Monday, 31 May 2010

Apparently ...

... I'm not consistent:

Now let's have some consistency from the libertarian wing, please, before everyone cottons on to how deluded and weird you all are.

According to the purveyors of the Only True Libertarianism, I am not at all consistent, because I didn't immediately leap up and applaud Obamalamadingdong's decision to allow homosexual people to join the military openly.

Ah, consistency! How about this:

Unlike idealists, this old cynic looks at outcomes. I would far rather someone got richer, healthier, lived longer and ultimately became freer through my callous heartlessness, than that they starved because of some idealistic bell-end.

That was in reference to matters economic, but it applies equally to any "ism" or "phobia" - the idea behind the legislation is irrelevant, it's only the outcome that matters.

And Obama is not a dictator. He has to push his "lofty ideal" through the mincer (ho! ho!) of the US Congress and Senate, where it will doubtlessly emerge in a completely different and much more expensive form.

Perhaps when we've had the outcome of less discrimination and it has proven to have no unexpected comebacks against homosexuals in the military, I will stand up and applaud it.

Until then, it's all just a case of fine but empty words.

Perhaps if you go back to 1996 and start reading Tony Blair's speeches you will find many more positive things you can blog about that I ignored or thought were a load of shite.

Oh, and look: all Mr Blair's fine rhetoric has left us where exactly?

And in closing, this:

I'm telling you, folks, this is another Tony Blair we've got here. A thieving bastard hypocrite of the very highest order.

So, my opinion of Obama and his efforts is entirely consistent: he's a man who can talk a fine talk (when he has a teleprompter) but apart from that he's an empty sack of shit who will leave his country in a fucking mess.

This particular piece of legislation, if it ever happens, can easily be just as dreadful as anything Harriet Harman cooks up, despite the noble sentiment.

Is that consistent enough for you?

PS I hadn't even heard about it until you tried to use it as a stick to beat me with. So blame the media for not giving the story enough prominence while you're trying so hard to be consistent.


J Demetriou said...

Well read the press more than, you're supposed to be a political blogger you useless lazy fat-head.

"Unlike idealists, this old cynic looks at outcomes"

Or, perhaps, hopeful guesswork.

You don't care about liberty in theory or practice Obo, why not come clean?

Obnoxio The Clown said...

Hopeful guesswork? Go on, go take a look at Tony Blair's speeches from the mid- to late-90's. Compare the ideals and inspiration with what Obama says and then tell me why it will be different.

J Demetriou said...

This isn't about Obama or Blair, you utter cretin. My piece wasn't about those two or social democracy. It was about social liberalism and the fact some socially liberal policies enacted by some politicians of the day being good things from a libertarian stand-point.

But you deliberately conflated the point to make out like I was being pro Obama as a general rule, which I'm not. So just fuck off, if all you can be bothered to do is lie.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

I will applaud good outcomes from whatever source.

But this isn't an outcome, this is just some wishful thinking on your part.

And it (as ever) was not at all clear what the point was that you were trying to make.

J Demetriou said...

So why not write a comment on my site asking for clarification, then? Rather than pump out this garbage here, sans link as normal?

So, so droll. So pathetic. So boring. You do it to get a rise, Obby. That's all you do. Prod, poke and provoke to get a rise. It won't work, son.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

You're confusing me.

Fidel Cuntstruck said...

@JD "So, so droll. So pathetic. So boring. You do it to get a rise, Obby. That's all you do. Prod, poke and provoke to get a rise. It won't work, son."

Oh, I think it does


J Demetriou said...

Everything confuses you Obo. Blue coloured slush puppie confuses you. Fiat Doblos confuse you. Mountains and mole hills confuse you.

Is it time for the old chap's home, Obby? Nice blanket and a mug of cocoa before Nursey tucks you in for the night?

Aaaah. Poor lad.

sixtypoundsaweekcleaner said...

...won't work son.

Son? Mr Clown, are you JD's son?

...old chap's home...?

How can Mr Clown be old if he is your son? Now I'm confused.

J Demetriou said...

Because I'm immortal. A very youthful 123 year old with big balls.

Clown, grow up and stop writing tat.

sixtypoundsaweekcleaner said...

Mr Clown! You are JD's son! This is amazing.

wv: corie

Is this the next episode?

Obnoxio The Clown said...

"Clown, grow up and stop writing tat."

I'm not the one confusing the executive with the legislature or aspirations with outcomes.

sixtypoundsaweekcleaner said...


Do you two mind if we take a five minute break, only I have to go to the loo....

J Demetriou said...

I didn't confuse the two, you idiot. But the executive holds influence over law makers and he has a veto. He has say over this issue, whilst not drafting or passing the actual law. I do know this.

And as for aspiration with outcome, how does that relate to the piece? Please explain your logic, and don't just rely (as Holby does) on obsessive, slow-minded fan support to take your word for it.

sixtypoundsaweekcleaner said...

(sound of high-heeled stilettos on parquet flooring)

...right, I'm back now. Did I miss anything?

Obnoxio The Clown said...

"And as for aspiration with outcome, how does that relate to the piece?"

Your post reads: "Obama's lifting of the gay ban for the US military is just such a socially liberal move that libertarians the world over should applaud and give credit on."

Well, he did no such thing. Did you even read the article you linked to? All he's done is get some legislation repealed that might or might not block a better outcome. He hasn't ACTUALLY improved gay rights in any way, shape or form yet.

In other news, I'm not sure why they couldn't just overwrite the "don't ask, don't tell" law with a better one. To me it looks like they've just taken a step back without any step forward.

In other words, not only has Obama not actually improved gay rights, but as things stand now, he's actually made things worse.

IF he actually manages to get a proper non-discriminatory law in place and it's not full of awful unintended consequences, I will applaud it. Until then, he's made things worse and not better.

