Shocking!

Dick Cheney is a great man!

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Dick Cheney is a great man!

Seconded .

Dick Cheney is one of the most dangerous men to ever inhabit this country.

He was great at sending people to die, but would never make the sacrifice himself.

Big Eddie said:
Seconded .

Thirded, and I suggest that Ron Paul make an apology to Cheney and Rumsfield.

C-PAC has Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld up there back-slapping one another? Seriously? I hope the conservative movement at large isn’t planning to look to these guys for any sort of perspective in 2012. Weren’t they part of one of the most hated administrations……ever? Going to have to go with Paul’s guys here.

Dick presenting the “Defender of the Constitution” to DR? The only thing these two clowns were missing were the rubber nose and big floppy shoes. Hilarious.

Hawk11 said:
Dick Cheney is one of the most dangerous men to ever inhabit this country.

He was great at sending people to die, but would never make the sacrifice himself.

Five Deferment Dick never served? Huh.

Cheney, Rumsfield, and Bush were part of why the Tea Party was formed. This type of reaction should be expected at a current conservative event.

Hey progressives,

The only reason Tunisia, Egypt & Jordan are on the cusp of democracy is because of the Bush Doctrine!

What’s happening right now is exactly what Bush said would happen.

How do you and YOUR Mainstream Media propagandize that, now?

im_lovin_it said:
C-PAC has Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld up there back-slapping one another? Seriously? I hope the conservative movement at large isn’t planning to look to these guys for any sort of perspective in 2012. Weren’t they part of one of the most hated administrations……ever? Going to have to go with Paul’s guys here.

Holy shit. I am going to have to agree with im-lovin-it.

This is fantastic. Ultimately, the GOP is going to have to decide whether to embrace social libertarianism, and a continued path to electoral viability in the 21st century, or to continue embracing social neanderthalism conservatism, which drives away moderates, intellectuals, minorities, young people, and basically every other demographic the GOP is going to need as their base continues to get older and die out. I certainly hope they choose the former.

NORBIT Jr. said:
Hey progressives,

The only reason Tunisia, Egypt & Jordan are on the cusp of democracy is because of the Bush Doctrine!

What’s happening right now is exactly what Bush said would happen.

How do you and YOUR Mainstream Media propagandize that, now?

lmao really? because of the bush doctrine? The bush doctrine is to invade a foreign country and force democracy there. These people are revolting against their government out of their own free will. Mubarak was considered one of bush’s closest allies.

Garth said:
Dick presenting the “Defender of the Constitution” to DR? The only thing these two clowns were missing were the rubber nose and big floppy shoes. Hilarious.

These two wiped their ass with the Constitution for the entire first term of that awful administration. Who are they kidding?

Proving that the left doesn’t have a copyright on idiots.

The award is stupid of, course — the executive does not defend the Constitution; that’s the role of We The People and the Supreme Court. They defend the Constitution FROM the executive and the legislature.

That being said, calling Rumsfeld a war criminal is reckless and just plain wrong. Mismanagement of a theater of war makes you incompetent, not a war criminal. As for the Patriot Act, direct your ire toward Congress. (And do it now, because those assholes are try to reauthorize it again!)

NORBIT Jr. said:
Hey progressives,

The only reason Tunisia, Egypt & Jordan are on the cusp of democracy is because of the Bush Doctrine!

What’s happening right now is exactly what Bush said would happen.

How do you and YOUR Mainstream Media propagandize that, now?

Ok, back those claims up. Bush invaded Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden. Which didn’t happen. We continue to have a huge troop presence in that country.

Bush invaded Iraq on the premise that Saddam was a threat to America because he was had and/or was creating WMD. It’s tough to tell which because it seemed to keep changing. Nevertheless, the “smoking gun” was never found. Bush even regrets that fact in his memoir. The message shifted to we are “freeing the people of Iraq” when the WMD story fell through. But we would be “greeted as liberators.” It seems that we were not.

How does either of these excursions have anything to do with any of these countries that have been protesting lately?

How the creators of the Patriot Act get the “Defenders of the Constitution” award is mystifying.

Annie Oakley said:
Thirded, and I suggest that Ron Paul make an apology to Cheney and Rumsfield.

Why? Ron Paul didn’t make those outbursts. The onus is on the people actually responsible to apologize.

Ben Pratt said:
lmao really? because of the bush doctrine? The bush doctrine is to invade a foreign country and force democracy there. These people are revolting against their government out of their own free will. Mubarak was considered one of bush’s closest allies.

To inform you, Ben, Bush posited that once we deposed Saddam’s Regime, and established democracy in Iraq, it would spread, one-by-one, to every other autocracy in the region.

Uh, REALITY shows exactly that happening!

Garth said:
Five Deferment Dick never served? Huh.

Try sticking to telling us of the vast experience President Obama had before coming to office.

Here let me help.
1. A really good community extortionist or is that community organizer…just don’t know the difference right now.
2. He did vote “Present” lots-o-times while a senator in Ill.
3. He was a US Senator 143 days before deciding to run for president.
4. He want’s to “kick someones ass” over the oil spill.
5. He recognizes with Poooolice act Stupidly, when they were just doing their job.
6. He did set in Jeramiah Wrights church for 20 years and did not remember a thing he said.
7. He got Mubarack to leave – that is until he didn’t.
8.
9.
10.

I left 8 – 10 for you my friend.

im lovin it says:

Weren’t they part of one of the most hated administrations……ever?

Funny, DEM pollsters Doug Schoen and Mark “Obama needs his own OK city” Penn did a poll in Oct. 2010 and you want to know what they found?

“Despite voters feelings toward Obama personally, 56 percent say he does not deserve to be re-elected, while 38 percent say he does deserve to be re-elected president.” Worse, Schoen adds, “43 percent say that Barack Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, while 48 percent say Bush was a better president than Obama has been.”

NORBIT Jr. said:
To inform you, Ben, Bush posited that once we deposed Saddam’s Regime, and established democracy in Iraq, it would spread, one-by-one, to every other autocracy in the region.

Uh, REALITY shows exactly that happening!

Does Iraq even have a government?

ModerateMan said:
How the creators of the Patriot Act get the “Defenders of the Constitution” award is mystifying.

QFT!!

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
im lovin it says:

Weren’t they part of one of the most hated administrations……ever?

Funny, DEM pollsters Doug Schoen and Mark “Obama needs his own OK city” Penn did a poll in Oct. 2010 and you want to know what they found?

“Despite voters feelings toward Obama personally, 56 percent say he does not deserve to be re-elected, while 38 percent say he does deserve to be re-elected president.” Worse, Schoen adds, “43 percent say that Barack Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, while 48 percent say Bush was a better president than Obama has been.”

More people believe in angels than evolution. Public opinion polls only serve to show the idiocy of the general public at large.

Norbit says:

To inform you, Ben, Bush posited that once we deposed Saddam’s Regime, and established democracy in Iraq, it would spread, one-by-one, to every other autocracy in the region.

Uh, REALITY shows exactly that happening!

As my bumper sticker says, “do not confuse a liberal with logic and facts”.

im_lovin_it said:
Ok, back those claims up. Bush invaded Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden. Which didn’t happen. We continue to have a huge troop presence in that country. Bush invaded Iraq on the premise that Saddam was a threat to America because he was had and/or was creating WMD. It’s tough to tell which because it seemed to keep changing. Nevertheless, the “smoking gun” was never found. Bush even regrets that fact in his memoir. The message shifted to we are “freeing the people of Iraq” when the WMD story fell through. But we would be “greeted as liberators.” It seems that we were not. How does either of these excursions have anything to do with any of these countries that have been protesting lately?

A) We didn’t invade Afghanistan ONLY to capture Bin Laden
&
B) We didn’t invade Iraq ONLY for weapons of mass destruction.

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Shocking!

Dick Cheney is a great man!

Everybody at Halliburton sure thought so.

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
im lovin it says:

Weren’t they part of one of the most hated administrations……ever?

Funny, DEM pollsters Doug Schoen and Mark “Obama needs his own OK city” Penn did a poll in Oct. 2010 and you want to know what they found?

“Despite voters feelings toward Obama personally, 56 percent say he does not deserve to be re-elected, while 38 percent say he does deserve to be re-elected president.” Worse, Schoen adds, “43 percent say that Barack Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, while 48 percent say Bush was a better president than Obama has been.”

You looked at recent poll numbers? barack’s at fifty five percent approval.

Publius219 said:
This is fantastic. Ultimately, the GOP is going to have to decide whether to embrace social libertarianism, and a continued path to electoral viability in the 21st century, or to continue embracing social neanderthalism conservatism, which drives away moderates, intellectuals, minorities, young people, and basically every other demographic the GOP is going to need as their base continues to get older and die out. I certainly hope they choose the former.

People like you make it so blindly obvious that you don’t care about the message, just the messenger. It’s bigotry, period. Plenty of conservative ideals are embraced by moderates, “intellectuals” (i.e. people who’ve scammed a university to give them a paycheck for the rest of their life), minorities, and young people. But when you only live in a bubble and are trained to be bigoted towards old people (and ironically, you’re trained to do this by… old people), you tend to miss obvious things like this. Maybe if you focused on the message instead of the messenger…

BatBoy said:
Try sticking to telling us of the vast experience President Obama had before coming to office.

Here let me help.
1. A really good community extortionist or is that community organizer…just don’t know the difference right now.
2. He did vote “Present” lots-o-times while a senator in Ill.
3. He was a US Senator 143 days before deciding to run for president.
4. He want’s to “kick someones ass” over the oil spill.
5. He recognizes with Poooolice act Stupidly, when they were just doing their job.
6. He did set in Jeramiah Wrights church for 20 years and did not remember a thing he said.
7. He got Mubarack to leave – that is until he didn’t.
8.
9.
10.

I left 8 – 10 for you my friend.

This thread is about Five Deferment Dick and Rumsfeld – who never served either moron. Do you have ADD?

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
im lovin it says:

Weren’t they part of one of the most hated administrations……ever?

Funny, DEM pollsters Doug Schoen and Mark “Obama needs his own OK city” Penn did a poll in Oct. 2010 and you want to know what they found?

“Despite voters feelings toward Obama personally, 56 percent say he does not deserve to be re-elected, while 38 percent say he does deserve to be re-elected president.” Worse, Schoen adds, “43 percent say that Barack Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, while 48 percent say Bush was a better president than Obama has been.”

Not to be dismissive, but we aren’t talking about Obama here. The subject is the Bush administration. He left office with the lowest approval rating ever recorded. Who knows, maybe when Obama’s done he’ll be right there with hm.

