politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Libertarians smarter?
Source:
Conservative News and Views
URL Source: https://www.conservativenewsandview ... ial/talk/libertarians-smarter/
Published: Feb 5, 2012
Author: Terry A. Hurlbut
Post Date: 2019-08-10 14:33:23 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 18526
Comments: 138
Are liberals really smarter than conservatives? Or are libertarians smarter than anyone else? A recent column in The Daily Mail suggests so. True or not, it shows that “liberal” and “conservative” are not the only two extremes of opinion. In fact, they are special cases of a far more general political landscape. By tradition, “conservative” and “liberal” (formerly “progressive”) stand for two different sets of freedoms on one hand, and entitlements on the other. This linear graph of left-of-center v. right-of-center dates from the National Assembly of Revolutionary France. The only thing that defined the “left” and the “right” then was change. The “left” wanted sweeping change, and the “right” wanted to keep things as they were. But neither side necessarily stood for more freedom than did the other. Instead, those things that a liberal wants to entitle some people to, a conservative does not. But: many of the things that a liberal wants people to be free to do, a conservative does not, either. The reason: a conservative favors a different set of entitlements that are not economic. The conservative would entitle most wives to expect their husbands to stay married to them, and not seek enjoyment elsewhere or end the marriage whenever they saw fit. “Moderates” are more likely to grant more entitlements in some areas, and more freedoms in others, than either side. But this line is a very special case. In fact, the possible mix of entitlements and freedoms should have at least two dimensions, not merely one. Michael Hanlon of The Daily Mail came close to recognizing this: The problem here is how we define ‘left’ and ‘right’ thinking, what this means socially and politically. A moment’s thought shows that the fault lines are not only blurred but they are legion, criss-crossing across traditional political strata and have changed through time. The square political leanings grid, from OnTheIssues.org. True, but incomplete. Many theorists, from Rand to Rothbard, have recognized two different “freedom scales” with which to chart one’s attitudes. One is the economic scale. Zero on this scale is a complete command economy, with input-output analysis dictating who produces what, and with Five-Year Plans, government stores, collective farms, the whole nine meters. At this end of the scale, everyone is entitled to a minimum economic standard but are free to do nothing to break out of that standard, or to take on any task unless the authorities approve. One hundred on this scale is total capitalism, with no role for government in production, distribution, or exchange. At this end, people are free to do anything but entitled to nothing. Whatever they want, they must work for. The other scale is the social scale. Zero on that scale means: throw homosexuals in prison, punish criminals severely, forbid immigration (that is, membership is by invitation only), etc. One hundred means to let everybody in, take all comers, let roommates (same-sex or opposite-, whether they share bed or not) form whatever contractual unions they care to form—but also recognize freedom of association (including the freedom not to associate), and the right of self-defense. Hanlon loses sight of one thing: many “social liberals” are damnably hypocritical along this line. They will not recognize freedom of association. They do not recognize a right of self-defense. They do not recognize any of the flip sides of increased tolerance of homosexuality, adultery, or criminality. As an example, they want to leave two men (or two women) free to be intimate, but then want to entitle this roommate pair to rooms, or an apartment, in any dwelling, whether the would-be host wants to offer them those rooms, or that apartment, or not. Once again: one person’s entitlement is another person’s loss of freedom. A libertarian, by contrast, would respect that host’s freedom. A libertarian would ask that the government leave those roommates free to be as intimate as they please, but not entitle them to rooms or apartment wherever they wish. For those, they must still make a voluntary arrangement with a host or landlord. If one plots his attitudes on the economic and social freedom scales on a square grid, instead of on a line segment, and orient this grid like a baseball diamond, then that grid will yield five different positions, not three. Home plate (zero, zero) is populism, or the Communism of the old Warsaw Pact, or Nazism in Germany. Conservatism lies at first base (100, 0). Liberalism or left-wing-ism lies at third base (0, 100). “Moderate-ism” is at the pitcher’s mound (50, 50). And Libertarianism is at second base (100, 100). So the old left-to-right line passes from third base to first, across the infield, allowing more freedom in economic areas, but insisting on more entitlement on the social, as it goes. Here is what Hanlon noticed: intelligence tracks with moving straight up on the political grid, and then tending toward perfect libertarianism. Lower intelligence tracks with falling straight down on the political grid, toward total populism. With the horizontal movement along the traditional left-right line, intelligence does not change. The