Libertarians Are Used to Bad Choices, but...

... a debate between Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Al Sharpton certainly leaves me without a side to cheer for.


  1. Jens Fiederer:

    Since you are not a fan of either of the individuals, cheer for the argument you prefer. I believe since this is on profiling, that would be Sharpton's.

    Just read BMOC on a trip to Texas a couple of weeks ago, by the way. Great read, wonder why it took me so long to get to it. I hope there is a sequel!

  2. nom de guerre:

    tough, *tough* choice, but i'll have to go with sharpton. sharpton wants me to do something i don't, but the only pressure he can bring is chants and protests. arpaio can arrest me for nothing at all, lie about it in court and be automatically believed - no matter what the videotape shows - or just kill me for making "a furtive move towards my waistband", as they do on a regular basis here in vegas. sharpton i can ignore. arpaio can have a friendly judge allow him to enter my home, shoot my barking, tail-wagging cocker spaniel because "he was afraid for his life", trash my house "looking" for...whatever. and then walk away with no apology and no personal liability whatsoever.

    one's a weasel. the other's a rattlesnake. which is more dangerous?

  3. gmsc:

    Voting is not just about voting for. You can also vote against.

  4. gadfly:

    ...Or if you are Sharpton, you could scream "rape" and racism" to foster indictments against a whole Lacrosse team and shut down the sport at Duke . . . and in the case of Tawana Brawley, cause six white men to be indicted for her lies about being raped. All this because playing the race card is so important to his career as America's richest fomenter of racism and violence.

  5. Tim:

    There's always something to root for. I'm for the earth opening up and swallowing both of them whole.