The point I’m making is that anyone who can be tied to Bush will be pilloried. The man is the Republican Party’s Jimmy Carter. The best thing to do, at least in my opinion, would be to avoid him like the plague.

NORBIT Jr. said:
To inform you, Ben, Bush posited that once we deposed Saddam’s Regime, and established democracy in Iraq, it would spread, one-by-one, to every other autocracy in the region.

Uh, REALITY shows exactly that happening!

Ask any person in egypt right now why they’re revolting and they’ll give the answer: jobs and food. Bush has nothing to do with it.

im_lovin_it said:
Ok, back those claims up. Bush invaded Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden. Which didn’t happen. We continue to have a huge troop presence in that country.

Bush invaded Iraq on the premise that Saddam was a threat to America because he was had and/or was creating WMD. It’s tough to tell which because it seemed to keep changing. Nevertheless, the “smoking gun” was never found. Bush even regrets that fact in his memoir. The message shifted to we are “freeing the people of Iraq” when the WMD story fell through. But we would be “greeted as liberators.” It seems that we were not.

How does either of these excursions have anything to do with any of these countries that have been protesting lately?

Don’t bother with Norbit, he’s the same person who said Ulysses S. Grant was a democrat.

Awesome. As a libertarian I give this 5 thumbs up. I hope we take CPAC over and make them explain their continual contradictions. They say they want freedom but support the patriot act. They say they support freedom but support dictators abroad. They say they support freedom but support the drug war. They say a lot but don’t understand half of it.

Tony Westover said:
People like you make it so blindly obvious that you don’t care about the message, just the messenger. It’s bigotry, period. Plenty of conservative ideals are embraced by moderates, “intellectuals” (i.e. people who’ve scammed a university to give them a paycheck for the rest of their life), minorities, and young people. But when you only live in a bubble and are trained to be bigoted towards old people (and ironically, you’re trained to do this by… old people), you tend to miss obvious things like this. Maybe if you focused on the message instead of the messenger…

I love my parents and grandparents. I just wish their generations had been more responsible when it comes to instituting public policy, and I wish their generations would be less rigid as others try to clean up their messes.

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Norbit says:

To inform you, Ben, Bush posited that once we deposed Saddam’s Regime, and established democracy in Iraq, it would spread, one-by-one, to every other autocracy in the region.

Uh, REALITY shows exactly that happening!

As my bumper sticker says, “do not confuse a liberal with logic and facts”.

What a surprise; a blinded parrot and the man who called Grant, Jefferson and John Conally democrats talking about facts.

Publius219 said:
I love my parents and grandparents. I just wish their generations had been more responsible when it comes to instituting public policy, and I wish their generations would be less rigid as others try to clean up their messes.

agreed 100%.

btimsah said:
Awesome. As a libertarian I give this 5 thumbs up. I hope we take CPAC over and make them explain their continual contradictions. They say they want freedom but support the patriot act. They say they support freedom but support dictators abroad. They say they support freedom but support the drug war. They say a lot but don’t understand half of it.

Right. The GOP Is not a party based on any public policy ideals, but rather just rhetoric against opponents. If those opponents don’t exist, or aren’t viable, they will elevate those opponents to the levels necessary in order to fire up their base. Their followers (sheeple, if you will) don’t understand the inherent logical contradictions of calling for small government and wanting to outlaw gay marriage, or drug prohibition, or freedom of religion.

NORBIT Jr. said:
A) We didn’t invade Afghanistan ONLY to capture Bin Laden
&
B) We didn’t invade Iraq ONLY for weapons of mass destruction.

So why did we go? To spread freedom? Sorry, but I don’t think a President can sell the prospect of invading other countries on the concept of spreading democracy. It’s my recollection that we went because America was told it was in imminent danger. At least that’s what was told to Congress.

Bush might very well have believed that by knocking off Saddam and creating democracy there freedom would spread across the Middle East. That, however, has nothing to do with why were told our troops needed to be deployed.

Again, give me something to go with here.

Tony Westover said:
Why? Ron Paul didn’t make those outbursts. The onus is on the people actually responsible to apologize.

Those were NOT Democrats trying to cause a disruption. Although the Democrats stated they would infiltrate GOP and Tea Party functions and disrupt them…………..THESE WERE NOT DEMOCRATS. Now, remember that!

Yeah…Ron Paul supporters are nuts and so is their man.

NORBIT Jr. said:
Hey progressives,

The only reason Tunisia, Egypt & Jordan are on the cusp of democracy is because of the Bush Doctrine!

What’s happening right now is exactly what Bush said would happen.

How do you and YOUR Mainstream Media propagandize that, now?

Exactly how did the Bush doctrine make those things happen? Can you show causality?

Oh shit! The wheels are coming off the Righty apple cart!!!

HAHAHA!

NORBIT Jr. said:
A) We didn’t invade Afghanistan ONLY to capture Bin Laden
&
B) We didn’t invade Iraq ONLY for weapons of mass destruction.

True and True.

grafxmail7 said:
Oh shit! The wheels are coming off the Righty apple cart!!!

HAHAHA!

The wheels are gone. Now they’re just standing around trying to figure out how to get it moving.

Davo said:
Those were NOT Democrats trying to cause a disruption. Although the Democrats stated they would infiltrate GOP and Tea Party functions and disrupt them…………..THESE WERE NOT DEMOCRATS. Now, remember that!

Thank you for noticing and pointing it out. We wouldn’t want ugly lies to spread around.

Judging by what they deem as defenders of the constitution (American’s freedoms) it’s a good thing Stalin and Hitler weren’t American and alive today -otherwise they’d have won the award. To all those sleepwalking slaves who think America is the best and freest country, unplug from the brainwashing machine (TV) and do some research on your own instead of believing every spoon fed lie you get from your nightly news- you might be surprised to learn America is not free and is falling fast. Time to look into nullification and stock up on protection. If you don’t defend America from it’s corrupt leaders and institutions your children will have too-but I guess that’s the American way-Just pass the buck or responsibility to someone else. I’m American and right now I’m embarrassed to say so.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/06/us-no-longer-a-free-count_n_527072.html
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2yTnLA/americathegrimtruth.wordpress.com/

Publius219 said:
Right. The GOP Is not a party based on any public policy ideals, but rather just rhetoric against opponents. If those opponents don’t exist, or aren’t viable, they will elevate those opponents to the levels necessary in order to fire up their base. Their followers (sheeple, if you will) don’t understand the inherent logical contradictions of calling for small government and wanting to outlaw gay marriage, or drug prohibition, or freedom of religion.

I think you are stereotyping conservatives here. There is a diversity of thought in the Republican party as evidenced by this story we are commenting on.

UNreasonable lib says:

The wheels are gone. Now they’re just standing around trying to figure out how to get it moving.

I know! Just look at what happened to them in the last election!

ModerateMan said:
I think you are stereotyping conservatives here. There is a diversity of thought in the Republican party as evidenced by this story we are commenting on.

But the tea party is trying to purge that diversity, are they not? Aren’t they arguing for “real” conservatives and trying to get the “RINOs” out?

LoL- So to win a defender of the constitution all I have to do is start multiple conflicts across the globe, invade oil countries to help my business get business contracts and make laws that take away the liberties and freedoms of the lower class? Sounds easy enough- were do I sign up?

ModerateMan said:
I think you are stereotyping conservatives here. There is a diversity of thought in the Republican party as evidenced by this story we are commenting on.

And now I shall agree with ModerateMan……and then light myself on fire! Haha!

Seriously though, I’m a total progressive and there is a lot to like about what Ron Paul says. There is also a lot I really don’t like. Unfortunately, he always gets laughed off the stage by establishment types without getting a chance.

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
UNreasonable lib says:

The wheels are gone. Now they’re just standing around trying to figure out how to get it moving.

I know! Just look at what happened to them in the last election!

And just look at what’s happened to you since then. You’re falling apart. A congressman just resigned, there’s descent amongst the ranks and Obama’s numbers are on the rise. it’s like you took over the ship but threw the navigator overboard.

Annie Oakley said:
Thirded, and I suggest that Ron Paul make an apology to Cheney and Rumsfield.

Let’s see, what’t the bigger crime?

Sending hundreds of thousands into undeclared wars with huge collateral damage to “defend” our continuing hundred years of violent meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations and trashing our own Constitutional iberties, all while bankrupting our country,

OR

calling the people who committed those crimes, ‘criminals?’

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
But the tea party is trying to purge that diversity, are they not? Aren’t they arguing for “real” conservatives and trying to get the “RINOs” out?

Tea Party Republicans are still a minority. That’s why they are still awarding “Defenders of the Constitution” awards to the likes of Dick Cheney and Rumsfield.

Publius219 said:
I love my parents and grandparents. I just wish their generations had been more responsible when it comes to instituting public policy, and I wish their generations would be less rigid as others try to clean up their messes.

So you’ve basically confirmed your bigotry towards older generations. In addition, you’ve also demonstrated your arrogance, inferring that somehow because they’ve made mistakes electing people who formed bad policies that somehow they should capitulate to your ideas and cede their participation in our democracy.

These guys don’t realize that when it comes to foreign policy and civil liberties, libertarians are basically liberals? Do they not realize this? I am a left of center quasi libertarian and share much more with paleo-libertarians than they share with staunch conservatives.

Hooray for those guys. Dick Cheney is NO friend to Libertarians. No neocon is.

NORBIT Jr. said:
Hey progressives, The only reason Tunisia, Egypt & Jordan are on the cusp of democracy is because of the Bush Doctrine! What’s happening right now is exactly what Bush said would happen.

Yes, but as s blowback to the regimes we supported under that Bush Doctrine.

ModerateMan said:
Tea Party Republicans are still a minority. That’s why they are still awarding “Defenders of the Constitution” awards to the likes of Dick Cheney and Rumsfield.

The fact that Harry Reid had such a tough time against psychotic sharron angel says different. Granted most people don’t vote in off year elections.

NORBIT Jr. said:
To inform you, Ben, Bush posited that once we deposed Saddam’s Regime, and established democracy in Iraq, it would spread, one-by-one, to every other autocracy in the region.

Uh, REALITY shows exactly that happening!

Show a clear connection that establishes causality. One does not prove the other.

Just_MC said:
Yes, but as s blowback to the regimes we supported under that Bush Doctrine.

The support ran decades under both parties.

Ben Pratt said:
Ask any person in egypt right now why they’re revolting and they’ll give the answer: jobs and food. Bush has nothing to do with it.

I would agree, except to say that part of it is also being sick of the repression we supported for the last 30 years.