implied result: Libertarians are smarter than everyone else. Purely abstract intelligence might track higher with libertarianism. That makes libertarians smarter than liberals or conservatives on that scale. A smart person (unless he hungers for power) wants to be free, either to make a living or to associate (or not) with anyone he pleases. But does common sense make libertarians smarter? Not necessarily. Abstract libertarianism works fine—for a voluntary association of voluntarily consenting adults. It does not work well for children. A child is an inherently dependent, even helpless person. Common sense demands that a society entitle a child to food, water, shelter, and education, that the parents, not the government, should give it. The parents are more likely to have the child’s best interests at heart than faceless bureaucrats would. But in addition, that same society also entitles the parents to a minimum level of “good examples” from other adults. That is why a sound society does not authorize two same-sex roommates sharing bed to adopt children. It is also why a business that caters to “the prurient interest” is not free to locate near enough to where a child might stray within sight. It is why a sound society classifies certain kinds of pastimes as “for adults only,” and recognizes a class of citizen or resident called the minor. As in: Sales of cigarettes to MINORS are FORBIDDEN by law. We support this law. Parents are urged to help prevent violations. The pure libertarian recognizes no such thing as a minor. That’s the equivalent of expecting a cub in the wild to fend for himself before he is ready. As any wildlife biologist knows, that’s not very smart. But in matters of pure economic policy, libertarians might be smarter than most. A sound society does let its children imitate the adults in one key area: business. Whether this business is selling lemonade from a front-yard stand, or offering lawn-and-garden services to his neighbors for a fee, a libertarian would have no problem with this. Nor would a conservative, so long as the child is doing something that he or she has already safely done at home. But a liberal won’t allow this. A liberal wants to entitle a perfect stranger to sell lawn-and-garden services, usually for a higher fee, without having the neighbor’s boy (or girl) compete with that service. The same seems to hold for selling lemonade, though that is even harder to justify. This makes both conservatives and libertarians smarter than liberals. They are smart enough to know that some entitlements have no justification, but only excuses. Are libertarians smarter? In some areas, yes. In others, no. But conservatives are smart to engage libertarians in a debate on how a society ought to run. Liberals haven’t done very well. Libertarians and conservatives might each be able to teach the other something.
Traditional political labels
Are libertarians smarter than everyone else?
Summing up
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-34) not displayed.
.
.
.
#35. To: Deckard (#34)
Then he is correct in assessment of Trump and Trump is NOT fulfilling the libertarians' wishes and hopes. Glad you are learning ...
Not completely, but even a die-hard statist like you can admit that Trumps HAS embraced some libertarian ideas and policies.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Anarchy - liberTarianism Is The Train - joy ride To The concenTraTion camps Udopians Love If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
I can admit reading about the paltry hopes of the libertarian Moment. Here are the carefully documented false hopes some libertarians originally had about Trump.
C'mon, don't spoil this. I like it when Gatlin is approvingly quoting the Daily Worker just so he can post one more thread to bash Ron Paul. I keep hoping he'll unearth the story about the POW pilot in Vietnam who hated Ron Paul with every fiber of his being but who died at the hands of the Viet Cong but who managed to get his buddy to smuggle his watch out by keeping it concealed internally on his person for years until his eventual release from a POW camp and then finally giving the watch to the dead hero's young son back in America with a stirring patriotic lecture about duty and sacrifice. Kind of like a scene from the movie Pulp Fiction.
Aren't you like 90 years old? How can you write something like that? Obviously, Ron Paul has had a far more successful life than you have and he is, even in retirement as a House member, beloved to millions of Americans. Face it, Ron Paul is America's sweetheart. And they've never heard of you.
I love you, Boris.
Some folks have a tendency to measure success using a comparison to others. But in doing that, their social comparison bias is a cognitive bias that skews their judgment. And some folks say that success should be measured in a way that informs you how to spend your time and effort. For if you measure success in any other way than in terms of what’s truly important to you – then you can’t work towards getting there. And remember to always focus on things that are within your control. Your “baiting” post was not so subtle. With that in mind, you must remember that in dealing with me – you are not dealing with Deckard. Since I had spare time – you gave me something to do. Catch you later …
We don't "hang-out" on chit-chat channels as you (gatlin) demonstrate on a daily basis. Instead, we form business(es) around the planet making money to ensure our well being into the future.
He did get Rand interested in politics and retired after Rand got much more power in the Senate than Ron had ever had in the House. Keep in mind, Ron Paul never wanted to run for prez in 2008 or in 2012. Everyone just kept nudging him to do it (except his wife) until he did. Ron Paul and his good buddy, Murray Rothbard, had always expected that success in electing libertarians to public office widely could only occur in the mid-2020s when the Millennial generation started to become more decisive in election outcomes. A lot of people pledged a considerable amount of money just to get RP to announce he was running. And RP pioneered the use of online money bombs where RP would just get a fresh $5 million or $7 million for his campaign in the early primary states. Yes, Ron Paul is definitely a beloved politician even in retirement. A lot more so than losers like Dick Cheney or Bush Junior.
But the discussions I have been involved in had nothing to do with “forming businesses or making money” – it had everything to do with discussing libertarian politics. Therefore, while staying on topic – tell me, please, has there ever been a successful libertarian government? And why not?
Rand is relatively young with a national name. It isn't that hard to imagine him running for prez in 2024 or 2028 or 2032. So we don't know if Ron Paul will finally conquer America via his progeny for many years yet.
After Trump reitres in 2029 Rand should be President. Rand 2028
Yes, he did know all about them since he wrote them and distributed them for free without any copyright claim as a service to constituents. Lots of those tiny town papers didn't have much content available so a free regular article from the congressman was good for them, good for him. Later on, various websites and a few antisemitic took advantage of the copyright disclaimer found on RP's newsletters and they published his articles as well. I recall that there was a stink over some antisemite newsletter that used to use his columns. I can't recall if RP denounced them or not. But he did refuse to stop them or anyone else from publishing his free newsletters just as he had always allowed any publisher to do. Ron Paul, like Donald Trump, may have gone on Alex Jones a time or two but he did not willingly associate with antisemitic publishers. And it was never for their benefit that he started issuing his congressional newsletters to the public copyright-free.
Stranger things have happened. Like Donald Trump getting elected. Never say never.
Yes, he did know all about them since he wrote them and distributed them for free without any copyright claim as a service to constituents. Some of Gatlin's posts lately seem to coming from a leftist, self-hating-white SJW. His attempts to diaparage those he hates with the "racist" moniker are getting more obvious.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. George F. Will, a conservative American political columnist, wrote: "[White guilt is] a form of self-congratulation, where whites initiate 'compassionate policies' toward people of color, to showcase their innocence to racism." And – White guilt has been described as one of the psychosocial costs of racism for white individuals along with empathy (sadness and anger) for victims of racism and fear of non-whites. For you to say that I as a white person have guilt for harm resulting from racist treatment of ethnic minorities by other white people is a ridiculous fabrication. You have seen no such thing in my posts. This is just a term you read someplace that you now maliciously, carelessly and inappropriately try to apply it against me. That will not work – it never will. The information for my posts is coming from sources, none of which can be classified by white guilt. As an example – The article from July last year posted below was published in Jewish Telegraphic Agency. And oh, these articles and my posts seem to greatly bother you as a libertarian. Why is that? The article - (JTA) — Former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul tweeted and then deleted a racist and anti-Semitic cartoon that he said was meant to explain “cultural Marxism.” The cartoon shows four caricatures of different ethnicities – including a Jewish man with a hooked nose, a black man with exaggerated lips, an Asian man with slanted eyes and a man who looks like a Neanderthal – punching a cartoon of Uncle Sam with a shared red fist emblazoned with a hammer and sickle. The four men are shouting “Cultural Marxism.” The beginning of the tweet reads “Are you stunned by what has become of American culture? “Are you confused as to how every moral principle could be turned on its head so quickly? “Well, it’s not an accident. “You’ve probably heard of ‘Cultural Marxism,’ but do you know what it means?” Though Paul deleted the image, it had already been saved by several social media users as a screenshot. Paul, a former congressman from Texas, later tweeted and posted on Facebook the same rant against cultural Marxism but replaced the cartoon with the words “Political Correctness” overlaid with the “no” symbol, a red circle with a line through it. The term Cultural Marxism has become a racist dog whistle claiming that the flood of nonwhite immigrants into America and Europe is causing a cultural decline. The racist cartoon was created by doctoring an anti-imperialism, pro- communism cartoon by superimposing the racist and anti-Semitic images. Paul was roundly criticized on social media for the image. Some draw parallels between the image and Nazi propaganda, according to The Hill. In 2011, reporters exposed racist newsletters that had been sent out in Ron Paul’s name in the late 1980s and early 1990s, such as Ron Paul’s Political Report, Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter. The newsletters also had come to light during the 2008 campaign, when Paul said that he didn’t actually write the newsletters and they did not represent his views, but because they carried his name he was morally responsible for their content. Source: https://www.jta.org/2018/07/02/united-states/ron-paul-former-presidential- candidate-tweets-racist-anti-semitic-cartoon
I've heard about these "racist" newsletters before. What did he write that was deemed "racist"?
