Why, to revisit this graphic, of course.

“Stossel’s other identity as an intellectual lightweight of squealing self-righteousness”

Absolutely gorgeous.

http://bp1.blogger.com/_DJgVg1XpB64/R-M-QEtITxI/AAAAAAAAAiA/_FwWt6pcOSM/s1600-h/Picture+29.png

Because it’s the Two-Minute Townhall? Meaning everyone in the Townhall gets swung at? If Stossel, Sullum or other assorted libertarian pricks wish to not be in the Two-Minute Townhall, I would suggest they bring it up with their publishers so their articles don’t get PLACED IN FUCKING TOWNHALL.

We’ve come to the conclusion the blanket derision is better than blanket oppression. Your other political playmates may not be so kind.

I recommend starting here.

And that would be because…? Let’s see. We’ve gone from admitting that the particular Stossel column in question is morally correct, after it was held up for ridicule among a host if idiots. Now I am told that Stossel should “sicken” people, but nobody (including your vaunted Righteous Bubba) can link to actually revolting words from him. And btw, merely disagreeing with “socialists/progessives” at this site does not constitute “revolting.”

Oh, well, it’s late. I don’t know why I drifted down five threads to look at this one anyway, or why I bothered commenting. You were having a fine time talking to yourself, and Righteous Bubba had already taken care of anything that needed saying. I yield the floor. ‘nite.

And there’s the problem: he’s a fucking idiot and you can’t figure it out.

Thank god for that four-parter with Ron Paul though, huh?

So if he is right on that issue, why include that column on a list of those held up for ridicule?

But you misrepresent his other positions. It’s the left’s Limbaugh/Coulter caricature of a measured, reasonable libertarian.

He’s right about this one issue. He’s wrong about almost everything else. And if you agree with him on any of those points, well, I’m gonna go ahead and say you’re wrong too. Go figure. What do you expect? Because Stossel is right about this one issue, we’re supposed to cut him some slack on all the rest?

I’m not very patient with libertarians these days, small “L” or otherwise. You lay down with right-wing dogs, you get up with fleas.

Okay, you voted for Bush in 2004 after not voting for him in 2000. Remarkable.

One of the things that libertarians like to do is get all hoity-toity about reason. Heck, there’s even a magazine called that! It’s consequently funnier when libertarians do stupid things. It’s like Professor Irwin Corey getting smacked in the face with a shovel. And it happens over and over again.

I’m sad about whatever it was that made you dumb, but a lot of people – hey, some people here even! – go through brain-melting crises and don’t adopt a philosophy that entails that their fellow countrymen get thrown onto the highway with the presumption that the strong will avoid the oncoming traffic.

He isn’t a “prick” by virtue of who publishes him. His columns stand on their own merit or lack of same.

TH is a website that, due to Salem Communication’s ownership of Creators Syndicate (which bought out TH some two years ago), may publish CS columnists. I don’t know what Stossel, Sullum’s etc. contractual terms are with CS, or when they expire, and perhaps they should think twice about being included with the likes of Doug Giles and the rest of the TH idiots. But this buy-out happened recently.

Yeah, and I said/owned/conceded that. Have never hidden it or failed to accept responsibility for it. But I did not vote for Bush in ’00, which was claimed (I was then still totally into issues advocacy where both Dems and Repubs were making me have fits). But after 9/11, I simply did not come out of the national confusion and get my political compass straight until sometime in ’05 (nor was I blogging then, I was — and don’t accept it as excuse if you prefer — quite preoccupied with a cascade of family crises including the death of a child and subsequent rippling effects in my most intimate circles, and just not paying attention as much as usual to politics). For me, the change strongly began with the Schiavo derangement, and added to my serious discomfort with the Padilla matter, so I began a very sharp turn. Then the wholly illegal warrantless wiretapping story hit, and that was it for me re: the GOP.

Accuse me for that of which I am guilty, but not for that which I am not.

He’s just constantly in Town Hall because of his public obligations then? Maybe he should consider where his words are getting airplay before we get all weepy and forgiving for him being so unjustly maligned for being a prick.

Oh. Well, yes indeed it was idiotic to vote for Bush in 2004. Very very much so. Tremendously so. Continue paying for that one.

What makes you think Stossel “normally” is in the same league as Glenn Reynolds? Stossel, btw, is a pretty humble guy who admits he does not write that well. Fox tried to lure him from ABC, and he gave them a loud “no.” He doesn’t want to be set aside in the insane right-wing cesspool.

Bullshit. That Stossel column was spot on about an important issue that affects many lives. But the “Two-Minute Townhall” blogger didn’t read enough of it, or seriously consider the issue enough, to forfeit including said column in a list of inanities. That’s happened before here.

And discussing my political sins — both the real and falsely imputed — are an ad hominem response to a failure of discrimination among a great and needed column that happens to be published Creators Syndicate, and the vast majority of others there. TH has the contractual right to publish Stossel. But he is right in every word he wrote, about a matter that decent people ought not ridicule or invidiously include with the positions of morons.

No, Mona did not. To read about Mona’s voting (and non-voting), one may go here.