Dick Cheney is a War Criminal. Plain and simple.
This man is living proof that the democracy of America is a illusion.
How many different administrations has this guy work for?

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
UNreasonable lib says:

The wheels are gone. Now they’re just standing around trying to figure out how to get it moving.

I know! Just look at what happened to them in the last election!

True. But look at the one before that. It’s a pendulum.

The Rightys are in trouble now that they’ve gotten into bed with the Tea Party Zombies.

It’s like they made a deal with the Devil and Satan’s Tea Party is coming for them! HAHA!!!

OOOOO WEEEEEE! This is gonna be good!

NORBIT Jr. said:
The support ran decades under both parties.

I agree completely.

Tony Westover said:
People like you make it so blindly obvious that you don’t care about the message, just the messenger. It’s bigotry, period. Plenty of conservative ideals are embraced by moderates, “intellectuals” (i.e. people who’ve scammed a university to give them a paycheck for the rest of their life), minorities, and young people. But when you only live in a bubble and are trained to be bigoted towards old people (and ironically, you’re trained to do this by… old people), you tend to miss obvious things like this. Maybe if you focused on the message instead of the messenger…

I agree Tony. I’d love top see moderates in both parties, and independents focus on the things they can agree on and not be drown out by the extremes and blind partisans on both sides.

Davo said:
Tony Westover said:
Why? Ron Paul didn’t make those outbursts. The onus is on the people actually responsible to apologize.

Those were NOT Democrats trying to cause a disruption. Although the Democrats stated they would infiltrate GOP and Tea Party functions and disrupt them…………..THESE WERE NOT DEMOCRATS. Now, remember that!

Um…. Okay?

Look, I’m just saying that Ron Paul doesn’t need to and shouldn’t apologize for the actions of his supporters. Individuals are responsible for their own actions.

grafxmail7 said:
True. But look at the one before that. It’s a pendulum. The Rightys are in trouble now that they’ve gotten into bed with the Tea Party Zombies. It’s like they made a deal with the Devil and Satan’s Tea Party is coming for them! HAHA!!! OOOOO WEEEEEE! This is gonna be good!

The core of those “Tea Party Zombies” are the people willing to call Cheney and Rumsfeld the war criminals that they are.

A man without a Country said:
Dick Cheney is a War Criminal. Plain and simple.
This man is living proof that the democracy of America is a illusion.
How many different administrations has this guy work for?

The only administration that he ever really worked for was Halliburton!

NORBIT Jr. said:
The support ran decades under both parties.

Don’t have a clue what you are talking about do you?

CosmosDan said:
Show a clear connection that establishes causality. One does not prove the other.

Would you ask that if it were the Obama Policy? To your credit Cosmos, I think you would.

Clear causality? I don’t know if there is one.
I’d say that, at least to some degree, people’s motivation, impetus and behavior is influenced by their environment, or in this case, things happening in the “neighborhood.”

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
The fact that Harry Reid had such a tough time against psychotic sharron angel says different. Granted most people don’t vote in off year elections.

That “psychotic sharron angel” would have helped the Tea Party purge the Republican party of the likes of Cheney and Rumsfield. I don’t know why some liberals don’t have a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” attitude towards the Tea Party?

Just_MC said:
The core of those “Tea Party Zombies” are the people willing to call Cheney and Rumsfeld the war criminals that they are.

Do they spell “Trouble” these days as 28 Democratic Senate seats open, and only 5 to take control?

Dick Cheney is not just a war criminal… He’s also a war profiteer.

He made sure Haliburton got the billions in contracts he needed abroad, and made sure they got the contracts here too. He had environmental law rewritten to exclude the clean air and clean water act in the processes of drilling for natural gas.

Is someone standing behind Five Deferment Dick, making his mouth move? What’s with the lip?

ModerateMan said:
That “psychotic sharron angel” would have helped the Tea Party purge the Republican party of the likes of Cheney and Rumsfield. I don’t know why some liberals don’t have a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” attitude towards the Tea Party?

Great point. I think it is because the core of the Tea Party movement is striking real blows against the big-government statists in the GOP establishment. While these people have SOME different cronies from the Democrats, they have mostly the same ones. And both groups are happy to trample the Constitution.

So, I suppose in some ways the libertarian core of the Tea Party movement is more of a real threat. The establishment GOP is mere competition for the jointly-stolen pie. The libertarian, Constitution-enforcing arm of the Tea Party would stand in the way of the statists in both parties, preventing them from stealing the pie in the first place.

CosmosDan said:
I agree Tony. I’d love top see moderates in both parties, and independents focus on the things they can agree on and not be drown out by the extremes and blind partisans on both sides.

I wouldn’t like that at all, I’m not a moderate. I’d prefer to see the Republican party move further to the right… really far right towards minarchist libertarianism.

I reject compromise, I prefer instead to convince people in the marketplace of ideas. Compromise between a far right minarchist libertarian and a Progressive would theoretically result in a moderate solution… which is still a statist solution so the minarchist loses. Forget that!

NORBIT Jr. said:
Do they spell “Trouble” these days as 28 Democratic Senate seats open, and only 5 to take control?

Not sure what you mean, so I apologize if I missed your point.

For my money, there is nothing good about someone having an “R” next to his name. Arlen Specter, Lindsay Graham, Newt Gingrich, George Bush…these people are all disasters. Good men who support the Constitution and liberty need to spell trouble for awful people like them. The big government GOP establishment is worse than the Democrats. (They cause the similar damage, but the blowback wrongly blames capitalism and pushes toward even more socialism. The blowback on Obamism at least has a real component of liberty coming through.)

im_lovin_it said:
So why did we go? To spread freedom? Sorry, but I don’t think a President can sell the prospect of invading other countries on the concept of spreading democracy. It’s my recollection that we went because America was told it was in imminent danger. At least that’s what was told to Congress.

It was. We were told several things during the selling of the war. WMDs and Saddam as a threat to this country was part of it. Ultimately it was called Operation Iraqi freedom , with the concept of liberating the Iraqi people by blowing the living crap out of them and their country.

im_lovin_it said:
Bush might very well have believed that by knocking off Saddam and creating democracy there freedom would spread across the Middle East. That, however, has nothing to do with why were told our troops needed to be deployed.

encouraging democracy is a great idea. Doing it by starting a war is a bad idea. Lot’s of folks wanted Saddam out of there after Desert Storm and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheny explained exactly why we shouldn’t do that. Because there was no single strong group to take power removing Saddam would probably cause an inner civil war among the different groups seeking control. Thank God that didn’t happen huh?

I think human beings tend to seek liberation and we, and other nations can encourage that. I tend to think the people would move in that direction anyway. Without seeing any direct connection between what Bush said and whats happening now, tens of thousands of lives, and hundreds of billions later, I don’t give him credit for anything.

NORBIT Jr. said:
Would you ask that if it were the Obama Policy? To your credit Cosmos, I think you would. Clear causality? I don’t know if there is one.I’d say that, at least to some degree, people’s motivation, impetus and behavior is influenced by their environment, or in this case, things happening in the “neighborhood.”

“I don’t know if there is one”. Were truer words ever spoken?

Tony Westover said:
I wouldn’t like that at all, I’m not a moderate. I’d prefer to see the Republican party move further to the right… really far right towards minarchist libertarianism. I reject compromise, I prefer instead to convince people in the marketplace of ideas. Compromise between a far right minarchist libertarian and a Progressive would theoretically result in a moderate solution… which is still a statist solution so the minarchist loses. Forget that!

I’m with you Tony. But can I offer a thought to you and Cosmos Dan? I think you are in some ways saying the same things, perhaps, and the LANGUAGE is creating a rift for no good reason.

There is a huge lie in the notion of “moderates” and the assumption of some correctness of moderates. The lie results from the false spectrum of “right’ vs. “left.” The right and left are both big-government statists, who favor state control over individual liberty. “Moderates” in that spectrum are just deal-cutters who side with a higher percentage of the big government cronies of both sides.

The true measure of politics is a different spectrum, flowing from liberty to totalitarianism. Clearly., moderates have no place of “correctness” here, they are just a little less bad than the statists. Liberty IS better than anything else.

Buit with that said, libertarians DO fit in to an interesting “compromise” position between the crooks in the Democratic Party and the crooks in the GOP. Libertarians actually vote with the left’s principled rhetoric on civil liberties and war (thought the left frequently does not vote with their own rhetoric). And libertarians vote with the right’s principled rhetoric on small government, fiscal responsibility, property rights, etc (though again, the right frequenlty doesn’t vote with their own rhetoric.)

Coming back to my point about the language, a principled and uncompromising libertarian represents the best of the principle of the Democrats and Republicans, AND is more likely to actually act and vote on those principles than either. So, if you consider this a “moderate” position that shares some views of each, that “moderate, compromise” view (in the left-right spectrum) is the same as a pure, uncompromising libertarian (in the spectrum from liberty to state control).

See my point? Maybe you are both saying the same thing, using different terms.

Just_MC said:
I’m with you Tony. But can I offer a thought to you and Cosmos Dan? I think you are in some ways saying the same things, perhaps, and the LANGUAGE is creating a rift for no good reason.

There is a huge lie in the notion of “moderates” and the assumption of some correctness of moderates. The lie results from the false spectrum of “right’ vs. “left.” The right and left are both big-government statists, who favor state control over individual liberty. “Moderates” in that spectrum are just deal-cutters who side with a higher percentage of the big government cronies of both sides.

The true measure of politics is a different spectrum, flowing from liberty to totalitarianism. Clearly., moderates have no place of “correctness” here, they are just a little less bad than the statists. Liberty IS better than anything else.

Buit with that said, libertarians DO fit in to an interesting “compromise” position between the crooks in the Democratic Party and the crooks in the GOP. Libertarians actually vote with the left’s principled rhetoric on civil liberties and war (thought the left frequently does not vote with their own rhetoric). And libertarians vote with the right’s principled rhetoric on small government, fiscal responsibility, property rights, etc (though again, the right frequenlty doesn’t vote with their own rhetoric.)

Coming back to my point about the language, a principled and uncompromising libertarian represents the best of the principle of the Democrats and Republicans, AND is more likely to actually act and vote on those principles than either. So, if you consider this a “moderate” position that shares some views of each, that “moderate, compromise” view (in the left-right spectrum) is the same as a pure, uncompromising libertarian (in the spectrum from liberty to state control).

See my point? Maybe you are both saying the same thing, using different terms.