I like Ron Pauls graphic you posted. It isn't racist.
The famous owk I Told him on The fr TwenTy years ago GlibTarians Trivia freaks RealiTy losers Love If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Maybe this will shed some light on what you asked ... Ron Paul’s Racist, Homophobic Newsletters Gain New Life On Twitter" It is but one source. There are many others if you care to look them up.
And obviously Ron Paul also thought it was wrong since: Ron Paul Blames Shockingly Racist, Anti-Semitic Tweet On Staffer Ron Paul replaced the post with the same attack on “cultural Marxism” but dropped the offensive cartoon.
Well, it does sound like a remarkably accurate depiction of Facebook, Google and Twitter. If these organizations and other want to band blacks, Latinos, Asians and Jews to beat up white people, then isn't that just another flavor of racism, just not the white flavor? This is why that cartoon offends the Lefties and Silicon Valley so much. It is because it is accurate, not because it is racist. BTW, that cartoon was something drawn by a Latino cartoonist but someone on 4chan (I think) edited it up with the minorities' faces. You can see the Uncle Sam is a more modern style and the four minorities are caricatures from mid-20th century. It looks wrong because it's a provocative 4chan/8chan fake meme.
I am not sure if they are smarter, but they take bath less frequently. My sense of smell tells me that.
You sniff a lot of libertarians? Rand died in 1982, Rothbard in the mid-Nineties. So you haven't sniffed those two in quite some time.
I worked with two (in IT, they were quite competent), and I had a neighbor next flat (he was a biochemist). They all smelled from a distance. Also I read that Ayn Rand was not so great about her personal hygiene. Perhaps as greater and smarter individuals, they were above petty customs and rules. ;) "Objectivism taught that intellectual parity is the sole legitimate basis for romantic or sexual attraction. Coincidentally enough, this doctrine cleared the way for Rand—a woman possessed of looks that could be charitably described as unusual, along with abysmal personal hygiene and grooming habits—to seduce young men in her orbit."
Maybe you just have a sensitive nose. Or they were single or lived with someone who had gone nose-blind to their body odor or they themselves had a poor sense of smell. I recall reading articles about the Hollyweird elite, that many of them are accused of non-bathing. One of the more notorious is Johnny Depp and his wife. Supposedly they can go weeks without bathing, co-stars begging him to take a shower because he stand so much on those Pirates movies. This info was found on a lot of websites. If it was libel, it was major libel. They also included his wife in the stinker category. I'm not sure why everyone always seems to believe that we all have exactly the same identical abilities to hear, see, smell, sense, etc. I know that I, for instance, don't have a strong sense of smell but I have exceptional hearing and always did. My skin is very sensitive to infrared heat. I know everyone is but my heat sensitivity is almost like a radar. I know that most people don't have that. I have a friend who has an almost frightening sense of smell. He knows when women are menstruating, up to a block away if there's a breeze. He has a super nose. To me, it doesn't sound like much fun. I always thought being a dog would suck because then you'd know just how bad the world smells. There is also a thing in recent years where some people are abandoning soaps and antiperspirants altogether. Including some doctors and science types. I Stopped Using Soap & Shampoo Six Months ago. Why you Should too. And it isn't unheard of here among LFers. Vicomte told us he gave up using these products years ago (unless he gets really dirty, like car grease kind of dirty). Maybe he wants to chime in. He was very early on this trend which is now becoming almost a movement. The No-Poo people who avoid shampoo has been around for a while now but the No-Soap and No-Antiperspirant movement are still growing. You'd be surprised how many videos you can find on this at YouBoob, how to transition to bathing with water only, how long until your body adjusts. It's familiar material for anyone who recalls Vic's posts on the subject, going back to several years before LP closed up. He's never gone back to using soaps or shampoos, thinks they're bad for his skin. Some people say their skin gets more oily and