At least you admit to being an ideologue.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
What's the difference between being an "ideologue" and being "principled"?
I stand for something and I am not going to compromise on that. Nor should any other person worthy of respect.
It is this kind of thinking that leads to incompetent leaders like George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and Alan Grayson to come into power. Sure they're stupid, partisan and dangerous, but as long as they agree with me they're A-OK.
George W. Bush isn't stupid, and was less partisan than either of his opponents in 2000 and 2004.
It's also worth nothing that George W. Bush, Palin and Grayson don't resemble libertarians and thus evoking them is another one of your strawmen.
The reason I can be so insistent on a libertarian is that it is very difficult to be a libertarian and be "dangerous" (or stupid or, for that matter, partisan).
You consider Obama's policy dangerous because it disagrees with your philosophy. You ignore history, the economy and general facts. It is better to grasp onto the contrarian and inaccurate counter-narrative produced by men like Ron Paul, because then you can live in an ideological bubble, away from scrutiny or constructive criticism.
Actually I know history, economics and general facts. That's why I consider Obama's policy dangerous.
You WISH my philosophy was the product of some contrarianism, you WISH it was as simple as getting talking points from Ron Paul. You want me to be on your level. I'm not.
I was raised in a staunchly conservative household, idolizing my staunchly conservative father. And I am not talking "paleoconservative" or "classical liberal" conservative, I am talking about straight on European-style traditionalist conservative with the foundation not based on Reason, but Faith and Duty.
In school my teachers with whom I learned politics and related fields from (history and philosophy) were liberals.
I liked the social freedom that my liberals preached. I was gun-ho for Gay Marriage, Drug Legalization and Personal Freedom.
I liked the small government freedom that my conservative voices preached.
But I knew I didn't support either doctrine totally.
In 2008 I was attracted to Ron Paul's dedication to decreasing social entitlements, but I didn't "support" him (I volunteered for Mitt ****in' Romney for Godsakes). In 2008 I was motivated by simple politics (the art of getting elected and passing legislation) not philosophy and economics. I voted for Ron Paul in the General Election purely for comedic value (an inside joke amongst my friends) - that and the fact John McCain had completely alienated me as a voter.
Then I started my current path on Enlightenment. It began with Chernoff's Alexander Hamilton biography. I loved it. I loved Hamilton. I went to the bookshop and picked the most anti-Hamilton book I could find called "Hamilton's Curse: How Alexander Hamilton betrayed the American Revolution". While I had many issues with the book and it's approach to Hamilton, it did a good job connecting the dots between Hamilton's vision and the current Federal Government.
After that I discovered Ayn Rand - not her fiction, but her non-fiction. Who Needs Philosophy? and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal were tremendous eye openers. This was my first exposure to true "libertarian" ideals.
Then, being inspired by Hamilton's Curse (whose view was that Big Government followed a tree of Hamilton-Henry Clay-Abraham Lincoln) I read a biography on Henry Clay. Then I got the other side of the story with Andrew Jackson. Just as I respect Hamilton more than Jefferson, I respect Clay more than Jackson (though I agree with Jackson more- and agree more still with Calhoun).
Then I started getting more into economics. I've read essays and books by Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, Friedman. I've read the classics of Henry Hazlitt and Frederick Bastiat. I found another hero in Karl Hess.
All the while I read as much oppositional material as I can. I like getting both sides.
My alliance, in the end, is always to myself - to my opinion. I want my opinion to be as well informed, as valuable, as respectable as possible.
For that to be true, I must be an ideologue.
I want to be a leader. You can't have a moderate leader.
So, Obama=evil and Palin=Acceptable, as long as she listens to her masters.
Obama = evil. Palin = less evil. That's a more accurate picture. If it came down to Palin and Obama, I would likely vote third party or write in. But if it was a matter of preference between the two, Palin every day and twice on Sundays.
Again, the biggest problem with Palin is that she is stupid and would likely, in power, be a puppet for her handlers.
From I can tell, Obama is equally (if not more) stupid and is either a puppet or (more scarier) the brain of a grossly inept machine.
There really is no room for common sense in an argument, because your worship your political philosophy and the demogauges who espouse it. How can compromise be reached with someone who is convinced the other side is evil? It is like arguing with televangelists. Their own concept of their righteousness makes coherent discussion impossible. Unfortunately, in this case the country suffers as a result.
No room for common sense? Really? I don't see how it's anything but.
If I think X (be it a type of soap, or an ideology or a TV show) is bad, REALLY REALLY REALLY bad, and I think Y is REALLY REALLY REALLY good and I think Z is more Y than X is in what right mind would I ever support X over Z?
I hold my ideology because I think it's right. If I thought it was wrong, if I thought for a second it has a likely possibility of being wrong, I wouldn't be as gun-ho as I am on it. I am an extremely objective person. I have come to libertarianism because I see it as the most practical solution to American Peace and American Prosperity.
And in all of this it's worth noting that more than I am "libertarian" and I am "Constitutionalist". The difference being that Libertarians want to remove the ability for government to be larger than simple collective defense. As a Constitutionalist I favor COMMUNITIES (be it states, counties, cities) deciding for themselves the laws by which they are governed.
While Progressives want to eliminate the possibility of libertarian government in America, I support the ability of Massachusetts to have Universal Healthcare, 100% Public 0% Private Property and replace the American flag with a tie died hammer and sickle.
If anything, that's moderation to be proud of. That's tolerance. I have it. Barack Obama does not.
At rallying people so stupid you could do magic tricks and have them entertained for days on end?
You're better than this.
