Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Why I'm Voting for Gary Johnson.

No comments:
As you know I'm no fan of Barack Obama or Mitt Romney nor am I a fan of Paul Ryan or Joe Biden. Romney says things in stark contrast of Obama but his record tells a story similar to Obama.  The only person out of the four who's any different is Paul Ryan who talks the talk of free markets and tries to submit budgets which largely are a step in the right direction, he knows they won't pass and still promotes things like TARP and Economic Stimulus. 

For me, it matters very little if Obama or Romney win the election alone because I don't think they will do much differently except for 2 important aspects that cancel each other out.

If Obama gets elected, Republicans will still take Congress and Senate seats. If this is done, there will be gridlock and we'll see the same situation we saw in the 90's with Clinton and the Republicans. Clinton and the Republicans had no choice but to work with each other and the legislative process was throttled. Which is a good thing.

If Romney wins we'll have a situation like we had in the 00's where the Congress and the Senate will pass bills like crazy and the White House will rubber stamp everything. However, the plus side is Romney may play the same cards Obama plays, but his rhetoric will end the Great Depression style 'regime uncertainty' Obama is so good at. That is to say, Romney's rhetoric will be less volatile and hostile to entrepreneurs who are fearful of new regulations, taxes, and monetary policy that might make their investments in new capital and labor more risky.

Now if I had to chose, I'd go for the Obama/Republican option because it's probably best overall, but neither is significant enough for me to give a shit. For those who make the erroneous claim "Well the Republicans in Clinton's day are different than today's Tea Party Republicans." OK, but then you'd also have to ignore in the 8 year long process of trying to get Clinton impeached from Whitewater to Lewinsky.

In my state of Nevada, we're in a swing state. A few votes can toss the electoral votes either way so my vote technically matters but I don't care. I'm going to play strategically because unless Barack Obama comes out with a video of him killing babies or something, he's probably going to with with or without Nevada so I'm voting for Gary Johnson.

Now do I think Gary Johnson has a shot? Not really, not even one fit for hell. However this vote will make an important message to the Republicans if Romney loses by a small margin. If Johnson's vote can be seen to tip the scales as a spoiler the Republican party will have to come to terms with the fact that if it wants to win elections, they can't be a hardline religious right tent anymore. They'd need to appeal to social liberals, libertarians and the log cabin. I've been vocal in my non-support for Ron Paul because of his questionable actions with the paleo-conservative strategy with Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard (i.e. his racist newsletters), but I agree with Ron more than not and what happened to him in the Convention and in states like Maine were totally uncalled for and totally underhanded. The fervor of the religious right and the moral majorists is withering away with the new generation of young conservatives who tent to be more fiscally conservative and more socially liberal.

If your idea of having another Barry Goldwater era of the Republican party, it's time to register Republican and vote Johnson. In the end, Republicans will have to accept that the age of Falwell is nearing it's conclusion and, like evolution, it's time to adapt or go extinct.

...or you can be a pussy and vote for the lesser of two evils and pretend it mattered. 

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

ForcedThoughtBlog Retard. (The most politically incorrect blog post I've ever made!)

No comments:
For those who haven't been following the latest Minituth announcements over at FreeThoughtBlogs. Apparently it's perfectly OK to take things out of context, re-word and even totally fabricate your opponent's words to show how evil they are. Why be honest and face your criticism when you can just call them a stupid racist misogynistic libertarian and lie to prove it and call it a day? Of course the lie is pretty clear to anyone who even bothers to look up the discussion which is freely available.

However one of the commenters, Rodney Nelson, struck me as especially retarded. I use the word retarded because I know it will enrage the uber-PB speech Nazis over at FreeThoughtBlogs. It makes them so angry I will repeat this word many times over the course of this blog. I hope I do offend you because you do not deserve to feel comfortable because you guys are lying authoritarian shitbags because not a one of you denounced this lie. Oh, I should of put a trigger warning before this shouldn't I? Oh well

TRIGGER WARNING: I used the word retard and that might trigger some people with a perpetual victimhood complex to be emo-fucktards. More use of the word 'retard' to come. 

So on with the retarded comments:

You can always tell who the libertarians are. They’re the center of the universe, can never do anything wrong, and everyone else should just admire them for their sheer awesomeness.

