02-13 Politically Incorrect Daily

Political Memes and Funny Pictures

home late golfing drinking banana apple sliced wife
new socket set for brother sex toys lube gay porn
gorilla glues new spokesperson something about mary hair
blazing saddles edited for tv will air 7 minutes
cnn dont know how to quit trump drug democrats tattoos
study history doomed to repeat stand by let others repeat
joe biden cutting keystone border wall economy balloon
how to avoid research book conspiracy theory snopes
unity and healing censorship arrests destroying election integrity
joe biden bipartisan radical left and democrats
if trump asked supporters to storm capital would still occupying
guess who paying for impeachment bullshit

Question of the Day

question people dont do research when provide not proof dont read stick talking points

Social Media Post of the Day

tweet deena lang when kids old enough gang up on spouse when life truly begins
tweet olivia lopez anyone else sending u up texts therapists

Quote of the Day

quote albert einstein technology surpass human interaction nation of idiots

Message of the Day

message covid war on terror climate change fear of threat never existed

Other Links That May Interest You

Stop Calling It an ‘Insurrection’ – Kurt Schlichter
The Worst Budget in American History – Stephen Moore
China Meme Gallery

5 thoughts on “02-13 Politically Incorrect Daily

  1. I know the topic was on yesterday’s posting, but I never got a chance to respond, so am taking the opportunity here. Please forgive my deviation.

    You complained about how the Libertarian Party never grew in part because of their strict adherence to ideology, versus being a big tent for opposing views. Having been a vice-chair for county organizations in two different states, and having attended 5 state conventions in Calif., I can tell you that the party did indeed try its best to promote consistent principled stands on the issues and that rubbed a lot of folks the wrong way (well, at least up until 9-11). So what?

    You would like to see a new party that wasn’t so locked down by ideology. But isn’t that what we have today? Two completely unprincipled parties that move with the winds of public opinion and can barely convey any principles, let alone actually STICK to them once elected? Libertarianism (as a concept) is basically about letting people live their lives, do with their property (including income) as they see fit, so long as their actions do not impinge upon the lives or property of another. How is that a bad concept to demand folks stick to? Principles are the foundation upon which we should live our lives. Why should we not hold politicians or political parties to the same standard?

    In your comments on cannabis legalization, you seem strongly against the legalization of other so-called “hard” drugs. But you either believe that people own their own bodies or they are the property of the state. For you the acceptable role for government violence is hard drugs, for others it was once alcohol, for some, cigarettes. Without principles, who knows what freedoms will be destroyed next, all in the name of “saving the children,” “public safety,” or some other excuse that has justified government violence and the destruction of liberty over the ages.

    So what would your new party look like? What would they believe? “Conservatism?” Can you even get two people to agree on the actual definition? Can you get them to continue to agree once REAL WORLD situations arise? Self-ownership, private property rights, and the other tenets of libertarianism are pretty easy to define and clarify. Political and economic decisions and policies based on them are consistent and clear, even if they seem conflicting to those who think that either the GOP or democrat party platforms are internally consistent.

    I don’t disagree with your assessment that the Libertarian Party lost a lot of people because they refused to waver. There were also heated discussions on some of the inherent grey areas of life and what the true position should be. But look at who they got when they did waver – Gary Johnson, Bob Barr, William Weld. We all point back to gold because it has certain immutable factors. What if every time we tried to make a point about gold it constantly changed? It would have NEVER been the solid choice for currency for the past 5000 years+. Yes, a belabored analogy, but consider the current republican party. Can you blissfully vote republican and know what you are getting? You could if the party held to principles, didn’t nominate folks who didn’t, and worked tirelessly to help others understand why they have the principles they have and why they make sure their candidates do as well. Why is that a negative for a party?

    • I definitely believe in sticking to principles. I just don’t believe in attacking people because they only believe 98 percent of what you do, which is what libertarians, including yourself, tend to do, usually in a sarcastic, demeaning way. Arguing and telling people they’re wrong immediately puts them on the defensive. When I write pros & cons articles, I try to summarize what both sides are saying, regardless if I believe the arguments or not. It gets people thinking and let’s them come to their own conclusion. I actually do favor a legalization of almost all drugs, but I recognize it’s not a clear-cut issue and won’t condemn someone who isn’t quite there. I believe that the vast majority of Republican voters lean libertarian, but a significant portion haven’t gotten there yet on military deployment, drug legalization, and a few other issues. Now that the GOP establishment has been exposed as Democrat-lite deep staters, I believe those voters are now open to new ideas. They can be persuaded, but it will take time, and I don’t believe it shutting them out because they don’t yet have purity of beliefs.

      • I think the Libertarian Party fails is the Ross Perot effect. After Perot split the Republican vote and we got Bill Clinton, no one wants to risk a 3rd party vote.

    • Mr Liberty, my brother in arms. Using Libertarian logic, we need a closed border. But we believe in open borders? Not open in time of war. Currently, not open when there is a welfare state which encourages foreigners to come, not for work, but for handouts. Once we are at peace without government welfare, we can have an open border. (Private welfare/handouts are fine) Like you said, decisions based on principles.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *