Never underestimate the right wing's ability to beat a dead horse.

sure they do.
1. feel victimized
2. become angered
3. blame Obama
4. project that anger onto powerless groups, say, central American children seeking asylum

Yay!

That is all.

Honestly, Paul Constant gets more and more ignorant with every Slog post. Is he trying to replace as the village idiot of the Stranger or something?
Know why gay marriage is legal in California and how Prop 8 was repealed? Maybe because of CONSERVATIVE LAWYER Ted Olson who fought for marriage equality:
http://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com/20…
And a ton of conservatives are for gay marriage and more do every day: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/07/22…
And a decade or two ago most liberals were also against marriage equality.
Why can't it just be opponents vs supporters of same sex marriage? Why bring up liberal vs conservative into it? What, would that be too much like real journalism?
The statement that "no conservative in America know what the fuck to do" (direct quote) is obviously bullshit because many conservatives, like Tod Olson, support marriage equality.

It's not over 'til it's over.

And even if it's really over, the GOP and the TEAtards need to keep this zombie walking until the elections. They need it to inspire that fearful and hate-inspired base of theirs to show up at the polls. For that matter, they're still looking for some voudoun to keep it walking until the 2016 elections, too.

@5 - Is it or is it not fair and accurate to say that a majority of supporters of same-sex marriage among both candidates for office and the electorate in general have identified, by and large, as liberals, and that the majority of opponents have identified, by and large, as conservatives?

At some point, when one is making a general observation, we have to allow a certain number of general statements.

@5:

Despite your wan attempt at revisionism, and woefully inept false equivalency, it's not Liberals who have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century on this issue; whereas the overwhelming majority of Conservatives are only now coming around, because they're FINALLY being forced to acknowledge the fight is over, they lost, and that continued opposition is not only pointless, but detrimental to their chances at winning office, as the McClatchy article you cite makes abundantly clear. So, it's not that they've radically shifted their philosophical or religious objections to ME, but simply that they recognize they can't oppose it AND win elections, not with their rabidly anti-ME base dying off, and so they'll gladly compromise their moral principles if it means winning votes, because THAT is what the game is all about, and such pesky things as moral "principles" can't be allowed to stand in the way of that, now can they?

Now, get the hell out of our hellhole, like you keep promising us...

I just hope they keep fighting the good fight, as it increases the likelihood that we can prevent them from getting elected.

Unfortunately 2016 is probably the last presidential campaign for which we can hope for Republican self-destruction due to an increasingly unpopular stance on a social issue. By 2020 I suspect even Santorum will be allergic to talking about it.

@5: By "knows what to do", he means that no conservative who is interested in having a national party which is competitive knows what to do, because the Republican split on this issue is HUGE.

I get your #notalllibertarians, but why this #notallconservatives?

And fuck Ted Olson. His masturbatory take on the issue aside, he is a minor footnote in an overwhelming wave. His case isn't even the one that ended up mattering in other states, it's Windsor.

They should probably just drop the whole thing and let God sort us out like their Bible tells them to do already.

Throw in Rev. Adam Hamilton, United Methodist pastor (with a degree from Oral Roberts University) who used to be a conservative evangelical when it came to gay marriage but now supports the idea. He's considered one of the most influential figures in the United Methodist Church, the largest mainline Protestant denomination in the US. He has famously said that gay marriage doesn't remotely threaten his heterosexual marriage.

He has a great new book out called "Making Sense of the Bible" which is a huge seller in Christian circles.

They've never really cared about gay marriage. It was just a line they could draw in the sand for a while. They'll just rotate on to a new minority they can demonize and continue riling up the simple folk.

@9
Yes, I'm guilty of revision by posting links to polls showing what I'm saying is true. All I have to say it: http://www.facepalm.de/images/facepalm.j…
And Liberals were against cannabis legalization too until recently. It's one of the many ideas they stole from libertarians, along with the "We are the 99%" slogan: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/20…
And at least conservatives can see when their ideas have to change with the times and adjust accordingly, unlike liberals who ignore changes in people's perceptions and keep beating the same dead horse. Example: gun control. The American people don't want it but liberals keep screaming about it: http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/do…
As the graph shows, more and more Americans are for gun rights, but liberals don't seem to notice. At least conservatives can see the winds of change and respond accordingly.
And my lease is up in the Winter. Once that happens good bye Seattle and hello sunny North Carolina or Texas.