This is coming from a group who says any atheist who disagrees with them should start an "Atheist Assholes" group and says they're all a bunch of privileged sexist jerks. Fuck you. It's not libertarians who are guilty of this, it's virtually every political group. It's not the ideology, it's the few pretentious assholes who are in it. Atheism+ just happens to be a purely pretentious group.

Now on with his retarded masterpiece.
Let’s take a look at the preamble to the Libertarian Party platform which was given as “proof” that libertarians aren’t selfish assholes:
  • We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
What does “sole dominion” mean? Is it “you can’t tell me what to do”? All kinds of people tell us what to do, starting with our parents, teachers, baby sitters, and elder siblings. I spent two years in the Army where people were telling me what to do. My bosses at work tell me what to do. My doctor tells me what to do. When I buy a pair of shoes the sales associate tells me what to do.
Freedom isn’t always a good thing. The freedom to starve is not good when you’re the one starving. But even if we accept that freedom is generally good, it’s not the only good thing. Physical security, which even prisoners can have, is good. The love of a family is good, yet families are one of the least free groupings we know. The emotional ties of families, imposed upon us by other family members, cannot be discarded with ease.
I’ve seen libertarians explain this away by claiming that choices or the freedom to choose are what make something good. I know in my life I’ve made choices that were not good. Also as I said above, often choices are made for me. Why is my bosses’ choices good for them but not good for me?
The reduction of everything to choices presupposes all choices made will be optimal. If one is making a choice without complete knowledge of the possibilities, then the likelihood of making the best choice erodes. It is impossible for anyone to be knowledgeable about everything required to make life’s everyday choices.
Plus individuals must abide by choices made for the good of society. I cannot set myself up as a physician without passing a medical exam to show I’m minimally competent. Many other professions have similar qualifications to keep the incompetent from preying on the rest of us. Yet only the truly hardcore libertarians object to proficiency examinations, the rest of us want professionals to be qualified to do their jobs.
Quite often the price of greater freedom tomorrow is less freedom today. Total freedom today would just run down accumulated social capital and ignoring future problems. So the choice for freedom is the necessarily the right one on any particular question.
Furthermore, if limiting freedom today may enhance it tomorrow, then limiting freedom tomorrow may enhance it the day after and so on, so the right amount of freedom may in fact be limited freedom in perpetuity. But if limited freedom is the right choice, then libertarianism, which makes freedom an absolute, is wrong.
Libertarianism’s absolutist view of freedom leads to ludicrous outcomes. For instance, libertarianism would have to allow one to sell oneself into slavery. (It has been possible in certain societies to do that by assuming unrepayable debt.)
Most people don’t actually want absolute freedom, which is why democracies don’t elect libertarian governments. Thus people don’t choose absolute freedom. This refutes libertarianism by its own premise, as it defines the good as the freely chosen, yet people do not choose it. So people exercise their freedom not to be libertarians.

Let's dig in!

1. The Libertarian Party is not representative of Libertarians in the Libertarian Party as a whole like the Democratic Party Platform isn't representative of the Democratic Party as a whole. On top of that; not every libertarian (in fact most libertarians I would argue) is a member or supportive of the Libertarian Party just like not every liberal is a Democrat. It's a stupid position to hold and it shows how stupid you are about, not just politics, but party politics in general. You are a retard.

2. He asks what "sole dominion" means then asks if it means "No one tells me what to do" then attacks that assumption. It is not. Libertarians don't mind being told what to do, so long as it's in a voluntary agreement. A boss tells me what to do because I agreed to join his labor force and be told what to do for pay. Same with the Army; you signed a contract saying the Army can regulate your behavior. And, no you fucking idiot, a sales associate doesn't tell you what to do. You're a fucking retard for thinking you don't have a choice in a voluntary sale. Retard, retard, retard.

3. Sole dominion means what it obviously means. Since you are retarded I will spell it out for you: You own yourself and you should do with yourself as you please provided it does not interfere with others or their property without their consent. I can swing my arms any way I want but that right stops at your nose no matter how much I want to yank out your retarded hipster nose ring.

