Cialis levitra viagra. Cialis best price buy online. Online pharmacy cialis on line. Cialis….

Soma without prescription. Start soma. Pornstar soma. Soma medication. Rise against soma tickets….

That was a good start, later spoiled by the following hyperbole.
they'd have to figure out how to keep out all the illegal libertarian immigants sseeking handouts and refugee in California.

Spoken like someone truly seeking a common ground. LOL

California could do so much better if it weren't putting so much money into propping up the red welfare states.

Probably True. Whose fault is that? California or Federal government?

My guess is the well

How would they do that? Why is California well run? Is Michigan well run? Will you ever be able admit that Progressives can screw something up? Could you ever be that honest?

I "know" you "weigh" both sides of the argument. If that is the case, you must have some points of agreement with the Cafe on matters relating to economics. List a few of those.

S Andrews

I mostly haven't replied because it is a good question that requires some thought for a fair reply. Also it's off topic and I've been trying to stay on topic and cut down on the number of posts I write.

Anyway one major thing… I'm convinced the common ground between us may be a legitimacy to the position that the federal powers should be drastically diminished and reserved to the states. Sometimes I think that would be a really good idea but I don't presume to know if it would work out better or result in a civil war. But the idea that the people could choose from the state that most fits their ideology seems to have some merit.

My guess is the well run states (Like California) would exploit the poorly regulated states and then they'd have to figure out how to keep out all the illegal libertarian immigants sseeking handouts and refugee in California.

But that's kind of what's happening now. The highly productive liberal blues states seem to put far more into the federal government then they get out of it.

California could do so much better if it weren't putting so much money into propping up the red welfare states.

If you've never been to Unqualified Reservations, Mencius Moldbug makes a pretty good case that modern progressivism is a direct descendant of the New England Puritans. They've dropped the god, but kept the universalism.

Posted by: BoscoH

I guess you are talking of the actor Martin Sheen. I have NO problem with his wealth. He only takes money from me if I go and see his movies.

People on Wall Street have fraudulently set up and abused the banking system and the government to steal trillions from hard working productive Americans. BIG DIFFERENCE!

Posted by: Methinks

Wow I didn't take you for a creationist. That's sad.

Yeah, and that turned out really well in the worker's paradise that was the USSR.

Muirgeo, you're a fool on a quest to find Unobtainium. You will never find your Philospher's Stone that will magically transform human nature because it doesn't extist. While you might be a great person, some/many/most people aren't.

The world's best bet is to be realistic about human nature and harness it.

As for Rand — I've read The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and Capitalism (essays). I enjoyed Capitalism the most. The Fountainhead was torture. IMO, Atlas is redeemed by two magnificent passages: the tramp's story about the Twentieth Century Motor Co. and the public demonstration of the Xylophone.

According to them, capitalism is oppression and exploitation by its very nature.

Therefore, all wealth is tainted.

"Unfortunately, libertarians are blind to this kind of analysis. They think the best ideas will somehow prevail."

So your view is that the best ideas do not prevail. But then…

"…started reading Eric Voegelin, who knew that socialism can be defeated only if it is first recognized for what it is: a demonic religion."

That socialism is a demonic religion is also "an idea" – and one that has to be both argued and accepted in order to prevail. How is this different from a libertarian relying on other moral and consequential economic ideas as Hayek did?

Here is a comment left on Amazon for the book "Hollywood Party: How Communism Seduced the American Film Industry" by Lloyd Billingsley

"Lenin himself recognized the power of cinema, saying "Communists must always consider that of all the arts the motion picture is the most important." His successor Stalin viewed film as "not only a vital agitprop device for the education and political indoctrination of the workers, but also a fluent channel through which to reach the minds and shape the desires of people everywhere."

Unfortunately, libertarians are blind to this kind of analysis. They think the best ideas will somehow prevail. This is why I stopped reading so much Hayek, who described himself as deaf to the spirit, and started reading Eric Voegelin, who knew that socialism can be defeated only if it is first recognized for what it is: a demonic religion.

well said…

"Under Republicans, Man Exploits Man; Under Democrats, It's Just the Opposite."

BoscoH says Yeah, after the second time, it's stalking.

yeah, I probably was. I was ensuring that he has seen my comment. On the other hand, clearly, Muirgeo is a stalker on this blog.

I Know, MnM. I'm just being sarcastic.

But he's now in the unenviable position of having to explain how a guy who has earned almost $8 million in the past three years is in any position to help those of us less fortunate.

It's only an unenviable position if you are intelligent enough to know what position you're in. Since Muirdiot doesn't know which way is up, I doubt he finds himself in the position you think he does.

But he has definitely become more challenging (in a good way) since he first appeared here.

Only if you happen to have lost a significant number of IQ points due to a severe head injury.

Yeah, after the second time, it's stalking. So he won't answer. Get over it. I don't think we'll ever convince George of the superiority of our views or even just the problems with his. But he has definitely become more challenging (in a good way) since he first appeared here. I bet he no longer thinks we're a bunch of Republicans .