It's like the old thing I read somewhere: not all Republicans (or conservatives) are racists, but most racists identify as Republicans. (You can use this for homophobia, xenophobia, whatever.) This will continue until & unless the Republican party, in all its branches, wings, & factions, makes it sufficiently clear to them that their way of thinking is unwelcome.

...which could eventually happen, I guess.

@11
First, 90% or so of libertarians are for gay rights. That's kind of the point of being a libertarian: minimize government (within reason) and maximize personal liberty (within reason)
Conservatives are not as bad as liberals because at least they're evolving, unlike liberals who seem to be moving backwards.
And if you're saying fuck Ted Olson, why not say fuck Hillary Clinton too? http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch…

@17

Jesus Christ, you're retarded as fuck.

@17 "Conservatives are not as bad as liberals because at least they're evolving..."

Evolving on what? The Texas GOP platform endorsed reparative therapy just a few short weeks ago. The main GOP is fighting over whether or not gay rights should be part of the official national party platform, and one of the candidates in 2016 is almost assuredly going to be Rick Santorum. And where are you getting this 90% figure? Funny how you have charts for other shit but not this. Enjoy TX or NC, where guns can roam free.

...no conservative in America knows what the fuck to do, now that the battle over gay marriage is ending and they've obviously lost.

Set off the Genesis Device?

@17 Libertarians--in theory--are in favor of minimal government intrusion and the right to make one's own personal decisions. The device they generally use to achieve this--in practice--is to resurrect that old battle call of "States Rights," which means the degree of liberty one has greatly depends upon the state in which one lives.

Or haven't you ever heard of the Civil War, which people claim---even today--was about "States Rights." The right that the seceding states was most interested in protecting was the right to deprive a certain subset of people their individual liberty.

As for today, those "Libertarians" who continually cry out "States Rights" are less interested in allowing same-sex couples to get married--a clear question of individual liberty--than they are in allowing each state to decide for itself, even if that means permanently codifying the current system of marital apartheid, where a gay couple's right to get married is limited by state lines.

In other words, Libertarians don't give a flying fuck about my individual right and liberty to marry. All they want is for my state governor and legislature to be able to permanently deprive me of that right if they so choose.

@15: "Yes, I'm guilty of revision by posting links to polls showing what I'm saying is true."
Um, excuse me, but what poll did you post a link to? You posted a link to an article about how support for same-sex marriage is becoming more acceptable to conservatives in America, and it obliquely mentioned a poll, but the poll was of ALL AMERICANS, NOT JUST CONSERVATIVES. You'll need to get up a lot earlier in the morning to slip that one past me. (And when I say a lot earlier, I mean A LOT EARLIER; by noon CST, I've generally put in a full day's work.)

Also, I'm going to contrast two excerpts from that most recent post by putting them next to each other:
"And Liberals were against cannabis legalization too until recently."
"unlike liberals who ignore changes in people's perceptions and keep beating the same dead horse."
Well, which is it? Do liberals change their minds on issues or not?
As blip noted, the question on gun control is phrased extremely vaguely so as to make it meaningless. When asked about specific reforms, voters overwhelmingly favor them.

@17: "First, 90% or so of libertarians are for gay rights."
BULLSHIT. BULL. FUCKING. SHIT.
I unlike you have evidence to back that up. According to a 2013 poll, 40% of Americans identifying as Libertarian support same-sex marriage, while 59% oppose it.
YOU ARE MAKING SHIT UP AND PASSING IT OFF AS FACT. YOU ARE NOT NEARLY AS SMART AS YOU THINK YOU ARE.

"Conservatives are not as bad as liberals because at least they're evolving, unlike liberals who seem to be moving backwards."
Oh really? Which party wants to re-institute poll taxes? Which party wants to roll back workers' rights? Which party wants to ban stem-cell research? Which party wants to subject public law to the decrees of a Church? That would be the Republican Party, which happens to be the major conservative one in this country.

Fuck sake, you're extremely dense, even for someone who insists in the face of all evidence that "sir" is a pronoun.

Way to go Collectivism_sucks you have demonstratively proven that you are "the village idiot of the Stranger" bar none.