Great post MC. I’m curious if, say, Ron Paul (or whoever your choice would be was elected president, how do you think they would succeed. In theory I’m all for libertarianism. Unfortunately, I think we have an entrenched system of oligarchy that would get even worse. Not to get all personal on you, but I’ve seen a lot of poverty and suffering in my life through my work (social work, particularly with children). Through my experiences I just can’t see the “get it together on your own and be responsible” solution always working in this country. I’ve seen kids that literally have no parents and no hope. What will happen to them? Shouldn’t taxpayers do something to help these kinds of people? I know our democrats have pissed money down the toilet on bogus and unregulated social programs. I also think that there is a lot of good that comes from government involvement in our lives.

Just_MC said:
Not sure what you mean, so I apologize if I missed your point. For my money, there is nothing good about someone having an “R” next to his name. Arlen Specter, Lindsay Graham, Newt Gingrich, George Bush…these people are all disasters. Good men who support the Constitution and liberty need to spell trouble for awful people like them. The big government GOP establishment is worse than the Democrats. (They cause the similar damage, but the blowback wrongly blames capitalism and pushes toward even more socialism. The blowback on Obamism at least has a real component of liberty coming through.)

My fault, I misread your post.

…but on your other point, I wouldn’t lump Newt into that group, otherwise, I agree. The John McCain’s of the political world do more harm than good. In fact, the four most repeated words in Democratic rebuttals are: “But John McCain Says”.

im_lovin_it said:
Great post MC. I’m curious if, say, Ron Paul (or whoever your choice would be was elected president, how do you think they would succeed. In theory I’m all for libertarianism. Unfortunately, I think we have an entrenched system of oligarchy that would get even worse. Not to get all personal on you, but I’ve seen a lot of poverty and suffering in my life through my work (social work, particularly with children). Through my experiences I just can’t see the “get it together on your own and be responsible” solution always working in this country. I’ve seen kids that literally have no parents and no hope. What will happen to them? Shouldn’t taxpayers do something to help these kinds of people? I know our democrats have pissed money down the toilet on bogus and unregulated social programs. I also think that there is a lot of good that comes from government involvement in our lives.

Everything is inter-related, but the cycle of reckless childbearing has to be addressed. The lack of an immediate and extended family on newborns is devastating in myriad ways.

NORBIT Jr. said:
My fault, I misread your post. …but on your other point, I wouldn’t lump Newt into that group, otherwise, I agree. The John McCain’s of the political world do more harm than good. In fact, the four most repeated words in Democratic rebuttals are: “But John McCain Says”.

I know what you mean. My sense is Newt is just sneakier and harder to catch. Here’s one where he got caught big time. I posted this earlier, did you see it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154

jim bronson 990cc said:
“I don’t know if there is one”. Were truer words ever spoken?

Nice backhand, Bronson.

It looks like Five Deferment Dick has actually passed away and he is being held up by duct tape.

Just_MC said:
I’m with you Tony. But can I offer a thought to you and Cosmos Dan? I think you are in some ways saying the same things, perhaps, and the LANGUAGE is creating a rift for no good reason.

Luckily you are someone who realizes that the left/right political spectrum is based on laws of man (on the left) vs. natural law (on the right) and that the notion that the extremes of each spectrum have big government statist is a complete and utter fallacy.

However I sense some naivete. For instance, this quote:

Just_MC said:
Libertarians actually vote with the left’s principled rhetoric on civil liberties and war (thought the left frequently does not vote with their own rhetoric).

This isn’t exactly true. (Not referring to the vote/rhetoric disparity, they’re clearly liars.)

The principle behind libertarian rhetoric and the Progressive rhetoric is worlds apart. There’s a reason why Barry Goldwater, the quintessential libertarian of the civil rights era, what adamantly against the Civil Rights Act. Progressives ultimately believe that people are stupid and can’t be trusted, so they have to create laws to make people play nice (and vicariously make the world perfect). Libertarians don’t have contempt for the intellect of the unwashed masses and think that laws forcing people to play nice are demeaning and restricts their liberty… i.e. you should be fair minded, but you have the natural right to be discriminatory.

The Progressive’s solution is backed by totalitarianism and statism. The libertarian solution is back by natural rights and individual liberty. Even when the rhetoric of the Progressives and libertarians may seem similar, the principle behind it is diametrically opposed which has BIG consequences when it comes to implementation of policy.

So what’s that nitpickery after to do with anything. Well, if your central thesis unfortunately:

Just_MC said:
Coming back to my point about the language, a principled and uncompromising libertarian represents the best of the principle of the Democrats and Republicans, AND is more likely to actually act and vote on those principles than either.

There are not common principles between libertarians and Progressives. Similar rhetoric, perhaps, but completely opposite principles.

In the Venn diagram of principles, the Progressives and conservatives may share some, and the conservatives and libertarians may share some… but the Progressives and the libertarians have absolutely no intersection in their set of principles.

The way I see it, the conservatives are the moderates.

NORBIT Jr. said:
My fault, I misread your post. …but on your other point, I wouldn’t lump Newt into that group, otherwise, I agree. The John McCain’s of the political world do more harm than good. In fact, the four most repeated words in Democratic rebuttals are: “But John McCain Says”.

I’m coming in late to this post but I would totally agree with this statement , NORBIT

Tony Westover said:
The Progressive’s solution is backed by totalitarianism and statism. The libertarian solution is back by natural rights and individual liberty. Even when the rhetoric of the Progressives and libertarians may seem similar, the principle behind it is diametrically opposed which has BIG consequences when it comes to implementation of policy.

True to the point

Anti-war libertarians are stupid, how do they think America was founded? Did we have tea with the redcoats? No, we kicked their asses! War is what we do, war is why people join the military, war is who we are.

Remember 9/11? Remember all those people standing in line at recruitment stations? Remember that football player who gave up his lucrative career to join the military? That’s us! In Spain it took a few acts of terrorism to get Zapatero elected president and remove their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. In America we have two wars going on and you can still find enough patriots that will join.

I’m proud of my country, I’m proud that we have no draft, that our troops actually want to join and be there. I’m proud that anti-war films like Rendition are miserable failures, that Cindy Sheehan has faded into obscurity, that our young people would rather watch TV than protest a war they won’t have to fight because they will never be drafted. See? That’s the beauty of freedom. You choose what to do.

http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/2011/02/mississippi-burning-over-license-plate.html

im_lovin_it said:
Great post MC. I’m curious if, say, Ron Paul (or whoever your choice would be was elected president, how do you think they would succeed. In theory I’m all for libertarianism. Unfortunately, I think we have an entrenched system of oligarchy that would get even worse. Not to get all personal on you, but I’ve seen a lot of poverty and suffering in my life through my work (social work, particularly with children). Through my experiences I just can’t see the “get it together on your own and be responsible” solution always working in this country. I’ve seen kids that literally have no parents and no hope. What will happen to them? Shouldn’t taxpayers do something to help these kinds of people? I know our democrats have pissed money down the toilet on bogus and unregulated social programs. I also think that there is a lot of good that comes from government involvement in our lives.

Thanks, you too. The libertarian approach would win in multiple ways, I think.

First, you’d see FAR greater prosperity and FAR less unemployment. So, a LOT more money IN SOCIETY to take care of problems, AND fewer problems.

Second, I think what people forget is how much can and will be handled by real charity once wasteful, stolen tax revenues stay in the hands of the people. When charity is private, people manage it. If someone is abusing the system, they just cut it off. Done. And those who truly need help can get a FAR higher percentage of the available charity, precisely because the real abusers of redistribution would be cut off.

It’s important to remember that libertarianism is not the heartless creed its opponents wish to paint. Rather, it simply empowerts individuals to be kind and generous and truly help others, rather than forcing their stolen money into wasteful enterprises that line the pols’ and cronies’ pockets, while tossing crumbs to the poor and destroying their ability to work by driving business out of business and offshore.

NORBIT Jr. said:
Would you ask that if it were the Obama Policy? To your credit Cosmos, I think you would.

Clear causality? I don’t know if there is one.
I’d say that, at least to some degree, people’s motivation, impetus and behavior is influenced by their environment, or in this case, things happening in the “neighborhood.”

I agree that promoting democracy in the Middle East was/is the right idea. I also agree that we had to take a strong stand with governments that supported terrorist groups, hopefully something short of full scale invasion. Looking at the Project for a New American Century I see other motives that I’m not to happy with. It wasn’t just about promoting Democracy , but promoting our interests.

I think people tend to aspire and grow toward freedom and liberty as part of the evolution of societies, and it was only a matter of time before the people of the Arab nations fought to join the rest of the world in that regard. I firmly believe there were far better ways to do it than two ongoing wars. Considering Iraq barely has a functioning democracy and we still have troops there , I have a hard time believing Iraq’s democracy motivated any other nation. Admittedly I can’t be sure. You’re entitled to your opinion but I think it’s a big stretch to state it as fact.

Just_MC said:
I know what you mean. My sense is Newt is just sneakier and harder to catch. Here’s one where he got caught big time. I posted this earlier, did you see it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154

I do remember it now, and all I can say is “Doesn’t Olbermann have a Newt mask at one time?”
I don’t know why he did that, but he’s certainly articulating a stronger libertarian vision these days.

The thing that most worries me about Republicans is their naive understanding of market capitalism.

btimsah said:
Awesome. As a libertarian I give this 5 thumbs up. I hope we take CPAC over and make them explain their continual contradictions. They say they want freedom but support the patriot act. They say they support freedom but support dictators abroad. They say they support freedom but support the drug war. They say a lot but don’t understand half of it.

True

Tony W,

I think it’s important to consider the progressive and libertarian stance on foreign policy. Also, consider the working relationships of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. I certainly think there are lots of issues that both a real progressive and a real progressive can agree on.

greg454 said:
Anti-war libertarians are stupid, how do they think America was founded? Did we have tea with the redcoats? No, we kicked their asses! War is what we do, war is why people join the military, war is who we are. Remember 9/11? Remember all those people standing in line at recruitment stations? Remember that football player who gave up his lucrative career to join the military? That’s us! In Spain it took a few acts of terrorism to get Zapatero elected president and remove their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. In America we have two wars going on and you can still find enough patriots that will join. I’m proud of my country, I’m proud that we have no draft, that our troops actually want to join and be there. I’m proud that anti-war films like Rendition are miserable failures, that Cindy Sheehan has faded into obscurity, that our young people would rather watch TV than protest a war they won’t have to fight because they will never be drafted. See? That’s the beauty of freedom. You choose what to do. http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/2011/02/mississippi-burning-over-license-plate.html

“Anti-war libertarians” is simply poor language representing poor thought.

Libertarians are not “anti-war.” We are “anti-meddling-in-the-affairs-of-sovereign-nations.” Libertarians are FOR war when it is truly defensive, to throw off repression. Our war of independence, which you cited, was a war of that sort. Our wars in the Middle East are only defensive if you start the clock on the morning of 9/11. If you look at our history for the last 100 years, we have been toppling elections, installing and propping up toturing dictators, and invading the nations of the Middle East. The wonder is that we haven’t seen a century of 9/11s.

Make no mistake, libertarians are plenty willing to fight. Keep growing the police state and they may be fighting YOU.

NORBIT Jr. said:
I do remember it now, and all I can say is “Doesn’t Olbermann have a Newt mask at one time?”I don’t know why he did that, but he’s certainly articulating a stronger libertarian vision these days. The thing that most worries me about Republicans is their naive understanding of market capitalism.

My sense, as I used to think more highly of Newt, is his recent turn to more of a libertarian bent is just his latest tack to seize the political wind. Or put another way, if he’s a libertarian now, great. He can shut up and donate a bunch of money to the people who have proven they not only ARE libertarians, but those who have been so through thick and thin, such that one can believe they will remain so.

Regards,

MC

NORBIT Jr. said:
Would you ask that if it were the Obama Policy? To your credit Cosmos, I think you would.

Clear causality? I don’t know if there is one.
I’d say that, at least to some degree, people’s motivation, impetus and behavior is influenced by their environment, or in this case, things happening in the “neighborhood.”

I doubt that especially when there’s a clear explanation that most of them give, lack of food and jobs. If you’d like to thank bush for the lack of jobs I’d agree with you on that.

Tony Westover said:
I wouldn’t like that at all, I’m not a moderate. I’d prefer to see the Republican party move further to the right… really far right towards minarchist libertarianism.

I reject compromise, I prefer instead to convince people in the marketplace of ideas. Compromise between a far right minarchist libertarian and a Progressive would theoretically result in a moderate solution… which is still a statist solution so the minarchist loses. Forget that!

I have to wonder how we can move forward without compromises with our fellow citizens. But first we have to get citizens together to begin to put an end to the wide spread corruption in DC. That will take a lot of citizens coming to together to bring pressure to bear on their elected officials.

NORBIT Jr. said:
<The thing that most worries me about Republicans is their naive understanding of market capitalism.

Can you elaborate on this? I suspect you and I are on the same page here, but I don’t want to assume.

greg454 said:
Anti-war libertarians are stupid, how do they think America was founded?

I’m not necessarily with them, but these Ron Paul supporters at CPAC aren’t necessarily anti-war. None of them would say they were against the Revolutionary War — it was a war of defense and we were invaded. We had no choice to fight that war.

And technically, we weren’t founded by a war. The war was a consequence of our founding. We were founded by a declaration of independence and a codifying of our laws — first in an articles of confederation, and later in a federal constitution. And to get even more technical, there was war before the declaration (but the British just thought of it as police action against terrorists… as they saw it).

CosmosDan said:
I agree that promoting democracy in the Middle East was/is the right idea. I also agree that we had to take a strong stand with governments that supported terrorist groups, hopefully something short of full scale invasion. Looking at the Project for a New American Century I see other motives that I’m not to happy with. It wasn’t just about promoting Democracy , but promoting our interests. I think people tend to aspire and grow toward freedom and liberty as part of the evolution of societies, and it was only a matter of time before the people of the Arab nations fought to join the rest of the world in that regard. I firmly believe there were far better ways to do it than two ongoing wars. Considering Iraq barely has a functioning democracy and we still have troops there , I have a hard time believing Iraq’s democracy motivated any other nation. Admittedly I can’t be sure. You’re entitled to your opinion but I think it’s a big stretch to state it as fact.

Yes, but it drives the radical left wild! lol
- almost Palin status.

The Iraq war wa something virtually every quarter was in reluctant agreement on. No, if it weren’t for the perceived threat of WMD’s, there’s no way we would have, or should have gone.

My own thought is that after Sept. 11, Bush had an epiphany of sorts, and believed the only way to avoid future Armegeddons was to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle east. He saw his opportunity, and either believing, or deluding himself somewhat to believe, used the imperative of WMD’s to grab the moment and Crusade.

CosmosDan said:
I have to wonder how we can move forward without compromises with our fellow citizens. But first we have to get citizens together to begin to put an end to the wide spread corruption in DC. That will take a lot of citizens coming to together to bring pressure to bear on their elected officials.

1- Term Limits
2- Term Limits
3- Term Limits

Just_MC said:
Thanks, you too. The libertarian approach would win in multiple ways, I think.

First, you’d see FAR greater prosperity and FAR less unemployment. So, a LOT more money IN SOCIETY to take care of problems, AND fewer problems.

Second, I think what people forget is how much can and will be handled by real charity once wasteful, stolen tax revenues stay in the hands of the people. When charity is private, people manage it. If someone is abusing the system, they just cut it off. Done. And those who truly need help can get a FAR higher percentage of the available charity, precisely because the real abusers of redistribution would be cut off.

It’s important to remember that libertarianism is not the heartless creed its opponents wish to paint. Rather, it simply empowerts individuals to be kind and generous and truly help others, rather than forcing their stolen money into wasteful enterprises that line the pols’ and cronies’ pockets, while tossing crumbs to the poor and destroying their ability to work by driving business out of business and offshore.

Ideally, I would be libertarian as well. I just have lots of questions about it. How do you think that true libertarianism could be successfully implemented in this country? Also, a common sentiment is that communism doesn’t work because it goes against human nature. Would libertarianism fall into the same problem? If people had total freedom to do what they wanted, would they? Would they be charitable to others and also be only concerned only with taking care of themselves? Sounds like I’m wandering into philosophy now, but hopefully you see the point.

Just_MC said:
My sense, as I used to think more highly of Newt, is his recent turn to more of a libertarian bent is just his latest tack to seize the political wind. Or put another way, if he’s a libertarian now, great. He can shut up and donate a bunch of money to the people who have proven they not only ARE libertarians, but those who have been so through thick and thin, such that one can believe they will remain so. Regards, MC

Agreed

im_lovin_it said:
Ideally, I would be libertarian as well. I just have lots of questions about it. How do you think that true libertarianism could be successfully implemented in this country? Also, a common sentiment is that communism doesn’t work because it goes against human nature. Would libertarianism fall into the same problem? If people had total freedom to do what they wanted, would they? Would they be charitable to others and also be only concerned only with taking care of themselves? Sounds like I’m wandering into philosophy now, but hopefully you see the point.

I’ve learned that TRUE Freedom is to do what you OUGHT to do, not what you WANT to do…

Tony Westover said:
Luckily you are someone who realizes that the left/right political spectrum is based on laws of man (on the left) vs. natural law (on the right) and that the notion that the extremes of each spectrum have big government statist is a complete and utter fallacy. However I sense some naivete. For instance, this quote: This isn’t exactly true. (Not referring to the vote/rhetoric disparity, they’re clearly liars.) The principle behind libertarian rhetoric and the Progressive rhetoric is worlds apart. There’s a reason why Barry Goldwater, the quintessential libertarian of the civil rights era, what adamantly against the Civil Rights Act. Progressives ultimately believe that people are stupid and can’t be trusted, so they have to create laws to make people play nice (and vicariously make the world perfect). Libertarians don’t have contempt for the intellect of the unwashed masses and think that laws forcing people to play nice are demeaning and restricts their liberty… i.e. you should be fair minded, but you have the natural right to be discriminatory. The Progressive’s solution is backed by totalitarianism and statism. The libertarian solution is back by natural rights and individual liberty. Even when the rhetoric of the Progressives and libertarians may seem similar, the principle behind it is diametrically opposed which has BIG consequences when it comes to implementation of policy. So what’s that nitpickery after to do with anything. Well, if your central thesis unfortunately: There are not common principles between libertarians and Progressives. Similar rhetoric, perhaps, but completely opposite principles. In the Venn diagram of principles, the Progressives and conservatives may share some, and the conservatives and libertarians may share some… but the Progressives and the libertarians have absolutely no intersection in their set of principles. The way I see it, the conservatives are the moderates.

Tony,

Great post. TOTALLY with you. “Progressives” in particular are a train wreck. Libertarians don’t agree with them on principle at all. The notion of “compromise” or “moderate” I was discussing is as you say, a Venn diagram of overlap in certain policies, but the underlying PRINCIPLE is as you suggest, not common ground. Or put another way, the Progressive does not even understand the contradiction in his own philosophy. His occasional stumble into policy positions that promote liberrty are conveniences of the politics of today, a means to get control. In the long run, with that control, he will abandon these positions and secure his police state.

The civil rights era protesters who demanded limits on government power, who now have political power, have shown themselves to love that power far more than the principles of limits they once espoused.

Just_MC said:
The civil rights era protesters who demanded limits on government power, who now have political power, have shown themselves to love that power far more than the principles of limits they once espoused.

True

im_lovin_it said:
Tony W,

I think it’s important to consider the progressive and libertarian stance on foreign policy. Also, consider the working relationships of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. I certainly think there are lots of issues that both a real progressive and a real progressive can agree on.

Well, foreign policy is the one area where libertarians and Progressives will agree since we both agreed to cede some of our liberty to the government to protect us.

But so do conservatives.

Actually, if I could get Progressives and conservatives to agree on those few things and to just throw out the rest, I’d be friggin’ ecstatic!

Tony Westover said:
So you’ve basically confirmed your bigotry towards older generations. In addition, you’ve also demonstrated your arrogance, inferring that somehow because they’ve made mistakes electing people who formed bad policies that somehow they should capitulate to your ideas and cede their participation in our democracy.

Yes, because love means hate, and disappointment in bad public policy means I think they should be relegated to lower-class citizens. I’m sorry that they didn’t have the internet when you were young and you were forced to grow up in ignorance.

CosmosDan said:
I have to wonder how we can move forward without compromises with our fellow citizens. But first we have to get citizens together to begin to put an end to the wide spread corruption in DC. That will take a lot of citizens coming to together to bring pressure to bear on their elected officials.

This assumes that compromise is the only way to accomplish something.

Convincing people that you way is the best is another option. That goal is probably better achieved through the general body politic rather than the politicians themselves. Cuz let’s face it, why the hell would you trust a politician?

Dsiscokid said:
I’ve learned that TRUE Freedom is to do what you OUGHT to do, not what you WANT to do…

I gotta call BS on this, unless I misunderstand your meaning.