And since the luminous example you held up of social democrats getting things right was no such thing, I can hardly see why you felt the rest of your post was any good.

J Demetriou said...

Yeah, you missed the slurping sound of Obo sucking off his own little cocktail sausage-esque schlong.

J Demetriou said...


The fact remains that Obama and the Dems are making moves to overhaul the antagonistic, immoral and stupidly illiberal laws on gays in the military. Regardless of the technicalities on how it eventually is implemented, the fact remains that political moves that remove authoritarian, homophobic policies in state institutions are good.

That's the point. A socially liberal move in this area is good. A party/politician made a move (regardless of how clumsy it may be) and that is a good thing.

Libertarian bloggers seldom talk about socially liberal moves that take away illiberal rules and give power back to the people.

That is my article in a nut shell. You don't like it, because you don't like Obama.

Probably because you were born into a dogmatic Republican household in the States, before you flew over here aged a nipper, thereafter developing a penchant for Murray Rothbard.

Am I right or am I right?

Obnoxio The Clown said...

So, Obama has currently made things worse and not better, but you reckon that's OK because his heart is in the right place with this?

And as long as your heart is in the right place, it doesn't matter what he actually does, it's only his motivations that count?

"Well, yes, it did lead to the persecution of gays in the military, but it was all done with the very best of intentions, so it was actually OK."

I'm trying very hard not to stoop to the same playground ad hominems that you're so fond of, but it's difficult for me to conclude that you're anything other than a fucking idiot.

sixtypoundsaweekcleaner said...

Phew. For a moment there, I thought I missed something important.

I've got a great recipe for using leftover cocktail sausages...

J Demetriou said...


MORE willful misrepresentation of my views. How many times in one day? You going for a record?

The law will be changed out there, thanks to the Dems. Got that? It will happen, which will mean an end to 'don't ask don't tell'. Please show me how this is not the case? That is to say, a tangible, factual, undoubted change in the rules, which will end homophobic, bigoted practice?

It will happen. And would not have happened had the Republicans held the legislature and / or the executive. END OF.

So, no, not about intentions, but practice.


Obnoxio The Clown said...

And IF it happens, I will applaud it.

Until it actually does happen, Obama and the Democrats have officially made things worse.

I still do not understand why they first had to repeal this law before enacting a new one. If they had just over-ridden the old law with a new one, I'd be very happy about that.

But until they actually do what they said they were going to do, and until the law is clearly shown not to be as badly drafted as a New Labour law, I will merely reserve my judgement.

I can't see why you're fulminating quite so much. In what way have I misrepresented the situation?

Obama has said he's going to do something good. Until he's actually done it, it's just hot air. I fail to see how this strengthens your argument.

sixtypoundsaweekcleaner said...

I've just looked at that recipe again and it involves, one finely chopped onion, 250g of thinly sliced mushrooms, 450g of diced tomatoes, one packet of penne, two extra hot chili peppers and a litre of cheese sauce. Are you two going to be okay with that? I mean, I don't know about you, but perhaps your mothers didn't teach you how to cook.

Kitler said...

Fuck gays in the military. What Obama needs to do is get some actual military strategists in the US army. You know like in the old days when people actually went to war to win, not just to heamorage zillions of dollars opressing iron age camel-fuckers.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

"Fuck gays in the military."

Freudian slip much?

J Demetriou said...

I think ol 'Kitler' is one main reason why social liberalism might be a good thing. Without it, people like him get to have a powerful hand in the runnings of a (ideally limited) state.

Bet there's loads of Americans like him out there, albeit fairly silent IRL.

Obo - yes or no, were you born in America?

Obnoxio The Clown said...

What difference does it make?

J Demetriou said...

No difference at all. Just curious.

So are you going to answer?

Obnoxio The Clown said...


Kitler said...

"I think ol 'Kitler' is one main reason why social liberalism might be a good thing. Without it, people like him get to have a powerful hand in the runnings of a (ideally limited) state.

Bet there's loads of Americans like him out there, albeit fairly silent IRL."

People like him? As an anarchist I want no part in running anything outside of my own life. However unlike twats like you I can see the world from differing perspectives. I am against war but am of the opinion that if one must go to war it should be for conquest or profit. These stupid wars achieve neither.

I can see why Obo thinks you are a twunt.

J Demetriou said...

Speak for yourself, Kitler, I'm sure Obby has his own names for me. He doesn't need a gutless pathetic troll with a stupid pseudonym popping out of his hidey hole to put words in his mouth.

Not very libertarian, that? Telling people what to think.

Fuck off, e?

Obnoxio The Clown said...

"I'm sure Obby has his own names for me."

Vacuous dullard, to start with.

Joyce Hiveld said...

I see JD as the troll.

Joyce Hiveld said...

& foul-mouthed, at that.

Kitler said...

I can't see where on my post I tell you what to think. I told you what I think and you responded so I told you what I think again. As for the gutless, lurking troll thing, please remember that this is just a blog on the internet and I don't see why in order to post something here I need to publish my name and adress as well as a suitable venue in which I will physically fight all who disagree with me, just to earn the right to type a bit of bollocks now and again.

I can only assume that by your reaction to what I typed, you must think I have a point with which you very much disagree, and even though I have no idea what that point actually is I'm really glad its annoying you.

Anonymous said...

Why would any libertarian applaud a change in recruitment policy for _a standing army_?

Surely the only libertarian defence policy has to be based around free militias, which have kicked the ass of every 'superpower' on the planet and probably don't give a damn about your sexual preference so long as you're willing to shoot at the people who are invading your country?

Obnoxio The Clown said...

Well, Demetriou applauds it because he's not a libertarian ... :o)