Sloggers let us all rise and applaud Collectivism_sucks overwhelming victory over the the would be usurper.

http://giphy.com/gifs/yoYbu4qwIKNPi

There's a great quote from a Woody Allen movie (Hannah and Her Sisters) where a character (Max Von Sydow) says this incredible line, and I quote it for you now:

"If Jesus ever came back and saw what was going on in his name, he would never stop throwing up!"

That about sums it up for me. None of the hate mongers out there who fight against same-sex marriage are true Christians. I have plenty of Christian friends who are gay or lesbian or trans. The right-wingers out there are just bigots using the flag and the bible to support their small minded beliefs.

They are on the losing side of history, but they are going down with a loud yell. Sad idiots - all of them.

The conservatives (republicans) will step on their neckties once again in 2016. They don't get it. They are living in the past and their ignorance will once again cause them to lose any and all election possibilities for the foreseeable future.

@22 & 22
http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/li…
Would you like ketchup with those words?

@23
Here it is again about libertarians and gay marriage:
http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/li…
http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/li…
Next someone will be accusing libertarians of being pro-state control of media or some other non-sense.
As for my chart, if you bothered to look at it, you'll see that support for controlling gun ownership over gun rights has dropped from 57% in 1995 to 48% in 2014
Here it is again. Do read it this time: http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/li…
And yes, liberals love to get on band wagons...expect liberals like Patrick Kennedy: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/legal-p…
And yes, Americans are growing to accept gay marriage, and SO ARE CONSERVATIVES!
As for the rest of the dribble you said, about poll taxes, stem cell research etc, most of that is 100% bullshit and I can tell because you PROVIDE NO THIRD PARTY LINKS.
Yes, fiscal conservatives want to end government funding of medical research, but that's different from banning it. And I can't find ANY EVIDENCE of anyone wanting to bring back a poll tax accept for two guys in North Carolina. And if the actions of a few conservatives means all want a poll tax, then I guess it's fair to say all liberals want to ban large sodas because of the actions of a few in NYC
Jesus, you're not very bright, are you? I can understand your frustration of only having a few places someone like you feels home (Seattle, San Fransisco, Berkley) while I have entire swaths of the country I can go to to feel at home (New Hampshire, Alaska, the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, Colorado, Texas etc) but that's no reason to go full blown idiot on us.

@24
Found an image that best sums up your debate style:
http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7oxzn…

@20
First, I'm insulting Paul Constant because he supported 15Now, which cost me my job because in a year or two my employer will close shop.
Second, the graph clearly shows movement from prioritizing gun ownership over gun control. Yet, the liberals still scream for gun control even though the public clearly doesn't want it. Here's yet another link proving my point: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201…
And yet liberals ignore what the people are saying and keep pounding away at a message that they've lost on.
Conservatives on the other hand are coming around, realizing that libertarians are right and that gay marriage isn't a bad thing....and yes, LIBERTARIANS SUPPORT MARRIAGE EQUALITY: http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/li…
I love how everyone forgot libertarians are against government regulation in personal lives. Where did this straw-libertarianism, a belief that we want to end road construction and end social security but are against gays and abortion came from, I have no idea.
Anyway, conservatives are finally coming around to gay marriage because they see the writing in the wall: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/pol…
But liberals can't see the writing on the wall for gun rights. That's the point I'm making: conservatives seem to be more progressive than progressive when it comes to embracing the changes that the nation is going through.

@22
Sorry, I just got to this part and did a double take:
"As for today, those "Libertarians" who continually cry out "States Rights" are less interested in allowing same-sex couples to get married--a clear question of individual liberty--than they are in allowing each state to decide for itself, even if that means permanently codifying the current system of marital apartheid, where a gay couple's right to get married is limited by state lines. "
That's not what most libertarianism is about. That's federalism, not most libertarianism.
I'll ask you the same question I ask any critic of libertarianism who obviously doesn't know anything about it: name me three kinds of libertarians.
I can name three kinds of socialism: Maoism (emphasis on peasants and anti-revisionism) Social-Democracy (achieving socialist ends through market economies) and revolutionary socialism (insurrection to create socialism)
Can you do the same with libertarianism?
And no, we are NOT the Tea Party:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4BY5ZGu…
Some Libertarians are federalist but most of us are either classic liberals or left-libertarians like me. Honestly, you should study something before talking smack about it because now, you just look foolish.

OMG such a stunning acceptance speech!!!!!

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/u…

@ 27, you are a fucking liar. That link DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU CLAIM IT SAYS.