True freedom is doing whatever you want, whenever you want, with no limits except the extent to which it DIRECTLY infringes on the liberty of the next person. Now, in that definition is the notion of what you OUGHT to do, because the only thing you OUGHT do is NOT trample the liberty of the next person.

If that’s what you meant, I’m with you. But I suspect it is not what you meant, because if it is, there is no need to contrast it with the “what you WANT to do” side of things.

Virtually everyone in history wants power to FORCE people to do what HE WANTS them to do. And in the process of doing this, such people have the audacity to say what they FORCE people to do is what those people OUGHT to do. Thus I am very suspicious of anyone who speaks of “OUGHT” in any way other than simply leaving others’ lives, liberty, and property alone. That’s the only OUGHT with any place in politics.

Just_MC said:
The civil rights era protesters who demanded limits on government power, who now have political power, have shown themselves to love that power far more than the principles of limits they once espoused.

And not to mention that had they been patient, the courts were already overturning most of the laws that allowed the government to infringe on people’s civil liberties.

These people thought we had to increase the powers of government in order to protect their civil liberties (a fallacious line of thought to begin with) when we already had a system that was already actively protecting them.

im_lovin_it said:
Ideally, I would be libertarian as well. I just have lots of questions about it. How do you think that true libertarianism could be successfully implemented in this country? Also, a common sentiment is that communism doesn’t work because it goes against human nature. Would libertarianism fall into the same problem? If people had total freedom to do what they wanted, would they? Would they be charitable to others and also be only concerned only with taking care of themselves? Sounds like I’m wandering into philosophy now, but hopefully you see the point.

I think it’s a good question to ask. I tackled some of this in an earlier post about charity and other things. But one more thing to add is that the history of the world shows freedom, including liberty and property rights both, which it must, is ALWAYS the greatest environment for prosperity.

People who look at China now and say “hey, they are communist and getting rich” don’t understand what is happening. China has a near slave labor force. It is changing, but it is foolish to think of “China” prospering because of its totalitarianism. SOME people in China have gotten rich on that, sure. And Hosni Mubarak has 60 billion dollars, living on the necks of the Egyptians too. But ANYWHERE you see real growth in living standards in China, it is because of some economic liberty OR it is a group getting rich on the necks of some larger group.

And the warm-fuzzy myth of modern liberalism/socialism/progressivism ONLY exists when liberty has created prosperity. Poor and repressive places see more theft and redistribution, like that in Egypt, unless the people SEIZE their own liberty.

Publius219 said:
Yes, because love means hate, and disappointment in bad public policy means I think they should be relegated to lower-class citizens.

In your earlier post you showed your contempt for older generations. And say that they need to get out of the way while you clean up their mess does relegated them to lower-class citizens.

Just because you tried to put a thick candy shell on your beliefs doesn’t change them.

Publius219 said:
I’m sorry that they didn’t have the internet when you were young and you were forced to grow up in ignorance.

I’m 27 and write web services for a living.

Surprisingly, you don’t need to be a member of a group in order to recognize that they deserve respect.

Tony Westover said:
This assumes that compromise is the only way to accomplish something.

Agreed. And as they say “mix fifty gallons of sewage with a gallon of wine, you get 51 gallons of sewage. Mix fifty gallons of wine with a gallon of sewage, you get 51 gallons of sewage.”

Cmpromise is what got us in today’s mess. The pols on Team D cut deals with the pols on Team R, where they and their cronies compromise on how much each gets when they invent a new way to steal from us. The crooks in government and their cronies in big business win, and the People lose.

Just_MC said:
Can you elaborate on this? I suspect you and I are on the same page here, but I don’t want to assume.

I think you have to ask the basic question, what do we use an economic system for?
It should provide the structure through which a viable social environment can be maintained.

I have a big problem with the incestuous relationship between Wall Street & Washington – particularly since the Cinton years, and the changes introduced.

Under market capitalism, the financial industry is tasked with stewarding funds through to the broader economy, in order to provide optimal life- opportunities to the most amount of people.

Instead, the industry has used its authority to usurp that investment capital in the form of fees, commissions, takeover windfalls, company breakups, computer trading, etc., in order to engorge the net worth’s of relatively few.
- and that doesn’t even address the pernicious effect and inordinate influence such misgotten gains create
for the same people who take them.

Witness the last three years. We’re still in recession, while the Fed hands out money and Wall Street hands out record bonuses… but too long to get into that now.

That’s very basic; but are you more in agreement or not?

NORBIT Jr. said:
I think you have to ask the basic question, what do we use an economic system for?
It should provide the structure through which a viable social environment can be maintained.

I have a big problem with the incestuous relationship between Wall Street & Washington – particularly since the Cinton years, and the changes introduced.

Under market capitalism, the financial industry is tasked with stewarding funds through to the broader economy, in order to provide optimal life- opportunities to the most amount of people.

Instead, the industry has used its authority to usurp that investment capital in the form of fees, commissions, takeover windfalls, company breakups, computer trading, etc., in order to engorge the net worth’s of relatively few.
- and that doesn’t even address the pernicious effect and inordinate influence such misgotten gains create
for the same people who take them.

Witness the last three years. We’re still in recession, while the Fed hands out money and Wall Street hands out record bonuses… but too long to get into that now.

That’s very basic; but are you more in agreement or not?

I’m sorry that you are retarded.

Just_MC said:
I gotta call BS on this, unless I misunderstand your meaning. True freedom is doing whatever you want, whenever you want, with no limits except the extent to which it DIRECTLY infringes on the liberty of the next person. Now, in that definition is the notion of what you OUGHT to do, because the only thing you OUGHT do is NOT trample the liberty of the next person. If that’s what you meant, I’m with you. But I suspect it is not what you meant, because if it is, there is no need to contrast it with the “what you WANT to do” side of things. Virtually everyone in history wants power to FORCE people to do what HE WANTS them to do. And in the process of doing this, such people have the audacity to say what they FORCE people to do is what those people OUGHT to do. Thus I am very suspicious of anyone who speaks of “OUGHT” in any way other than simply leaving others’ lives, liberty, and property alone. That’s the only OUGHT with any place in politics.

The “ought” in freedom comes from the individual. I see what you are saying. I cannot FORCE another individual to do what I think they OUGHT to do. The more freedom, the better. It beats the alternative

Just_MC said:
There is a huge lie in the notion of “moderates” and the assumption of some correctness of moderates. The lie results from the false spectrum of “right’ vs. “left.” The right and left are both big-government statists, who favor state control over individual liberty. “Moderates” in that spectrum are just deal-cutters who side with a higher percentage of the big government cronies of both sides.

Can’t say I agree with this assessment of moderates. I tend to think as we get more toward the middle where moderates live we find people more willing to judge the issues based on the issue rather than party loyalties or policies.

Just_MC said:
The true measure of politics is a different spectrum, flowing from liberty to totalitarianism. Clearly., moderates have no place of “correctness” here, they are just a little less bad than the statists. Liberty IS better than anything else.

I think liberty is not concrete enough. and there are many more influences to consider than just liberty or totalitarianism. The issue is finding practical solutions based on the realities of whatever the present situation is. We are a society in flux and should expect to examine , evaluate and change accordingly.

I thought the GOP loved them some Dick!

Tony Westover said:
The way I see it, the conservatives are the moderates.

Who in congress do you consider an example of a person espousing your conservatism?

Tony Westover said:
And not to mention that had they been patient, the courts were already overturning most of the laws that allowed the government to infringe on people’s civil liberties.

.

You think the decades blacks endured under Jim Crow was not exhibiting enough patience?

Ha, those were Code Pinkers in drag,

aA picture is worth a thousand words.

http://agitprop.typepad.com/agitprop/images/2008/06/10/ronpaulblimp.jpg

Garth said:
I’m sorry that you are retarded.

Why don’t you just get off,close your computer up, and go to bed and leave these people alone. good honest discussions going on, unless of course you have something worth reading.

Garth said:
Do you have ADD?

You definitely have SFB.

Tony Westover said:
Luckily you are someone who realizes that the left/right political spectrum is based on laws of man (on the left) vs. natural law (on the right)

That’s quite a statement. Seems to me the law is what society makes it.

NORBIT Jr. said:
I think you have to ask the basic question, what do we use an economic system for?It should provide the structure through which a viable social environment can be maintained. I have a big problem with the incestuous relationship between Wall Street & Washington – particularly since the Cinton years, and the changes introduced. Under market capitalism, the financial industry is tasked with stewarding funds through to the broader economy, in order to provide optimal life- opportunities to the most amount of people. Instead, the industry has used its authority to usurp that investment capital in the form of fees, commissions, takeover windfalls, company breakups, computer trading, etc., in order to engorge the net worth’s of relatively few.- and that doesn’t even address the pernicious effect and inordinate influence such misgotten gains createfor the same people who take them. Witness the last three years. We’re still in recession, while the Fed hands out money and Wall Street hands out record bonuses… but too long to get into that now. That’s very basic; but are you more in agreement or not?

Completely in agreement. I spend a lot of time trying to tell people what you described are abuses. These are not examples of the evils of capitalism. They are abusive, liberty-stealing government measures that interfere with capitalism. No cartel is as destructive or evil as a government-supported cartel.

Real capitalism means NO subsidies and no government dictation of terms. People make their own deals, willingly, and government’s role is to enforce contracts and punish fraud.

The whole definition of “regulation” has become abused, an Orwellian move by statists to seize more power. The federal government was NEVER supposed to dictate the terms of interstate commerce. It was supposed to enforce free trade, to PREVENT the States from picking winners and losers through interstate tariffs and such. And instead, the crooks have found it often easier to change the language than to change the laws. In today’s age, the US Government is LARGELY just a license to steal.

CosmosDan said:
That’s quite a statement. Seems to me the law is what society makes it.

By definition, “what society makes it” will be the laws of man. It is only when a disciplined and principled society writes the laws of man to follow natural law that justice may reign.

I disagree with the prior post’s assignment of left and right, though it has considerable merit in principle. Today’s political right is far closer to ADVOCATING society’s law follows natural law. But in practice, the abuses of the political right are as significant as those of the left.

Tony Westover said:
Libertarians don’t have contempt for the intellect of the unwashed masses and think that laws forcing people to play nice are demeaning and restricts their liberty… i.e. you should be fair minded, but you have the natural right to be discriminatory.

It’s not always a matter of contempt, but often a matter of justice. In protecting the liberty of someone to be discriminatory aren’t you also failing to protect the equality of other citizens and offer them protection?

