baby steps.... then you can pretend to be familiar with American political history and try to reinforce your imagined biography of being a former-conservative-turned-socialist.

What Pliny means is Obama's apologies for the cornerstone of American society: the first amendment. The initial response to the terrorist attack on the consulate in Benghazi, which persevered for a little over two weeks until even the leftists in the media couldn't keep it afloat, was to blame the attack on a YouTube film trailer. Pliny's also talking about the political targeting of the producer of the film "Innocence of Muslims" in order to provide a sacrificial lamb to appease the angry Islamists who reject the cornerstone of civilisation: freedom of speech and expression. I also think Pliny is talking about the political decision made by Obama to maintain a "low profile" (Obama's own words) in Libya in order not to anger the "peaceful Muslims" that are driven into a bloody rage at the mere sight of Americans the decision at the core of the vulnerability of the consulate in Benghazi. Pliny's also talking about Martin Dempsey calling irrelevant nobodies like Terry Jones to beg him not to burn a Quran, another acquiescence to Islamist rejection of basic freedom. Pliny is probably also thinking about the desire of Eric Holder to prosecute 9/11 Khaled Sheikh Muhamad in civilian court in NYC, as if somehow an enemy combatant is entitled to full constitutional guarantees of due process, combined with Obama's continuing support for closure of the Guantanamo Bay holding facility. Maybe Pliny's also thinking about the Obama administration cleansing of the political lexicon, which has demonstrated since day one an inability to ever use the the I-word or M-word in association with anything negative, such as extremism, fundamentalism, or terrorism. Pliny's might also be thinking about TSA protocols screening wheelchair-bound seniors and inspecting colostomy bags in order not to make the usual suspects upset, lest they believe that they are being unjustifiably profiled and file suit against the federal government with the ACLU. Maybe Pliny's going all the way back to Obama's first foreign policy delivery at the American University of Cairo, where he began what was aptly described as the apology tour - extending undeserved praise to the "Muslim world" for its perceived accomplishments, denigrating America's history in the region, and undermining the legitimacy of Israel. Should I continue, or is that enough? Obama's policy of appeasement and weakness, which is of course the greatest provocation for conflict and war, is not a secret. Of course, some socialists like to parrot the Democratic Party's talking points, assisted by the media palace guards or course, of Obama being tough when it comes to American security.

Yeah, because RCP's outlook on the electoral college actually takes in account the electoral votes assigned to the states and the aggregate of the most recent polls in those states. Why actually talk about the electoral college when you can use an arbitrary and largely irrelevant regional distribution to spin in favour of your false narrative of Obama's inevitable reelection?

One of the lighter moments during the campaign season. Obama's got some good jokes, so does Romney. https://www.youtube....h?v=NIHbe-aO6oI

Why are you bringing it up in a discussion which is explicitly about the electoral college? Answer - You don't understand the electoral college and ignored the RCP link that Shady provided.