And you're claiming that you've already lost your job because your boss MAY close in the future? If the quality of your work is on par with the quality if your comments, I believe an alternative explanation is more likely the reason why.

BTW, @ 31, Moaism IS a form of revolutionary socialism. If you're going to set up a straw man, make sure it can at least stand up in its own.

Ah, I see c_s has finally bought that first-class ticket on the express line to Crazytown. Not exactly the same as moving to Tejas, but probably as close as he's ever going to get.

@28: WHOA THERE DUDE.
There is a difference between a party supporting one thing and its membership agreeing. If you'd said "the Libertarian Party supports marriage equality" you'd have been correct. However, instead of saying something factual, you made up a number and posted it as if it was Divine Truth.

I looked at the chart. I EXPLAINED TO YOU what's wrong with the chart: it asks a very vague question that people tend to respond to with a knee-jerk reaction rather than a more considered statement of position. If people are so against gun control, why do 90% of Americans consistently support universal background checks as of July 3rd?
Note too that in the link I provided, only 50% of Americans (to 47% opposed) support the broadly-phrased "stricter gun control laws", but that both specific reforms mentioned (universal background checks, restriction of firearms from the mentally-unstable) enjoy ~90% support. If you ask people the vague question, they think of government coming to take their boomsticks and say "no", but if you ask them about the reforms that liberals are actually pushing for (as opposed to what Fox News et al. rattle on about) they tend to be in favor. blip makes an excellent point at #35.

You're saying that the GOP doesn't support poll taxes, bans on stem cell research, subordinating public policy to private religion, and rolling back workers' rights? You say that it's bullshit because I provide no links? WELL THEN, SHARP LEARNING CURVE AHEAD. HERE is the official Republican Party Platform from 2012.

Selected quotes with commentary:
-"we applaud legislation to require photo identification for voting"
     Many such voter ID laws have been ruled to constitute a poll tax due to the cost of obtaining such permissible forms of identification, and yet the GOP stands by them.
-"We call for a ban on the use of body parts from aborted fetuses for research...we oppose the killing of embryos for their stem cells. We oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research."
     Clarification: the GOP does not oppose all stem cell research, but only that which involves embryonic stem cells. However, embryonic stem cells have literally the greatest potential, since totipotent stem cells can be obtained only from embryos.
-"The most offensive instance of this war on religion has been the current Administration’s attempt to compel faith-related institutions, as well as believing individuals, to contravene their deeply held religious, moral, or ethical beliefs regarding health services, traditional marriage, or abortion....We assert every citizen’s right to apply religious values to public policy and the right of faith-based organizations to participate fully in public programs without renouncing their beliefs, removing religious symbols, or submitting to government-imposed hiring practices."
     In other words, if your religion says that laws are wrong, you shouldn't have to follow the law.
-"We support the right of States to enact Right-to-Work laws and encourage them to do so to promote greater economic liberty. Ultimately, we support the enactment of a National Right-to-Work law to promote worker freedom and to promote greater economic liberty."
     "Right-to-Work" laws allow workers to reap the benefits of union representation without having to pay any dues. A rudimentary understanding of game theory demonstrates that such a law in effect pays workers not to join unions, thus weakening them in their ability to advocate for their membership and lobby for pro-worker legislation. The great workers' victories of the 1930s were in regards to their protection of the right to unionize and effectively bargain for fair pay, a right that the Republican Party opposes.

THIS IS STUFF IN THE OFFICIAL PLATFORM OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. THIS IS NOT JUST THE OPINION OF SOME TOSSER IN ALABAMA.

Now I don't know what sort of assumptions you're making, but I was born in La Habra, CA, and have lived in Chicagoland for the vast majority of my life. I call Chicago my home, but I have traveled in the Mountain West and found it to my liking. Wyoming and Montana will always feel a little alien to me (I'll never entirely get used to seeing ten-year-olds cruising down dirt roads on 4x4s) but I suspect I'd feel more at home there than you would. You may be a Libertarian and perhaps in some ways akin to the people living atop those lands, but I am a paleontologist and therefore have a deep affinity for what lies just below the surface.
Also, *except, not *accept. And you still seem to think that "sir" is a pronoun, when it's still actually a noun.

@31: "That's not what most libertarianism is about. That's federalism, not most libertarianism."
So wait, let me get this straight:
If you OPPOSE an overarching policy enacted by the federal government at the national level, that's FEDERALISM, not LIBERTARIANISM? YOU SEEM TO BE UNCLEAR AS TO WHAT FEDERALISM IS.

