….no, we don’t judge one person by comparing to others… We judge a person by their actions of the past to gather a consensus of future behavior (unless that person has a huge epiphany on the road to Damascus)!! PJ O’Rourke doesn’t outline Rubio’s politics, policies, opinions and potentials for leadership. So ….give me a non-PC insane libertarian any day of the week!
MamaLibertyDecember 14, 2015 6:43 am
The real problem, Lyn, is that anyone who wants to run for “public office” has already declared themselves willing to use force to impose their ideas and goals on everyone else – one way or another. Involuntary government politics are the exact opposite of “libertarian” principles, and therefore totally incompatible. How can there be any libertarian politicians?
The comparison of one politician to another is superficial at best, but compared to the history of “government” it is most enlightening to those with eyes to see. How do we know when they are lying? Their lips are moving…
None of the above… the only rational “vote” as far as I can see.
BobDecember 14, 2015 8:42 am
The problem that I see with “None of the above…” is that no vote is a vote for the winner. But then a vote (my vote) makes SOOO much difference… Oh well. Sigh…
MamaLibertyDecember 14, 2015 11:07 am
Why would that make any difference even if true, Bob? The “winner” in politics is the state, each and every time. The STATE, which presumes to own our lives and property, graciously allowing us (sometimes) to work harder so we can be plundered more and more. And none of them are even hinting at more freedom and less control, less robbery and murder this time. No, they all promise a lot more of the same.
JoelDecember 14, 2015 11:35 am
I’m not normally a religious man – or a voter – but Cthulhu is looking better and better to me.
BobDecember 14, 2015 1:41 pm
ML, sorry, I was talking about the winner among the group of wannabes, not the state. I probably was not clear in my comment.
Not voting is a vote for the winner. I think that IS true. And the reason it makes a difference? Some of them (the wannabes) are better choices than others. They are not all equally evil. All the options may be bad, but some are worse than others. The results for our lives will be different, depending on who “wins.”
The STATE. I share your view of the state. I do not however, think the answer is to withdraw from the game. To do so guarantees that one has no effect on the outcome.
Paul BonneauDecember 14, 2015 6:05 pm
Looks like the R establishment will win in the end. Which means Pres Hitlary. Not that I care…
“A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from a streetwalker.”
Paul BonneauDecember 15, 2015 12:37 pm
I finally got around to reading O’Rourke’s article (shame on me). I have to admit, that was pretty damn funny. Electoral politics is, after all, a form of entertainment, and PJ hit that one out of the park.
I suppose it was inevitable that someone here (Paul!) would quote Mencken: he’s always apposite. Let me add another voice to he mix, the redoubtable Frank Zappa: “Government is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex.”
….no, we don’t judge one person by comparing to others… We judge a person by their actions of the past to gather a consensus of future behavior (unless that person has a huge epiphany on the road to Damascus)!! PJ O’Rourke doesn’t outline Rubio’s politics, policies, opinions and potentials for leadership. So ….give me a non-PC insane libertarian any day of the week!
The real problem, Lyn, is that anyone who wants to run for “public office” has already declared themselves willing to use force to impose their ideas and goals on everyone else – one way or another. Involuntary government politics are the exact opposite of “libertarian” principles, and therefore totally incompatible. How can there be any libertarian politicians?
The comparison of one politician to another is superficial at best, but compared to the history of “government” it is most enlightening to those with eyes to see. How do we know when they are lying? Their lips are moving…
None of the above… the only rational “vote” as far as I can see.
The problem that I see with “None of the above…” is that no vote is a vote for the winner. But then a vote (my vote) makes SOOO much difference… Oh well. Sigh…
Why would that make any difference even if true, Bob? The “winner” in politics is the state, each and every time. The STATE, which presumes to own our lives and property, graciously allowing us (sometimes) to work harder so we can be plundered more and more. And none of them are even hinting at more freedom and less control, less robbery and murder this time. No, they all promise a lot more of the same.
I’m not normally a religious man – or a voter – but Cthulhu is looking better and better to me.
ML, sorry, I was talking about the winner among the group of wannabes, not the state. I probably was not clear in my comment.
Not voting is a vote for the winner. I think that IS true. And the reason it makes a difference? Some of them (the wannabes) are better choices than others. They are not all equally evil. All the options may be bad, but some are worse than others. The results for our lives will be different, depending on who “wins.”
The STATE. I share your view of the state. I do not however, think the answer is to withdraw from the game. To do so guarantees that one has no effect on the outcome.
Looks like the R establishment will win in the end. Which means Pres Hitlary. Not that I care…
http://www.infowars.com/how-the-republican-establishment-can-keep-donald-trump-from-getting-the-nomination/
I like Mencken’s observation:
“A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from a streetwalker.”
I finally got around to reading O’Rourke’s article (shame on me). I have to admit, that was pretty damn funny. Electoral politics is, after all, a form of entertainment, and PJ hit that one out of the park.
No matter who you vote for, the government always gets in. https://youtu.be/CjJLTslWp_Q
I suppose it was inevitable that someone here (Paul!) would quote Mencken: he’s always apposite. Let me add another voice to he mix, the redoubtable Frank Zappa: “Government is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex.”
Oh, Laird! That’s a gooooood song.