CosmosDan said:
It’s not always a matter of contempt, but often a matter of justice. In protecting the liberty of someone to be discriminatory aren’t you also failing to protect the equality of other citizens and offer them protection?

Good question. The correct answer is ‘no’ in all private matters. When public money is involved, the answer is yes. The problem is that government has so abused its role that public money gets mixed into everything now.

But the right fix is to remove the public money from so many places where it doesn’t belong, and to let people run their own lives.

NORBIT Jr. said:
Yes, but it drives the radical left wild! lol
- almost Palin status.

The Iraq war wa something virtually every quarter was in reluctant agreement on. No, if it weren’t for the perceived threat of WMD’s, there’s no way we would have, or should have gone.

My own thought is that after Sept. 11, Bush had an epiphany of sorts, and believed the only way to avoid future Armegeddons was to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle east. He saw his opportunity, and either believing, or deluding himself somewhat to believe, used the imperative of WMD’s to grab the moment and Crusade.

I don’t think that’s true. I think he would have gone into Iraq regardless of 9/11. For decades we had violated principles of liberty and interfered in the affairs of sovereign nations to promote and protect our economic interests. Reading the Project for a New American Century convinced me that some in power, including Cheney, Rumsfeld, and several others in the Bush admin, who were willing to take the next step beyond covert interference. I believe Richard Clarke when he said he was told to link Saddam to 9/11 regardless of evidence. Ultimately Iraq was not about defense or liberation. It was about protecting American interests and establishing a military presence in the ME.

“‘Uh, Defender of the Constitution?’ Justin Bradfield of Maryland scoffed when I caught up with him after he walked out of Rumsfeld’s speech. ‘Let’s see: he expanded the Defense Department more than pretty much any other defense secretary and he enforced the Patriot Act.’

Ignorance is bliss, ain’t it, Justin? There’s nothing unconstitutional about expanding the DOD, and the SECDEF implements it, he does not order it. That would be Congress and POTUS that do that. As far as enforcing the Patriot Act, the VP’s law enforcement powers…well, don’t exist. Aside from that, spot on!

Dsiscokid said:
1- Term Limits
2- Term Limits
3- Term Limits

I tend to agree with term limits now. On the downside I’m concerned we won’t get the quality public servants if they know they are out in 12 years or so, but OTOH I think corruption is so rampant that is a viable solution.

CosmosDan said:
I don’t think that’s true. I think he would have gone into Iraq regardless of 9/11. For decades we had violated principles of liberty and interfered in the affairs of sovereign nations to promote and protect our economic interests. Reading the Project for a New American Century convinced me that some in power, including Cheney, Rumsfeld, and several others in the Bush admin, who were willing to take the next step beyond covert interference.

Those sneaky bastards even got Clinton to sign the Iraq Liberation Act. Damn, they’re good!

im_lovin_it said:
Ideally, I would be libertarian as well. I just have lots of questions about it. How do you think that true libertarianism could be successfully implemented in this country? Also, a common sentiment is that communism doesn’t work because it goes against human nature. Would libertarianism fall into the same problem? If people had total freedom to do what they wanted, would they? Would they be charitable to others and also be only concerned only with taking care of themselves? Sounds like I’m wandering into philosophy now, but hopefully you see the point.

I have respect for libertarian principles but I do feel they alone will not solve the real life problems of a modern society.

Pablo said:
Ignorance is bliss, ain’t it, Justin? There’s nothing unconstitutional about expanding the DOD, and the SECDEF implements it, he does not order it. That would be Congress and POTUS that do that. As far as enforcing the Patriot Act, the VP’s law enforcement powers…well, don’t exist. Aside from that, spot on!

Except that Cheney was an unusual, hands-on VP to whom Bush delegated a lot, no?

CosmosDan said:
I have respect for libertarian principles but I do feel they alone will not solve the real life problems of a modern society.

Are you willing to let libertarians opt out of programs we don’t agree with (including opting out of paying)?

Just_MC said:
Except that Cheney was an unusual, hands-on VP to whom Bush delegated a lot, no?

So you can show where Cheney enforced the Patriot Act, as opposed to it being made law and enforced by, you know, law enforcement and the intelligence agencies? Please do.

CosmosDan said:
I have respect for libertarian principles but I do feel they alone will not solve the real life problems of a modern society.

Also, I take it you would agree that whatever people currently do ALSO does not solve the real life problems of a modern society, no? If you do think we’ve solved real life problems with our current nonsense/criminal approach to government, we will have to agree to disagree.

But if you agree that we haven’t solved our real life problems, consider that NOTHING solves what you want to solve. Think of it like self-defense. The cops CAN’T protect the people. If they stop any crime of violence, it is usually mostly luck. All they can really hope for is that by sweeping up after enough crimes, that some percentage of would-be murderers are deterred. So, what are the choices? More police still can’t do it. We could have HALF the population be police and it wouldn’t. And we couldn’t afford it. So what’s left? At least DON’T INTERFERE with the right of people to try to defend themselves. At least give them a shot. All the laws in the world to “disarm” criminals will fail. So do the best you CAN do–let the people be free to protect themselves the best they can. Will that stop all murders? Of course not. But it is the best you CAN do, and at least the force of the state won’t be complicit in disarming any citizens, or punishing any citizens who are just trying to defend themselves.

Same with markets and economic liberty. It won’t make everything perfect, but nothing will, and full freedom will do the best of anything. And it is FAR more moral to let people do the best they can.

Don’t worry Dick, Many conservatives support your invasion of Iraq. I agree, ignorance is bliss.

Pablo said:
So you can show where Cheney enforced the Patriot Act, as opposed to it being made law and enforced by, you know, law enforcement and the intelligence agencies? Please do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6mOgdgMvgQ

When you say “enforced” are you splitting a hair? Meaning, is the President culpable for enforcement in your eyes? My understanding is that Cheney had a LOT to do with getting the policies of the Patriot Act set up. I *think* the video has him describing what “we did”, his words, where he was pretty clear about his being involved in the approach to surveillance, etc. Put another way, he takes credit for the approach, so by HIS taking credit, he certainly implies his involvement.

I’ve noticed that when a lot of Libertarians start dialoging the discussion can get much more interesting than the usual hard core rightwing comments that usually dominate this website. I was really impressed that Cheney was called out by the Libertarians at this conference. I’ll know that there’s justice in this world when Bush, Cheney and the cabal of war criminals who initiated the totally immoral invasion of Iraq are hauled into court. World War II was the last war we fought that we had to fight. it’s been downhill ever since and this warmongering for oil, power, control, whatever, has been one of the main reasons for our once great country’s decline. On this score I’m a big supporter of Ron Paul.
As a left of center person, however, I do find it difficult to understand other libertarian and rightwing notions, especially about the myths of big and small government. When you have a complex society with over 300,000,000 people, you’re not going to have a small government and you’re going to need a moral and ethical government to make sure that things work properly. I grew up in the 1940′s and 50′s and I’ll never forget many of the people around me and their families who hated FDR for all the terrible things he did like saving the country from collapse and the world from fascism and creating programs like social security and helping to initiate the United Nations. The rightwing has spent so much time and energy trying to deligitimitize government and we’re now reaping the bitter harvest of their efforts. We don’t live in a Wild West film where everyone is a loner who you don’t want to mess with. C’mon – a little common sense. We all know that capitalism, with all its imperfections, is the only economic system that works. But why does every developed country have some form of universal health care with government involvement? The reason is that health is not a neutral commodity. We’ll never have a healthy, democratic country if health is simply based on cost. Europeans and Canadians are no less capitalistic than we are but they’ve learned that health along with other vital functions of any developed society require some degree of government involvement. It would be great to get together and sensibly sort out where we really don’t want government to interfere with our lives and where we need government involvement. That would require reforming how we elect our representatives which means taking the outrageuous sums of money out of elections. It’s about time we got over our petty squabbling.

Tony Westover said:
This assumes that compromise is the only way to accomplish something.

Convincing people that you way is the best is another option. That goal is probably better achieved through the general body politic rather than the politicians themselves. Cuz let’s face it, why the hell would you trust a politician?

How long should we wait until almost everybody agrees, and what do we do in the meantime? I think the process is one of trying to convince but being willing to compromise.

ganymede said:
I’ve noticed that when a lot of Libertarians start dialoging the discussion can get much more interesting than the usual hard core rightwing comments that usually dominate this website. I was really impressed that Cheney was called out by the Libertarians at this conference. I’ll know that there’s justice in this world when Bush, Cheney and the cabal of war criminals who initiated the totally immoral invasion of Iraq are hauled into court. World War II was the last war we fought that we had to fight. it’s been downhill ever since and this warmongering for oil, power, control, whatever, has been one of the main reasons for our once great country’s decline. On this score I’m a big supporter of Ron Paul.As a left of center person, however, I do find it difficult to understand other libertarian and rightwing notions, especially about the myths of big and small government. When you have a complex society with over 300,000,000 people, you’re not going to have a small government and you’re going to need a moral and ethical government to make sure that things work properly. I grew up in the 1940’s and 50’s and I’ll never forget many of the people around me and their families who hated FDR for all the terrible things he did like saving the country from collapse and the world from fascism and creating programs like social security and helping to initiate the United Nations. The rightwing has spent so much time and energy trying to deligitimitize government and we’re now reaping the bitter harvest of their efforts. We don’t live in a Wild West film where everyone is a loner who you don’t want to mess with. C’mon – a little common sense. We all know that capitalism, with all its imperfections, is the only economic system that works. But why does every developed country have some form of universal health care with government involvement? The reason is that health is not a neutral commodity. We’ll never have a healthy, democratic country if health is simply based on cost. Europeans and Canadians are no less capitalistic than we are but they’ve learned that health along with other vital functions of any developed society require some degree of government involvement. It would be great to get together and sensibly sort out where we really don’t want government to interfere with our lives and where we need government involvement. That would require reforming how we elect our representatives which means taking the outrageuous sums of money out of elections. It’s about time we got over our petty squabbling.

If it is petty squabbling, then you won’t mind if those of us who are morally opposed to government confiscation of wealth and trampling of liberty can simply opt out, no?

Just_MC said:
Cmpromise is what got us in today’s mess. The pols on Team D cut deals with the pols on Team R, where they and their cronies compromise on how much each gets when they invent a new way to steal from us. The crooks in government and their cronies in big business win, and the People lose.

You’re talking about corruption not compromise.

Garth said:
I’m sorry that you are retarded.

That’s really a pathetic comment to make when someone is sincerely expressing something.

Just_MC said:
By definition, “what society makes it” will be the laws of man. It is only when a disciplined and principled society writes the laws of man to follow natural law that justice may reign.