Also, being able to name three types of something doesn't have much bearing on whether or not you know anything about that something. I can name, off the top of my head, three types of boson: pion, kaon, Z boson. However, I know very little about any of those, or of bosons in general; I think Z bosons have something to do with the weak nuclear force, and I believe that pions and kaons are composed of two quarks held together by gluons, but that's about it. (I'm not Googling any of this shit, by the way. This is all from memory.) Contrariwise, I know all sorts of stuff about bryozoans, but I couldn't name three kinds of bryozoan if my life depended on it. (The only one that I remember is Constellaria, for reasons of its strikingly star-shaped chimneys.)

They should back off by steps. Start off by saying it should be a state issue, or voters should decide, and then declare neutrality for a while to give the base time to see sense.

@33
Ah, I said "would you like ketchup with those words," and posted a link showing that the Libertarian Party, the largest libertarian organization in America, supports same sex marriage. From the link you obviously didn't read:
"The Libertarian Party has supported marriage equality since its founding in 1971."
Is your reading comprehension level that bad that you don't understand that?

@37
The Libertarian Party is the largest libertarian organization in America. I think that counts for something if they were for marriage equality since way back in 1971. Exactly how many Democrats and even socialists for that matter supported marriage equality back then?
As for the chart, I'm NOT talking about background checks. I'm talking about guns in general. Americans are pro-gun and yet liberals act like they aren't. Gun rights are for liberals what marriage equality is for conservatives. The major difference is more and more conservatives every day are coming around and realizing that no one will stop them from living a conservative lifestyle in a socially liberal society and hence, they are not in danger from same sex marriage. Liberals, meanwhile, keep pushing bans on guns even though the people clearly don't want it.
As for asking if someone can name three types of something doesn't mean they are an expert on it, and I wasn't trying to imply as much. I'm just saying that people who ignorantly criticize libertarianism without knowing jack shit about it are just as bad as people who mock socialism without knowing shit about it.
When I ask critics of libertarians to name me three kinds of libertarianism, they usually blink and are surprised there is more than one kind. They don't know shit.
And Federalism, or old school federalism anyway, is a strain within some forms of libertarianism. Old school in the sense of sharing power between states and the federal government. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandf…
As a left-libertarian I'm not a fan of ANY big government OR any big business. State governments and even local governments are just as bad as federal governments when it comes to our oppressing our liberties. I would favor less government and more community, within reason (roads, bridges, fire departments etc are of course fine as our some social programs and education, law enforcement etc)
I'm a libertarian: I believe in environmental protection, civil liberties, peace, freedom, and want to save Social Security (but make it voluntary for younger people) and medicare (but again, make it voluntary for younger people) at the expense of ending the overseas empire. And MOST LIBERTARIANS THINK THE SAME WAY.
As for the GOP, as I said, I am not a fan of most of them. However, they aren't all that bad. Right to work is Anti-libertarian and I hate it. If a company wants to hire only union people, government has no business telling them they can't. I'm actually pro-union, as long as they stick to direct actions and organizing workers (like the IWW) and not lobbying politicians (like the SEIU)

@34
Maoism is a distinct form of Revolutionary Socialism in that it is NOT about the industrial proletariat but about the peasant classes. Maoism also has aspects not seen in classic Marxist-Lenism, like Cultural Revolution, permanent revolution (although Troskyism has that too) It is a very different form of socialism than Leninism:
http://theredstarvanguard.wordpress.com/…
So, you still haven't answered the question: can you name three kinds of libertarianism and speak on them? Or are you just another liberal who doesn't know Lysander Spooner from Tom Hanks and thinks Karl Hess owns a toy truck factory?

You are an ignoramus posing as a learned individual. The freshman presuming to question the professor. AND a dishonest debater. You will get no answer because you're too dumb to understand the distinct forms of socialism (such as identifying a subset of a subset of revolutionary socialism as an equal and distinct trunk of it) and now are trying to save face instead if honestly owning your error. You are beneath me.

Also, your press release link doesn't mean shit. Show us how the Libertarians were any kind of force for change, rather than johnny come latelies claiming credit retroactively in a fight that was the absolute lowest priority - nothing more than a principle to state, and mostly not even that.

