A classic example of the "loony left"

He is a damn good actor but its sad how Penn keeps leaving the planet so often. In that respect hes merely the polar opposite of your libertarian types, no?

Are you now suggesting that "libertarian types" are nuts?

I 've never thought much of him; u can have him.

Like the artof Salvatore Dali. You cant deny his talent, but you cant deny his wackiness at the same time.
Sean Penn will be remembered as one of our great actors. He immerses himself into his roles so much that hes been known to need counseling after hes finished.

On the other hand is Tom Cruise. I dont care for his acting and I find his "arrogant ignorance" with anything to do with medicine or science simply appaling. Theyll remember Tom Cruise in the same vein as Fatty Arbuckle.

pretty much

So, not only do you not believe in the Libertarian platform, you go the extra mile in asserting that they're nuts. Okay.

NO, they often make sense in their pronouncements . BUT everyso often a good Liberatrian just wacks out and leaves the mother ship.

Thomas is one of the few libertarians who make sense.

Chavez is no dictator, he was officially elected in a presumably fixed election, much like GWB

Sean Penn is however a douchebag

So, Sean Penn is the poster boy for the left? By that token, we can take Pat Robertson as the poster boy for the right.

Pat Robertson calls for the assassination of Hugo Chavez.

Robertson again calls for the assassination of Chavez--"one day, one day, one day."

Robertson denies that he called for the assassination of Chavez.

Oh yeah . . . you can find loonies anywhere in the political spectrum.

Thomas makes sense? When was that? I missed that post . . .

Maybe its his personality that I don 't like; by me,
he 's a jerk who needed counselling before he began.





David

No, because he doesn't think calling Chavez a dictator is telling the truth.

By definition, those on the right have the same philosophy as the Founding Generation.
Pat Robertson is a theocrat.
The Founders were NOT theocrats.
Q.E.D.: Pat Robertson is not on the right (insofar as his theocracy is concerned),
altho he may agree with some other rightist ideas.
I am a rightist, and I 'd have a lot of trouble voting for Pat Robertson for anything.





That 's probably true.

You forgot the part where Robertson declared 9/11 God's punishment for America's acceptance of abortion, pornography, and gay sex.

well, even pat get's it right once in awhile

Never heard that one. I always figured 9/11 was punishment for Kosovo...

Or at least that's what those on the right tell themselves.

So the original slam on Penn as a liberal lo0ny is warranted because 1) he is loony and 2) he has liberal credibility in that some liberals listen to what he says. That's what makes him different from a general loony like Tom Cruise who has no credibility. Robertson has a following on the right, so you have to own him as a conservative loony if you want to live on the right yourself.

Bullshit . . . not to put too fine a point on it. There had never been a (more or less) democratically elected republican government before in history. There had been and were republics, but their leadership was not democratically elected. There had been democratic (rather less than more) elected governments in the past, but they were not republics. There very nature of our government was a radical departure in governance.

There had never been an independent judiciary. Judges in the United States who are appointed rather than elected serve, essentially, quamdiu se bene geserit--so long as they are well conducted, so long as they violate no laws. Judges in the European monarchies served at the pleasure of the monarch, or at the pleasure of the constituted government in the case of Parliament. In many historical examples, arguably most, there was not even an established judiciary, with judgment in matters public and private rendered by an aristocratic or plutocratic elite. Our judiciary was a radical departure in jurisprudence.

I can multiply those examples again and again. But the point is that we have the form of governance that we enjoy (and we do enjoy it, when we're being honest) precisely because the founders eschewed conservatism and struck out on a new path.