subject to blemishes using soap because it scrubs away natural oils which makes the skin go nuts trying to produce more oil, making the skin more oily than ever and subject to blemishes or even real acne. Supposedly it takes a little longer to get your hair to adjust to no-poo than it takes for your skin to adjust to no-soap. Apparently it does take weeks to get your body to adjust to no-antiperspirant but they claim their body odor is less once they get away from antiperspirant. They don't claim to 100% odor-free but they think they smell less without antiperspirant than they do if they use it, especially on a daily basis. I know that I have curtailed my own use. I will use a little antiperspirant if I'm going out, especially in summer. Otherwise, I really try to avoid it. I try to avoid really soaping up my body and have a very lightweight liquid soap with tiny abrasive particles (Men's Dove) which I use a half-dozen drops on a loofah to scrub with. I am a lot more gentle about scrubbing my face and try to avoid using soap since I think it does make my skin more dry which then makes my skin more oily as a result of my skin trying to cope. And your skin producing more oil means more chances for blocked pores, leading to blemishing (even tiny blemishes you can barely even see). Most of the no-soap/no-poo/no-antiperspirant types are very rigorous about daily showers with water. They claim that, other than sweating in warm weather, they have no problems and feel and look better. They say they like their hair and skin better or that they've solved some longstanding problems caused by using these products or at least overusing them. Look at YouTube, you'll find a lot of videos on this topic. And it is a lot harder to make money on YouTube selling people on the idea of using no products than it is to monetize videos by recommending the latest and greatest brand-name products. Yet the no-soaps movement just keeps growing. Maybe these stinky libertarians that you know just aren't diligent enough with their daily shower routines. Or they're trying to get away from soaps and haven't mastered their routine yet. I notice you don't mention liberals or conservatives or communists or fascists who smell bad to you. Are you saying that only libertarians smell bad? Are you saying that every libertarian you have known smells bad? BTW, how do you know that you don't stink to (some) other people? Are you that sure that you don't?
The problem of libertarians having strong body odor [“stinking”] appears to be a fairly common one. So much so that libertarian Lee McKitrick felt the problem with libertarians’ body odor needed to be addressed. Christopher did that when he addressed the problem of their body odor to fellow libertarians in his article: Libertarians Just Aren’t Cool, Deal With It.. Here is an excerpt from the article where he is instructs fellow libertarians to “please bathe.” […] “Your personal hygiene matters as well. If I can smell your body odor when you are talking to me, it’s an issue. Please bathe. Dousing yourself with half a can of Axe body spray does not count as bathing."
Because it accurately shows what foreigners are doing to our country.
Homophobe is a word faggots use to put down people who know right from wrong. Why do you use faggot terms. I mean you're not gay. Why are you siding with the degenerate weirdos using a made up term to go after Ron Paul.
Homophobe is a word faggots use to put down people who know right from wrong. Why do you use faggot terms. Here, let me help straighten this out. All I was did was give a direct answer to you when you asked: And I answered: I merely supplied you with “a link containing the word” as an answer to your question. Are we now clear on this?
Indeed, I do not. All I knew did not stink. Only other group that often stinks, are the French, but not all of them ;)
But since you asked – and thank you for doing so – I will list my many reasons one at a time starting with this one first. He is essentially saying it is fine to kill a baby if a state agrees. During the 2008 campaign every GOP candidate had a zero rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, except Ron Paul. He received a 65% score in 2006, 75% in 2005 and 65% in 2004. Here you have a organization that wants to kill unborn babies – and engages in political action and advocacy efforts to oppose restrictions on abortion and expand access to abortion – that strongly supports Ron Paul. Why do you think that is, Stone?
