Comment: It Seems As If Those...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: And? Should we disregard him (see in situ)

It Seems As If Those...

...who are hissing for a 'joining', and that 'joining' itself, are the issues at hand.

Paths can cross with most anyone on certain issues and limited interests can be recognized and subsequently used...yet I consistently see the call for a 'joining' and an 'inclusion' into the 'movement' for some who have a clear record and consistent advocacy opposed to certain fundamental liberties.

That is not a 'movement' that I belong to.

To a truly principled man of liberty-ethic, there is no 'joining under a banner', or 'alliance', or an 'inclusion' with Liberty for those who do not hold to and champion core fundamental freedoms and natural rights. To do so is to gut Liberty itself and to cheapen and severely damage and mask the very foundation of what is 'purported' to be the desired achievement.

The old tired 'big tent' mantra is naught but a knowing and deliberate watering down of critical and utterly necessary bedrock principles and the end result is an gross-abortion of the goal of a free-society, limited government and of individual liberty itself.

Look around this cluster-fuck of a 'movement' and you will see gun-controllers, collectivists, watered down lefty-marxist/socialists, do-gooder collectivists, quasi-neocons and a plethora of other non-principled gerbils, who are factually gnawing away at the very foundations of 'Liberty'.

A bit of blunt truth and calling things as they are, seem badly needed around here.

Nothing wrong with having a few common objectives, but that does not make one a 'liberty-advocate' or make one of the ethical and philosophical make-up that is required to achieve liberty, constitutional adherence and limited government.

It really is that simple.