Why did that nice girl Emma get banned?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Radar

He was a registered Libertarian and called himself a libertarian......he changed his registration and party affiliation in May of 2003.

No where in your link did it say that. He merely quoted Milton Friedman. It did state this:

My disillusionment with the GOP caused me to register as "Decline to State," which, in California, means independent.

[Radar]

Merc, Larry Elder described himself as a libertarian for years. He didn't say he was a member of the party, but he was a registered libertarian until 2003.

http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrit...rry-elder.html

http://newsbusters.org/node/12015

http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Larry-Elder

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-18540904.html

http://www.creators.com/opinion/larr...greenspan.html


Notice how all of these say he describes himself as a libertarian. I guess everyone is lying right? It's a huge conspiracy to make everyone think Larry Elder calls himself, or at least used to call himself a libertarian. The good news is more and more radio talk shows are finding themselves without a venue as radio stations are closing them down. The good news is Larry Elder isn't on the radio anymore and Lou Dobbs isn't on television, and things aren't looking good for Glenn Beck since a lot of his sponsors dropped him. But unfortunately the bad news is good talk radio like Adam Carolla, and Tom Leykis are off the air too.

[TheMercenary]

I was only commenting on the one article you posted.

[Radar]

I'd get you a clip of him saying it, but his show isn't on anymore so I don't really know where I could find one.

[Undertoad]

You can hear a good hour a day of Adam Carolla with the Adam Carolla podcast.

[Radar]

I already listen to that podcast every day. It's shorter, but even more entertaining than his radio show was. I was actually listening to it when I read your post. Good call UT.

If you want to hear a couple of other REALLY interesting and entertaining podcasts with high quality production, I highly recommend you check out Dan Carlin.

HARDCORE HISTORY - This is a really great show about different periods in history and he goes into great detail about how people must have felt, and it does a great job of putting things in accurate historical context.


COMMON SENSE - This is a politics show where he talks about current events and his views on the roots of problems and common sense solutions. He doesn't claim to be libertarian, but he is very libertarian leaning.


Of the two, the history show has really high production value and is probably more entertaining, but there are fewer shows because it takes longer to make the shows.

[BrianR]

Originally Posted by classicman

I guess "shim" would be out then - eh?

Yes, I'm afraid so. You no-good, ugly,.....awww a cuuuuuttte dawgie!



Brian

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Radar

Don't say he's a libertarian. We libertarians don't want him either, just like we don't want other psychotic people who lie about being libertarians, like UG.

We all know which of us is the psychotic, Radar, and I enter the bulk of your recent posts to me as evidence of a disordered mind. I enter all of my recent posts replying to you as evidence of a well-ordered one. The verdict's on my side, amigo.

Being hostile to conflict with and subsequent impairment of totalitarian or autocratic or less-than-democratic regimes is NOT a libertarian-type idea, but an immoral pro-totalitarian one -- and what libertarian would be pro-totalitarian? This fundamental truth you avoid, Radar, but I do not. This is because I'm your moral superior, after all. My mind isn't all clabbered up with worshiping my Self.

So: I do not lie about being a small-L libertarian, such as Larry Elder has repeatedly described himself, and you always lie about whether I am one, being the narcissistic belittler you are, and a villain thereby, with no libertarian instinct anywhere in you. Larry's thinking has had some influence on mine; Radar's thinking never has. He can't back any of his arguments or assertions and then is dumb enough to think we don't figure out he's trying to win by bullying. No, Radar, you shall ever lose, because you lack even the smallest of people skills -- if you had them, surely you'd turn on the charm.

But charming is not a word anyone would apply to Radar. Probably not to [] either.

[Undertoad]

Radar has recently requested removal of his real name from several high-scoring Google posts as he is seeking employment in IT. I have edited UG's post to remove the name.

[Radar]

Another feeble attempt to suggest that starting unprovoked wars against other nations who haven't embraced democracy is somehow not a violation of the core libertarian philosophy...the non-aggression principle.

Choosing to oppose your desire to misuse the military in violation of our Constitution and in violation of the libertarian principles of our founders is not the support of totalitarianism. To attack these nations for no other reason that the fact that their government is not a democratic one is a gross violation of the Constitution and of libertarian beliefs. One cannot support this kind of action and be a libertarian at the same time any more than one can eat rare steak and be a vegetarian at the same time. For that mater one cannot be a decent American citizen or uphold the oath taken by anyone in the military and support that kind of action either.

If a foreign government is a totalitarian one, and I don't support sending our military to start unprovoked violence against them, it does nothing to indicate any support of the totalitarian government. It solidifies my resolve as a libertarian and a good American by sticking to our Constitution and to the core principles of libertarianism to wish freedom and liberty for them, and hope that they win it for themselves. Those who contradict the libertarianism and correct meaning of the Constitution in this statement are liars, idiots, or both.

As usual, UG is just repeating the same crap that I've destroyed a thousand times already. The Constitution is on my side. Libertarian philosophy is on my side. Common sense is on my side, and unlike UG, sanity is also on my side. I've backed each and every word I've ever said with accurate historical records, links to reputable sources, quoting the Constitution, and a few things UG lacks like intelligence, education, reason, logic, character, honesty, courage, strength, and strong moral fiber. I've never avoided a single issue or failed to address any valid points of UG because he has yet to make a single valid point in any of our discussions. I've never lost a single debate to UG, and it's not likely I ever will.

Every time he make his hollow claims of being a libertarian, I will be there to stomp him into the ground as I have for years and prove that he is not and to show everyone how utterly stupid and insane he really is.

Oh, and UG, the verdict of any psychiatrist on earth about which of us is sane and stable would put me miles ahead of you. I doubt there's a single person in the Cellar who would say any different other than you. There are zero actual libertarians who would say you are one. It's no wonder you like Larry Elder. Neither of you are libertarians.

[ZenGum]

I reckon you're both at least half nuts. Should we do a poll?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Radar has recently requested removal of his real name from several high-scoring Google posts as he is seeking employment in IT. I have edited UG's post to remove the name.

You're a good guy.

[Radar]

I agree.

[classicman]

yes to Zen and absolutely agree with glatt!

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Madman

People really get banned from here?

Most of the time it happens quietly behind the scenes. UT, Bruce, and I are kind of like The Shadow.

Mainly it's spammers. Every now and again someone behaves so badly that they cross the line into insufferably annoying, which is the most heinous of the three banning criteria here.