Straw Man Produces Another Straw Man Argument. Classic!
Over at the Red County, poor, lonely and increasingly isolated Matthew J, Cunningham lashed out at Libertarians in the wake of yesterday’s judicial smackdown on authoritarian ‘pugs who want government to discriminate against law abiding citizens.
The legal finding that California’s asinine Proposition 8 was unconstitutional caused Cunningham to reflect upon the oddity of Libertarians. He says:
At the same time, libertarians act is if the the Republic will fall and tyranny reign unless marijuana is legalized. Recently, one leading libertarian California libertarian flatly declared that if you oppose legalizing marijuana, you are anti-freedom.
Which is more vital to a the kind of healthy, stable, virtuous society the Founders believed necessary to ensure the survival of the Republic they had erected? The ability to use a particular intoxicant? Or that institution — marriage – that is the literal building block of a healthy, stable, virtuous society?
Judging by the commentary, libertarians think getting stoned matters more.
Good Lord! How did so much self-satisfaction, self-righteousness, bigotry and mental confusion ever get rolled up into one straw man?
Let’s correct the poor, muddled mind of this moralizing midget:
If you restrict the ability to use (not abuse, mind you) a particular intoxicant you goddam well are anti-freedom. And if you deny law abiding citizens the same right to enjoy contractual relationships enjoyed by others, you are anti-freedom, too.
So go put that in your pipe and smoke it, Jerbal.
I think Mrs. Jerbal must have to get stoned to put up with Mr. Jerbal…
Marriage is a “literal” building block?
This clown really is semi-literate. People pay this guy to be a wordsmith?
No, actually, you have that a little bit wrong. They pay him TO WORDSMITH.
EM, don’t you want to follow the Cunningham formula for virtue? What’s wrong with you?
Jeez, these guys want to take my bong away. What did I ever do to them?
I wonder about what Mr. and Mrs. C. talk about in their intimate moments:
Him: this is our inalienable right!
Her: I hate queers!
Does he not realize how much hemp was grown in the US for rope, sail and paper during most of our country’s freedom loving history? If the founders thought it was so bad why didn’t they say so from the beginning? Did I miss that debate in The Federalist Papers?
Jerb could use some herb!
Amen to that! Praise Jebus.
Jerb: judge not, lest ye be judged!
I love this blog!
Prop. 8 did not deny law-abiding citizens the right to enter into contractual relationships. All adults are free to enter into any contracts they want.
Consenting adults don’t need the state to ratify their relationships.
Same sex marriage is a pretty radical departure from what marriage has long been understood to be.
Maybe “it’s gonna happen, whether you like it or not” but it is a departure from a long-held norm.
Those who support it have a hard time claiming it as a constitutional right. But judges read into it what they want, and when one can overrule 7 million voters, where’s the balance of power?
“Prop. 8 did not deny law-abiding citizens the right to enter into contractual relationships. All adults are free to enter into any contracts they want.”
Of course this is not true. Prop 8 denied gays access to the State sanctioned marriage contract. Unequal protection, chum.
Sooooo…
If 50.0000001% percent of Californians voted to re-enslave black folks a judge shouldn’t find it unconstitutional?
Hey guys, read you alot, disagree with you once in a while, but on this issue, we are on the same page.
Oh and Wilshire:
“departure from a long-held norm” sure like slavery and denying equality to women and minorities. No worries, we should never rethink long-held norms because hey if the voters tell us to jump off a bridge to our deaths then that is fair, equal, and sound government policy. The last thing I will do in this state is say VOTERS know what the hell is going on.
“But judges read into it what they want, and when one can overrule 7 million voters, where’s the balance of power?” – so in one sentence you uphold the theory of our CA direct democracy while trashing another? The Judges are the checks and balances on the ability of the majority to legislate against the rights of the minority.
Frankly, as was stated before, equality for everyone requires those that dont believe in gay marriage to either accept that the government cannot recognize one marriage between two consenting adults over another OR the government must get out of the business of marriage all together (my preference).
The “long held norm” and by that I take it you mean the view of the church cannot dictate how a government adopts policy if that norm means you create government discrimination and inequality. Let churches recognize the marriages they chose and perform those they choose. But do not use the Government as a tool of oppressing a minority under the guise of “long held norms” as so many in the past have.
First they came for the stoners, then they came for the queers… finally when they kicked in the Wordsmith’s door there was nobody left to stand up for Jubal!
How about Jon Dumitru? He’ll do anything Cunningham and Lewis, among others, tell him.
You are kidding right?
Now that we know that Red County is getting 15,000 a month from the Meg Whitman campaign, there’s nor reason to really pay attention to these guys. They are in it for the money, having turned Red County into a Green Faucet.
Red County. Red Zone. Red Handed. Unapologetic.
No ethics, just pay to play.
Mr. Peabody,
Your succinct and accurate description of Mr. Cunningham, “Let’s correct the poor, muddled mind of this moralizing midget” is a perfect example of your skilled wordsmith abilities.
Washington grew hemp. Lincoln smoked herb. How immoral were these two?
You can have my bong when you pry it….FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!!
Matt Cunningham outed sex-abuse victims.