Don't rejoice too early.

How many decades ago was the fight for contraception won ? And now there's DrHobbyLobby.

I'm sure corporations will soon have the right to refuse to employ gay-married people. Because of sincerely held beliefs.

@41 collectivism isn't the only thing that sucks, libertarian_sucker.

@39, 40: THAT is not what you said, though! You said, and I quote DIRECTLY, "90% or so of libertarians are for gay rights." THAT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO BE FALSE. You have a very bad habit of making a wild claim, posting a link to a source that says something entirely different, and then insisting that you're right and refusing to consider the facts. If anyone calls you out on a lie, you just post the same unrelated source again and call it a day.
Yes, I'm going to bring up your bizarre insistence that "sir" is a pronoun.

@40: "I'm NOT talking about background checks. I'm talking about guns in general. Americans are pro-gun and yet liberals act like they aren't....Liberals, meanwhile, keep pushing bans on guns even though the people clearly don't want it."
What are you actually talking about? Let's go back to the post that started it in this thread: #15. "Example: gun control. The American people don't want it but liberals keep screaming about it"
There is a difference between gun control and gun bans. With a very few exceptions, liberals are not pushing bans of firearms but rather stricter regulation thereof. The popularity of a gun ban is entirely irrelevant to this discussion because neither major party is promoting or calling for one! If you look at the popularity of specific gun control measures that liberals ACTUALLY present in Congress, you'll see that they're strongly backed by the American public. So much for your claim, based on the issue of gun control, that liberals are out-of-touch.

"Gun rights are for liberals what marriage equality is for conservatives. The major difference is more and more conservatives every day are coming around and realizing that no one will stop them from living a conservative lifestyle in a socially liberal society and hence, they are not in danger from same sex marriage."
Here's a little food for thought:
Nobody ever died because some queers were joined in homo matrimony. A same-sex marriage license never went off in a child's hand and ended the life of his sibling. Nobody uses the "Gay Pride parade loophole" to get a gay marriage they're not legally allowed to have. What I'm saying is that gay marriage doesn't endanger people the way irresponsible gun sales and ownership do.

"And Federalism, or old school federalism anyway, is a strain within some forms of libertarianism. Old school in the sense of sharing power between states and the federal government."
So you're saying that it is compatible with Libertarianism sensu stricto for the federal government to step in and regulate marriage, which is historically the domain of the various States, rather than letting said States decide for themselves? Whatever happened to States' Rights, man? You're saying that Libertarianism supports expanding the powers of the federal government at the expense of the power of state and local authorities? Whoa man, it's, like, Opposite Day or something groovy like that.

"I'm a libertarian: I believe in environmental protection"
That's funny. I thought you were against government regulation of industry! Please explain how we are going to protect the environment without setting limits on industrial pollution and enforcing punitive measures against those who violate them.

"As for the GOP, as I said, I am not a fan of most of them."
1. Claim that conservatives are more forward-thinking and open to change than liberals.
2. Vehemently deny the validity of any counterexamples due to lack of specific supporting evidence.
3. When supporting evidence is shown, pretend you never made the initial claim and that you actually agree with some of the counterexamples.
4. ???
5. PROFIT!!! through the free market and your own hard bootstraps-pulling.

Ah venomlash, you have the patience of a saint. Not that any of your comment @46 will make even the teeniest little dent in the mass of Silly Putty c_s uses to fill his skull, but it was a noble effort nonetheless.

Seriously, I think it's far past time we stopped engaging with c_s altogether. He's the worst kind of troll: one who is so rampantly inconsistent in their opinions, so patently (and willfully) obtuse in terms understanding any opposing viewpoint, so egregiously dismissive of any and all evidence presented refuting their position, that they simply cannot be dealt with in a rational manner. Nor does he want to be, IMO. He simply argues for the sake of argument; hoping against all odds that at some point, someone will mirror back to him his nebulous, scatter-shot, half-baked, eight-grade level Randian ideology.

Maybe if we collectively ignore him, he'll either get bored and leave SLOG, or find some other motivation to actually make good on his perpetual promise to vacate this Liberal hellhole in which he finds himself trapped - by his own sloth and lack of initiative - and move the fuck away to the Libertarian Paradise he envisions in the Lone Star State. We should do everything possible to actively encourage him in this endeavor, because the sooner he picks up stakes and moves on, the better off ALL of us will be.