It is true. It must be 5 or 6 years ago now that I did the first of two 40 day water fasts. One was in the summer. the other, the following Lent. At some point in the first fast, when I had had no food in me for quite awhile, and nothing but water in my system to dilute the impact of things, I noticed that the tap water tasted very strongly of the chlorine they put in it, and it started to disgree with me, so I switched to bottled water, and gradually found myself only able to drink Poland Spring, Evian and Distilled water, because everything else had an aftertaste or too much of some mineral or chemical to bear. About the same time, I noticed that toothpaste was just overwhelming - made me sick to use it, and that shampoo and soap would hit me like a bad drug, so I stopped using those, and just took longer showers, scraping all of my skin and my scalp with my fingernails. My hair got really greasy for a few weeks, as the oils were no longer being stripped off daily by the shampoo, but eventually my scalp adjusted and stopped pouring out the oil, and the dandruff stopped, and I found myself just pulling the oil through my hair. It stopped smelling, and my hair became noticeably softer and nicer. The lady barber who always cuts my hair asked me what the new products I was using, because my hair was so much softer and healthier looking. I told her "nothing". Just a long daily shower and running my fingernails through my hair and all along my scalp, sort of scratching it (it doesn't itch). I never went back to any hygeine products at all, except for toothpaste. Once I was eating food again I needed that. But no shampoo, no soap - though I'll wash with soap if I get greasy somehow, and I do wash my hands with soap if they get into nasty things - no deodorant or anti-perspirant - no powders or gels or anything. There is one standby medicine when I don't feel good: aspirin (not tylenol, not acetominophin, not ibuprofen: aspirin), water and go to bed. Sleep seems to fix everything. I generally do not smell at all, except in four circumstances: (1) If I've been sweating a lot and am wearing polyester. Polyester really stinks after being moist with human sweat. Other clothes sweated in get a funky, mushroomy smell. (2) If I wear the same clothes a couple of days in a row. (3) If I don't eat enough carbohydrates and go into ketosis. Then I smell like acetone (printer toner). (4) If I eat garlic, I smell like strong; if I eat a lot of dairy I smell sour and pass a lot of gas; if I eat a lot of meat, I get an acidic smell. Oh, and I never did floss - and never have had a cavity either.
I like Ron Paul very much. I hope that he takes bath ;)
I'm French. There is a strong odor in France on public transport on hot summer days, but it's obvious why.
I recommend you a filter with activated charcoal. Should trap every active substance, not minerals. Bottled water often is just filtered, you can do it better at home, just remember to change filters as in the instruction.
They are libertarians? Or is it garlic?
Even people who don't use soap or shampoo (or antiperspirant outside the hottest summer days) should not have a B.O. problem unless they have illness or disease. As long as they rinse and scrub with water every day or, at most, every other day. Obviously, people who are plumbing or auto mechanics or laborers are in a different category and may need more soap to get clean because of oil and dirt. But your average office worker or retail worker really doesn't get sweaty enough to actually have B.O. if they shower with water daily. I see some of the no-soap-shampoo-deodorant people are now also recommending cold showers year-round. I think that is a fad that is going to be slow to take off. Most people don't like cold showers, maybe cool showers in the heat of summer so you don't get out of the shower sweating. I try to shower cooler but it is hard to avoid turning up the temperature. I think some people can take cool or cold showers and be more comfortable with it than most others; having a layer of fat would help insulate your body core. And cold water does help to close up pores which is probably a positive because then your pores aren't just hanging there open and your skin will have a smoother look. A hot shower will open pores, a cold shower will close them. Possibly it might be worth trying a hot shower but ending with a rinse of a minute or two with cool or cold water. Some people say cold showers promotes weight loss but I think you'd have to use a lot of water to induce fat cell dislocation in subcutaneous fat under the skin so it can be eliminated by the liver. For that to work, you also have to control your diet. Some people say the spot reduction with cold helps them shed extra pounds in the problem area of belly/buttocks/thighs. They have salon treatments for this and people also use cheap cold packs for 20-30 minutes. But you'd have to take very long cold showers for it to really get your skin and outer tissue cold enough to induce fat loss. If you used enough cold water running over your body to drop, say, your belly's temperature to 40-45°F and kept it that cold for 20 minutes, then you would definitely induce some fat cell conversion due to cold. Over the next week or so, your liver would be eliminating those fat cells from your body as long as you were careful with diet. NASA did comprehensive studies verifying weight loss in astronauts due to chilling the body back in the Sixties. So maybe cold showers could help you lose some extra pounds. But I think you'd have to take showers with very cold water for 20-30 minutes. And you'd still have to restrict your diet to avoid packing pounds back on. Maybe no-soap-shampoo-deodorant and cold showers is just the latest fad for people to make themselves miserable with crap that they read on teh interwebs. : )
Comments (76 - 138) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#36. To: Gatlin (#35)
Then he is correct in assessment of Trump and Trump is NOT fulfilling the libertarians' wishes and hopes.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#37. To: Deckard (#36)
boris
#38. To: Deckard (#36)
(Edited)
... you can admit that Trumps HAS embraced some libertarian ideas and policies.