4. Freedom is always a good thing. Always, including the freedom to starve. I would rather starve then to have some self important bureaucratic asshole or politician shove food down my throat. Also I don't see libertarians run around demanding the freedom to starve, they do demand the freedom to eat what they want which you probably want banned because "It's so bad for you!" Who gives a fuck?

5. " Physical security, which even prisoners can have, is good. The love of a family is good, yet families are one of the least free groupings we know. The emotional ties of families, imposed upon us by other family members, cannot be discarded with ease." Are you done with the irrelevant tangents, retard? This has to do with "freedom" how exactly? Retard.

6. "I’ve seen libertarians explain this away by claiming that choices or the freedom to choose are what make something good" This is retarded. The freedom to choose is always good, but no one says that all the choices you make will be good. Only a retard like you would think something this stupid. I will fight for your right to choose to put that fork in the toaster, and in your case I would encourage you to do it, but that doesn't mean it's a good choice.

7. It never assumed that ALL choices made will be optimal if we all have freedom to choose. We fully accept that you are too stupid to make optimal choices, the thing is you get to make those choices for yourself, only you will suffer the consequences and possibly learn from them. I doubt you will learn seeing that you're retarded, but at least you won't make bad choices for all of society which is what you advocate. I'll make my own poor decisions for me, I don't need your help. Also, you're retarded.

8. Actually, you can call yourself a doctor without any training. However, no one will rust a retard like you without creditably, Dr. Shithead phD in douchery.

9. "Quite often the price of greater freedom tomorrow is less freedom today." Please stick a fork in the toaster. Please, so we don't have to hear anymore of this retarded doublespeak. "Herpaderpderp we need less freedom so we can have more freedom but absolute freedom is less freedom. Freedom is slavery!" If mental gymnastics were an Olympic sport, we'd need to invent a platinum medal just for you, retard.

10. "For instance, libertarianism would have to allow one to sell oneself into slavery." This is probably one of the most sensible things he's said so far, but that's really sad. There's been some debate in libertarian circles about the specifics but there's one thing we can all agree on; if you are volunteering to be a slave, you can't be a slave. Slavery, by definition is conscription which is involuntary. You signed up for the military which is just what you're saying people could do under libertarianism so no, even in your world this is possible and agreeable to you. You fucking idiot.

11. "Most people don’t actually want absolute freedom, which is why democracies don’t elect libertarian governments." Argument ad-populum. Most people are religious, so much for atheism right? God, you're a retard.

12.  "(It has been possible in certain societies to do that by assuming unrepayable debt.) " Yea, like how government are run in most non-libertarian countries. Derp.

13. This is the most important point of all. Let's say you're absolutely right. Libertarianism is stupid and intellectually as bankrupt as say... you. This doesn't mean it's OK to lie about what one of them says to get the upper hand in a debate. But this is my favorite quote of all:

"Goddamnit, I really hate black people and jews more than I do libertarians" - Rodney Nelson

I know it's a fake quote, but you're stupid moonbat so it's OK for me to do. Fucking - retard - asshole. 

Monday, September 10, 2012

A few things I found in SCUM Manifesto...

No comments:
Do you remember Valerie Solanas? The crazy radical feminist who wanted to kill all men and later shot Andy Warhol? Well she wrote a feminist manifesto (that most feminist do not adhere to) where she wrote about how men were incomplete women and need to be slaughtered. I scanned over some of it this morning and found some... "familiar topics" shall we say?

Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex.
Money, Marriage and Prostitution, Work and Prevention of an Automated Society: There is no human reason for money or for anyone to work more than two or three hours a week at the very most. All non-creative jobs (practically all jobs now being done) could have been automated long ago, and in a moneyless society everyone can have as much of the best of everything as she wants. But there are non-human, male reasons for wanting to maintain the money system:

1. Pussy. Despising his highly inadequate self, overcome with intense anxiety and a deep, profound loneliness when by his empty self, desperate to attach himself to any female in dim hopes of completing himself, in the mystical belief that by touching gold he'll turn to gold, the male craves the continuous companionship of women. The company of the lowest female is preferable to his own or that of other men, who serve only to remind him of his repulsiveness. But females, unless very young or very sick, must be coerced or bribed into male company.

