The GOP pranced around like a bunch of prized hens leading up to the “shutdown” and only managed to cut a measly $78.5 billion from the $1.6 trillion deficit. What a waste of time and energy.

I couldn’t finish reading this entire article because it’s utter garbage, and not because it’s poorly written. It’s garbage because the author, the “wonderful” Mr. Thompson, equivocates so often as to reduce his “analysis” to the likes of children playing in a sandbox: lots of fun for him, I’m sure, but of little merit or worth in the grand scheme of things.

There are three places where he equivocates:

First, he equates “state nullification” with “pro-slavery.” It may come as a surprise to Mr. Thompson, who seems to be unaware that one’s ideas must pass a minimal logical threshold to make sense, that those two concepts are different. Even if one argues that nullification was used for bad purposes in the past (like racism), it has nothing to do with the use of it per se. Mr. Thompson has equated a PARTICULAR USE of nullification with nullification ITSELF. This would be like me condemning all transportation because some misfit hit a pedestrian with his vehicle. A massive logical error if there ever was one. But such an error does let Mr. Thompson draw the ridiculous, libelous conclusions presented in this article, which I’m sure was a large factor in his complete neglect of critical thinking.

It should be noted that state nullification of federal laws was also used for anti-slavery purposes in the past. For this, see how Northern states attempted to use nullification to prevent enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act. Of course, considering the biases of Mr. Thompson, I doubt history that contradicts the rationale behind his smear tactics in this article will be persuasive to him.

Second, Ron Paul is not a racist because some newsletters that bore his name used some racially insensitive language. It may show that Paul should have been more careful about the contents of those newsletters, which he admits he did not monitor, but it does not show he is a racist. This is simply a scare tactic that is shameful on Mr. Thompson’s part. If you look at all the past statements and deeds of Dr. Paul, you will find no hint of racism and, in fact, the few statements made in those newsletters contradict what Dr. Paul has stood for over his long and principled career: namely, individual liberty, regardless of individual characteristics.

Third, and finally, Rand Paul’s disagreement with certain provisions the Civil Rights Act does not show he is a racist either. Rand adheres to a principled private property philosophy, something Mr. Thompson obviously knows nothing about. This philosophy causes him to reject governments forcing property owners to do X, Y, or Z with their legitimately acquired property. In sharp contrast to the “scary” examples Mr. Thompson emphasized, Rand does not believe that Jews in business should be forced to admit Nazi sympathizers onto their property, nor that gays or those sympathetic to them should be forced to allow homophobes on their property either. Many other examples could be stated. He does, however, think government should be forbidden from discrimination with public property and that is where he and the Civil Rights Act find agreement. Mr. Thompson has once again equivocated in this area too, by equating non-racially motivated opposition to provisions of the Civil Rights Act with racism.

The mindset of Mr. Thompson, at least as displayed in this article, is a glaring example for what passes for “reasoned” discussion in this country. And it’s no wonder so many people have abandoned civic participation, given that the likes of Mr. Thompson — and believe me there are many more of his ilk — litter the ranks of those involved in public discourse across America.

It’s depressing and pathetic how easily anti-war liberals have been castrated by Obama putting President in front of his name instead of Senator. I actually saw a clip of Maddow and O’Donnell talking about how they are hesitant to use the term “war” to describe the Libyan “action.” And why? Well, because Obama did it and it’s just wonderful as a result, duh! Plus, we have all these allies on our side and it’s for “humanitarian” reasons! Who could be against that? It’s so not like Bush, like totally, man. Vomit. If I wanted to hear mindless cheerleaders I would go to a sporting event.

They even talked about how Obama’s attack on Libya is in line with his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. I honestly felt like I was in the twilight zone. I didn’t know whether to scream or cry. Then I remembered that Donald Rumsfeld was given the “Defender of the Constitution Award” at CPAC earlier this year… and I cried.

Click here to view the sickening video.

It’s always been odd to me that my friends and family will yell at each other until they’re blue in the face over a basketball or football game, but when it comes to, say, whether taxes should be raised (your money taken by force), wars should be fought, or healthcare should be socialized, they can barely muster more than a passing grunt of displeasure.

This mentality is why the country continues to go down the toilet.

One of the true joys of being a libertarian is arguing with conservatives and forcing them to defend the big government they allegedly oppose.

It’s always funny when some liberal says they love Ron Paul on foreign policy, but he has some downright kooky views on economics. I guess they don’t realize that, with such a statement, they implicitly admit the intellectual bankruptcy of their own ideas and the complete lack of any semblance of logical consistency.  

Here is a disgusting article by Michael Moore, America Is Not Broke, in the Huffington Post. To the extent the rich have gotten their wealth through corporatist laws and bailouts, we can certainly agree with Michael Moore, but that’s as far as it goes. His defining the incomes of some individuals in America as property of America-the-collective is especially disturbing. Notice also his last paragraph wherein he heartily endorses mob rule:

Never forget, as long as that Constitution of ours still stands, it’s one person, one vote, and it’s the thing the rich hate most about America — because even though they seem to hold all the money and all the cards, they begrudgingly know this one unshakeable basic fact: There are more of us than there are of them!

Pathetic.