You’d expect more from those in the libertarian wing of the GOP, representing, as they claim to do, an unchanging body of principled beliefs about strictly limited government, the universal efficacy of markets, and the holiness of economic and (for some, at least) personal freedom. But after reading a meditation by Lucy Steigerwald about the greater meaning of Congressman Justin Amash’s libertarianish defection from Trump’s party, I can’t help but wonder about the future of any ideological tradition that depends for its vitality on a single House member in a single very unrepresentative district in Michigan.
The libertarian ideological tradition has never had any future.
#39. To: Deckard (#32)
(Edited)
At least you aren't posting links to Commie rags like you have done a few times in the past.
#40. To: Gatlin (#38)
The libertarian ideological tradition has never had any future.
#41. To: BorisY (#37)
#42. To: Tooconservative (#40)
Aren't you like 90 years old?
No. How can you write something like that?
Facts have always had an easy way with me. Obviously, Ron Paul has had a far more successful life than you have …
By whose standard and how is that alleged “success” measured? … and he is, even in retirement as a House member, beloved to millions of Americans …
Yes, where roughly four out of five Americans disapproves of Congress’ job performance. Twenty five percent approval should never be classified that as “beloved.” Face it, Ron Paul is America's sweetheart -
You’re America’s sweetheart’s political career was a failure measured by having succeed in passing on one bill during all his many years in Congress and culminating with his2012 presidential campaign [being] a Disaster.
#43. To: Gatlin, Deckard (#1)
They (libertarians) sure as hell think they are (smarter than anyone else?)
#44. To: Gatlin (#42)
You’re America’s sweetheart’s political career was a failure measured by having succeed in passing on one bill during all his many years in Congress and culminating with his2012 presidential campaign [being] a Disaster.
#45. To: buckeroo (#43)
They (libertarians) sure as hell think they are (smarter than anyone else?) We don't "hang-out" on chit-chat channels as you (gatlin) demonstrate on a daily basis. Instead, we form business(es) around the planet making money to ensure our well being into the future.
That’s nice.
#46. To: Tooconservative (#44)
He did get Rand interested in politics and retired after Rand got much more power in the Senate than Ron had ever had in the House.
And how has that worked out?
#47. To: Tooconservative (#44)
Yes, Ron Paul is definitely a beloved politician even in retirement. A lot more so than losers like Dick Cheney or Bush Junior.
“Beloved” – Yea.
#48. To: Gatlin (#46)
And how has that worked out?
#49. To: Tooconservative (#48)
#50. To: Gatlin (#47)
Ron Paul Knew All About His “Beloved” Racist Newsletters.
#51. To: A K A Stone (#49)
After Trump reitres in 2029 Rand should be President. Rand 2028
#52. To: Tooconservative (#50)
Ron Paul Knew All About His “Beloved” Racist Newsletters.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#53. To: Deckard (#52)
Some of Gatlin's posts lately seem to coming from a leftist, self-hating-white SJW.
There you go again, making shit up. 
#54. To: Deckard, Gatlin, Tooconservative (#52)
#55. To: Gatlin (#53)
#56. To: WWG1WWA (#41)
boris
#57. To: A K A Stone (#54)
I've heard about these "racist" newsletters before. What did he write that was deemed "racist"?
#58. To: A K A Stone (#55)
I like Ron Pauls graphic you posted.
Exactly whqt it It you like about seeing “images of a black man, a Latino, an Asian and a Jew punching Uncle Sam?” It isn't racist.
Many others thought it was because It depicted cultural offensive images of a black man, a Latino, an Asian and a Jew punching Uncle Sam with a single red fist as they shout: “Cultural Marxism!”