2. Supply the non-relating male with the delusion of usefulness, and enable him to try to justify his existence by digging holes and then filling them up. Leisure time horrifies the male, who will have nothing to do but contemplate his grotesque self. Unable to relate or to love, the male must work. Females crave absorbing, emotionally satisfying, meaningful activity, but lacking the opportunity or ability for this, they prefer to idle and waste away their time in ways of their own choosing -- sleeping, shopping, bowling, shooting pool, playing cards and other games, breeding, reading, walking around, daydreaming, eating, playing with themselves, popping pills, going to the movies, getting analyzed, traveling, raising dogs and cats, lolling about on the beach, swimming, watching TV, listening to music, decorating their houses, gardening, sewing, nightclubbing, dancing, visiting, `improving their minds' (taking courses), and absorbing `culture' (lectures, plays, concerts, `arty' movies). Therefore, many females would, even assuming complete economic equality between the sexes, prefer living with males or peddling their asses on the street, thus having most of their time for themselves, to spending many hours of their days doing boring, stultifying, non-creative work for someone else, functioning as less than animals, as machines, or, at best -- if able to get a `good' job -- co-managing the shitpile. What will liberate women, therefore, from male control is the total elimination of the money-work system, not the attainment of economic equality with men within it.

3. Power and control. Unmasterful in his personal relations with women, the male attains to masterfulness by the manipulation of money and everything controlled by money, in other words, of everything and everybody.

4. Love substitute. Unable to give love or affection, the male gives money. It makes him feel motherly. The mother gives milk; he gives bread. He is the Breadwinner.

5. Provide the male with a goal. Incapable of enjoying the moment, the male needs something to look forward to, and money provides him with an eternal, never-ending goal: Just think of what you could do with 80 trillion dollars -- invest it! And in three years time you'd have 300 trillion dollars!!!

6. Provide the basis for the male's major opportunity to control and manipulate -- fatherhood.

 A completely automated society can be accomplished very simply and quickly once there is a public demand for it. The blueprints for it are already in existence, and it's construction will take only a few weeks with millions of people working on it. Even though off the money system, everyone will be most happy to pitch in and get the automated society built; it will mark the beginning of a fantastic new era, and there will be a celebration atmosphere accompanying the construction. 

Monday, September 3, 2012

Shit Dead People Didn't Say Vol. 2 (The Jeffersonian Edition)

1 comment:
There's a lot of bullshit quotes attributed to Jefferson and I think a volume should be dedicated to him alone.

 "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."
The earliest source there is for this quote dates to 2004. In none of his writings or speeches was this ever included or referred to by secondary sources until the 21st century.

"That government is best which governs least"
While Jefferson did say things similar to this, this is not a quote of his. It's a quote from Henry David Thoreau from his book Civil Disobedience.

 "Some of my finest hours have been spent on my back veranda, smoking hemp and observing as far as my eye can see."

Again this quotation isn't in any of his primary or secondary writings nor is there any evidence that he smoked anything, let alone hemp.

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
 This quote is also attributed to Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine but there's no evidence that this is a quote from Jefferson and wasn't attributed to him until 1994.

Thanks to the Skeptical Libertarian for the inspiration for this post and to the Monticello for doing the footwork for this. To see more of the laundry list of fake Jefferson quotes check out the Monticello page here.

Saturday, September 1, 2012

FTB is Full of Shit About A+

So a common theme I got on Twitter from the A+ Zombies yesterday after PZ Myers responded to me was typical of shit I would hear from wingnuts during the lead up to the Iraq War. I equate comments like "WELL IF YOU OPPOSE A+ THEN YOU'RE A SEXIST" to "IF YOU OPPOSE THE IRAQ WAR YOU HATE AMERICA AND SUPPORT THE TERRORISTS." Rightfully so, I called them the Bill O'Reilly of atheism.

So I was wondering, why this response was so predominant with the arguments supporters make to critics.  So I scanned the Atheist+ FAQ and found this.

4. You specifically want to exclude people, so you’re a hatemonger!
You can’t be inclusive to everyone. If you include misogynists, you exclude women – etc, etc. I choose to exclude the assholes. Read Greta’s post on the subject.
So reading though Greta's blog post, she makes the claim that A+ isn't exclusive or divisive because if you're sexist women will leave, if you're racist racial minorities will leave, bigoted against mental illness, transphobic..etc.