#59. To: Gatlin (#58)
Exactly whqt it It you like about seeing “images of a black man, a Latino, an Asian and a Jew punching Uncle Sam?”
#60. To: Deckard (#0)
"Many theorists, from Rand to Rothbard"
#61. To: A Pole (#60)
I am not sure if they are smarter, but they take bath less frequently. My sense of smell tells me that.
#62. To: Tooconservative (#61)
(Edited)
You sniff a lot of libertarians?
#63. To: A Pole, Vicomte13 (#62)
I worked with two (in IT, they were quite competent), and I had a neighbor next flat (he was a biochemist). They all smelled from a distance.
#64. To: A Pole (#62)
You sniff a lot of libertarians?
You are definitely onto something about libertarians in your assessment, but it is nothing new about them.
I worked with two (in IT, they were quite competent), and I had a neighbor next flat (he was a biochemist). They all smelled from a distance.
Also I read that Ayn Rand was not so great about her personal hygiene. “As libertarians we must realize that our message is not mainstream yet, and therefore each of us is an ambassador when marketing it. Being an ambassador comes with a certain amount of personal responsibility to be self aware so that you do not completely disenfranchise someone you are engaging with. No one wants to be around a person who causes them discomfort, whether that is because they are a socially awkward basement dweller, a loud obnoxious internet troll, lack personal hygiene, or just generally unaware of normal human behavior.”
Phew – What a disgustingly unpleasant smell that libertarian body odor must be. I can just imagine your disgust.
#65. To: Gatlin (#58)
Exactly whqt it It you like about seeing “images of a black man, a Latino, an Asian and a Jew punching Uncle Sam?”
#66. To: Gatlin (#57)
Ron Paul’s Racist, Homophobic Newsletters Gain New Life On Twitter"
#67. To: A K A Stone (#66)
[The title of an article] - Ron Paul’s Racist, Homophobic Newsletters Gain New Life On Twitter.
Stone, I did not use any faggot terms. I never used the word “homophobe.” I've heard about these "racist" newsletters before. What did he write that was deemed "racist"?
Okay, you asked “what.” Maybe this will shed some light on what you asked - then supplied you a link titled: “Ron Paul’s Racist, Homophobic Newsletters Gain New Life On Twitter."
I did not use the word “homophobe.”
#68. To: Tooconservative (#63)
I notice you don't mention liberals or conservatives or communists or fascists who smell bad to you
#69. To: A K A Stone (#66)
Why are you siding with the degenerate weirdos using a made up term to go after Ron Paul.
I side with no one and no group. I have my own reasons and I often express them freely, whether I am asked to or not. ABORTION: He claims to be pro-life, and says Right to Life is the foundation for all rights in the Constitution. He even says “life does begin at conception.” The truth is that he is really pro-choice on the state level. That is the purpose of his Sanctity of Life Bill.
NARAL Pro-Choice America is an organization in the United States that engages in political action and advocacy efforts to oppose restrictions on abortion and expand access to abortion.
#70. To: Tooconservative (#63)
And it isn't unheard of here among LFers. Vicomte told us he gave up using these products years ago (unless he gets really dirty, like car grease kind of dirty). Maybe he wants to chime in. He was very early on this trend which is now becoming almost a movement. The No-Poo people who avoid shampoo has been around for a while now but the No-Soap and No-Antiperspirant movement are still growing. You'd be surprised how many videos you can find on this at YouBoob, how to transition to bathing with water only, how long until your body adjusts. It's familiar material for anyone who recalls Vic's posts on the subject, going back to several years before LP closed up. He's never gone back to using soaps or shampoos, thinks they're bad for his skin.
#71. To: Gatlin (#69)
During the 2008 campaign every GOP candidate had a zero rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, except Ron Paul.
#72. To: A Pole (#68)
#73. To: Vicomte13 (#70)
I noticed that the tap water tasted very strongly of the chlorine they put in it, and it started to disgree with me, so I switched to bottled water, and gradually found myself only able to drink Poland Spring, Evian and Distilled water, because everything else had an aftertaste or too much of some mineral or chemical to bear.
#74. To: Vicomte13 (#72)
(Edited)
There is a strong odor in France on public transport on hot summer days, but it's obvious why.
#75. To: A Pole, Vicomte13 (#68)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]