Well here's the problem; It's a load of shit just like everything else A+ supporters say about it. Now the FAQ is what people are using here and just using it as gospel. "PEOPLE WHO DON'T SUPPORT A+ WANT WOMEN TO BE CHAINED TO THE OVEN WITH JUST ENOUGH SLACK TO REACH THE BEDROOM! SO IF ANYONE OPPOSES IT, CALL THEM OUT FOR THE SEXIST THEY ARE!" Problem is, A+ isn't just about feminism and even if it were it doesn't mean if you don't support the radical feminist platform (like so many FTB do) that doesn't mean you're sexist. It just means they do not agree. ...and that's OK.

 The Gretta post is just as disingenuous because racism, sexism, transphobia, xenophobia, ...etc are not the only stances of A+. A+ is also for "social justice" which is based on economic egalitarianism and wealth redistribution which is the real issue here. Now most of the people I have read comments from or made videos against A+, except for CobraJones and myself, have been on the left of embraced the concepts of social justice. Now here's the important part Gretta and the FTB Thought Police are purposely leaving out; they oppose it being linked to atheism because it's unrelated and excludes conservatives, moderates and libertarians who are necessary to form coalitions.

Another lie of A+ is that they aren't purging people, but rather just ignoring them until they go away until everyone can hold hands and sing Kumbayah. This is a lie. Richard Carrier says explicitly that he wants ostracize them out of The Atheist Community and then compares them to Nazis and the KKK. Later he tried to backtrack by saying:

For example, PZ Myers takes a more hardline stance against Libertarians and equates Atheism+ with explicitly progressive politics, but though I agree he is probably right (IMO, Libertarianism, on any full and proper analysis, doesn’t hold up as sound, and won’t work to solve most of the actual problems we face), I do not agree that it is any defining characteristic of Atheism+ (which is why, when I wrote an elaborate post about what Atheism+ was, this criterion was nowhere to be seen).
I know many Libertarians who are only Libertarians as an excuse to rationalize the fact that they are assholes and don’t give a shit about other people. But I also know many Libertarians who actually do care about social justice issues, and admit problems exist in that domain, and actually have passionate ideas about how to solve them. They might be wrong (sometimes they are even right), but the defining characteristic here is that they care and acknowledge that we should care, about solving those problems. And they will engage in reasonable and honest debate about how to solve them, without hypocrisy. They just have different ideas about what solutions will work.
Thus, those Libertarians are on board with the core values of Atheism+. They are with us–even though they disagree with PZ and I (often radically) on many matters of how to go about solving the problems of injustice and unfairness in society. So this is the defining feature: Do you give a shit about other people, or not? Do you believe something should be done about injustice and unfairness in society (and in talking reasonably about what should be done), or not? If not, then you are an asshole. And you are definitely thumbing-down Atheism+. We are done with you. You are not one of us. You can go start your own clubs and have your own conferences.

So not only is he admitting that A+ is about progressive politics outright and PZ thinks so, he agrees he's probably right. Secondly; he's right that libertarians do care about "social justice" because they explicitly do not support economic egalitarianism or wealth redistribution. That's kind of the point of being a libertarian. So if you want to find this magical unicorn that is an egalitarian libertarian, by my guest. I do think you'll have a better time finding the unicorn first. Now before I receive a torrent of left-libertarians trying to show me I'm wrong, save it. Carrier is talking about right libertarians and that's what I'm responding to. Even then he's leaving out moderates and conservatives which are important. Thought you may not agree with all of them; they are necessary to form collections to fight against things atheists do care about like getting 'God' off money and the pledge.

Lastly, they claim that this isn't about atheism, it's about creating a safe haven for atheists who feel this way. This is a lie. This is "third wave of atheism,"

So please, before you think the reasons why I don't support A+ is because I won't buy a girl a watch for there's a clock on every oven; please take a step back and pull your emotions out of it. I'm not a misogynist. I am not a rapist. I am not a racist. I'm not xenophobic. I am not transphobic. I am not homophobic. I don't care what your political views are. I don't care about any of that stuff in my opposition. The problem I have is these issues, mostly political, are being linked to Atheism itself. The point is to expand the tent, not shrink it.