I disagree with the prior post’s assignment of left and right, though it has considerable merit in principle. Today’s political right is far closer to ADVOCATING society’s law follows natural law. But in practice, the abuses of the political right are as significant as those of the left.

I’m having a little trouble with the term natural law. Isn’t that a pretty subjective term. Who gets to declare what law is natural vs man made.

NORBIT Jr. said:
The only reason Tunisia, Egypt & Jordan are on the cusp of democracy is because of the Bush Doctrine!

What’s happening right now is exactly what Bush said would happen.

Yeah, everyone wants what Iraq has. lolol

Executive Branch abuses of power is not a partisan issue, if we are a nation of laws. While underlings are not at issue for following orders, those who crafted any that are in fact against the laws of the United States or Canada, cannot be just given a wink & nod.

ganymede said:
I grew up in the 1940’s and 50’s and I’ll never forget many of the people around me and their families who hated FDR for all the terrible things he did like saving the country from collapse and the world from fascism and creating programs like social security and helping to initiate the United Nations

It says much that sixty years on and you can’t be honest about why they hated him. Those legitimate reasons regarding the nature of power that were ignored and dismissed then and are the core issues of today’s dialogue. But it does fit with your description of yourself as a left of center person.

Good job teabaggers! also cudos on voting against the patriot act. Not being sarcastic. You guys follow through like this and I might quit calling you teabaggers.

Just_MC said:
Good question. The correct answer is ‘no’ in all private matters. When public money is involved, the answer is yes. The problem is that government has so abused its role that public money gets mixed into everything now.

But the right fix is to remove the public money from so many places where it doesn’t belong, and to let people run their own lives.

I see the point, but I think the reality is that by giving people the liberty to be discriminatory is granting them a license to harm others with that discrimination.

Just_MC said:
If it is petty squabbling, then you won’t mind if those of us who are morally opposed to government confiscation of wealth and trampling of liberty can simply opt out, no?

I don’t mean to sound obtuse, but what do you mean about government confiscation of wealth. Years ago the federal tax rate was much higher and it didn’t seem to inhibit the incredible middle class growth we experienced in the 1950′ to the late 70′s. If people are fortunate enough to make a lot of money, doesn’t it make sense that they put some of it back to help improve society. And that goes for the misnamed ‘death tax’ or as it use to be called ‘estate tax’. No man or woman is an island – we are all in this together. It’s really the extreme greed of the very wealthy and their corporations that should be brought under close scrutiny. They have wasted enough money on wars and corruption with which we could have built and rebuilt this country many times over as well as helped countries less fortunate than ourselves. And tell me about trampling of liberty. Who has been trampled? People who don’t want to pay taxes? People who want to buy assault weapons and bazookas at gun shows? People who don’t want to pay a small fee in order that we can all have health coverage – of course, when they get sick they’ll be happy to pay a mandated fee. I live in New York City and our mayor now wants to prohibit smoking in parks and at beaches. Is this the end of the world? Trampling on liberty is when we’re thrown in concentration camps because we have opposing views or a different religion. We’re not quite there yet. But you can opt out if you want, it’s a free country, but it’s also pretty immature behavior.

Just_MC said:
Are you willing to let libertarians opt out of programs we don’t agree with (including opting out of paying)?

I don’t see that as a solution. I’m in favor of keeping a better eye on programs and seeing what works and what doesn’t. What needs to be changed or eliminated. I’m in favor of replacing as much as we can with things done by the private sector.

As I’ve said before, I doubt any liberal would object to the private sector stepping up to replace the help people are getting from government programs.

Just_MC said:
Also, I take it you would agree that whatever people currently do ALSO does not solve the real life problems of a modern society, no?

Right. I don’t think it will be perfect. I think we have to stay engaged and realize things are going to change and need adjusting.

AWESOME

Cheney doesn’t give a shit.

SO FUNNY THOUGH

zumpano said:
AWESOME

Cheney doesn’t give a shit.

SO FUNNY THOUGH

Nobody gives a shit. That might be your funny little problem.

Just_MC said:
When you say “enforced” are you splitting a hair? Meaning, is the President culpable for enforcement in your eyes?

Are you aware that the President is not the Vice President? The latter is the guy who’s job is to inquire about the health of the former on a daily basis.

Just_MC said:
My understanding is that Cheney had a LOT to do with getting the policies of the Patriot Act set up.

Feel free to document your understanding. Then we can talk.

ganymede said:
If people are fortunate enough to make a lot of money, doesn’t it make sense that they put some of it back to help improve society.

Morally, it makes sense for people to put that money back into society in a manner which suits them. Because it’s their money. They earned it. It’s theirs.

Even so, society decided int he early part of the last century to amass monies in Washington. Now, from whence comes the corruption of which you speak that fund the wars you oppose? Where there is power, there will follow the impulse to corrupt it; where there is great sums of public money, there will be those who seek the power to distribute it. Corruption in inherent in the system we have imposed on ourselves; it doesn’t flow from a particular form of business based on that business’ structural organization. But punish the corporations and avoid the corrupting influences, you say, and build stuff with those monies. Spend. Rebuild. Invest. But isn’t this what we’ve been doing for far longer than anyone here has been alive? And what has it brought us but to today’s decaying infrastructure, increasingly valueless money, empty promises for unfunded liabilities and run-away debt?

This country WAS built once before, and not just during the post war boom in which all our country’s major economic competitors lay in ruins, but before then, really built from the ground up, accomplished without an invasive, ‘caring’ government. And there was not even a hint of discussion of how that government might threaten man’s liberties, let alone how it might determine what my salt intake was.

CosmosDan said:
I’m having a little trouble with the term natural law. Isn’t that a pretty subjective term. Who gets to declare what law is natural vs man made.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident. “

Of course, the Paul supporter took it too far. I’ll not condemn one person in such personal terms for the transgressions of an entire governmental policy borne of a century long habit of ignoring constitutional governance. We should be able to disagree without being disagreeable. But apologize to Dick Cheney for the interruption of his presentation to Donald Rumsfeld of the Defender of the Constitution award? Never.

I think I just came.

Most confederates thought it was “natural law” to own slaves and subjugate blacks. Used the Bible too to support it — which it does in texts of the old testament. Read some of the letters that were written by some of the generals leading the secession effort. Some academic themes don’t rhyme with reality.

Wow, they got excited for real the Emperor. I was hoping someone would’ve made a citizen arrest.

Yoda002 said:
Wow, they got excited for real the Emperor. I was hoping someone would’ve made a citizen arrest.

For the real Emperor- five deferment Cheney.

What happened to Liz Cheney…or whatever his daughter’s name is? I’m talking about the one who introduced Dick at last year’s event IIRC. Haven’t heard her yapping in a long time.

Gasket said:
Most confederates thought it was “natural law” to own slaves and subjugate blacks. Used the Bible too to support it — which it does in texts of the old testament. Read some of the letters that were written by some of the generals leading the secession effort. Some academic themes don’t rhyme with reality.

Many have thought, or proclaimed, natural law was theirs. But natual law is fairly simple and universal. In fact, it passes the basic test of universality, which no slaveowning ever could.

Every man owns himself, his mind, his body, the fruit of his labor. And by basic implication, every man is right to defend that which he owns.

The details of all of man’s law should follow these basics. Such that do not are null and void.

Off course I agree with them, he is the biggest mistake W did. He came in and brought with him the wretched Neocons.

zumpano said:
AWESOME

Cheney doesn’t give a shit.

SO FUNNY THOUGH

Of course not.

You have to have a conscience to be able to feel.

Just_MC said:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident. ”

As revered as those are, it doesn’t clarify much. Ultimately it has to get down to day to day real life situations.

I do agree that trying to legislate or develop a government program for every ill is a bad idea.

Just_MC said:
Many have thought, or proclaimed, natural law was theirs. But natual law is fairly simple and universal. In fact, it passes the basic test of universality, which no slaveowning ever could.

Every man owns himself, his mind, his body, the fruit of his labor. And by basic implication, every man is right to defend that which he owns.

The details of all of man’s law should follow these basics. Such that do not are null and void.

But this law still allows severe discrimination by one group toward another.

Do we have any practical example of this concept working in a modern nation?

Just_MC said:
Every man owns himself, his mind, his body, the fruit of his labor. And by basic implication, every man is right to defend that which he owns.

Is there any web sites you might recommend where I can read how these basic principles apply to real life.

Hey Jon, I couldn’t help but notice the difference in Mediaites coverage of CPAC V their coverage of the Nutroot convention. Just something to think about.

ganymede said:
Years ago the federal tax rate was much higher and it didn’t seem to inhibit the incredible middle class growth we experienced in the 1950′ to the late 70’s.

First, the prosperity of the 50s with the tax rates you describe was because the rest of the industrialized world (the competition) was RAZED TO THE GROUND and/or BANKRUPTED in WWII. Our infrastructure was untouched. As Tom Peters said to the fools who looked at the business sucesses of the 50s as examples of how to operate: “In the 50s, you couldn’t have screwed up an American Fortune500 company if you tried.” Except of course, by destroying its future by failing to innovate or saddling it with a regulatory morasse that would make it more expensive, less profitable, and ultimately see it offshored.

ganymede said:
If people are fortunate enough to make a lot of money, doesn’t it make sense that they put some of it back to help improve society.

1. WHOSE money is it?!
2. Help someone else?! It doesn’t help. It provides the illusion of help, while creating PERMANENT urban blight and poverty.
3. The notion that the things you describe are sustainable simply isn’t true. The redistiribution you recommend is enabled only for a temporary period of time by MASSIVE debt. The entitlement culture and excessive government control over how businesses operate is BANKRUPTING everyone. If this country were a business operating on its own accounting rules for businesses, it would long ago have been declared bankrupt.
4. The VERY abuses in business you want to get rid of ARE ENABLED by government, not stamped out by government. When government exceeds its proper authority (enforcing private business contracts and prosecuting fraud), suddenly government PICKS the winners and losers. No longer are winners and losers in the market chosen by PROVIDING GOOD VALUE TO WILLING CONSUMERS. Instead, winners and losers are increasingly chosen by favors from the corrupt politicians who are BOUGHT by big business. So, if you are outraged (as we all should be) about many of the big businesses, you need to distinguish between two types of profit: That gained by winning the competition to provide the best value to consumers VS that gained by political favors. The fix isn’t more “regulation” (an abused word, itself) but LESS. The regulators ALWAYS get co-opted by the richest of the regulated. The ONLY way to make things work is to put government back in the EXTREMELY LIMITED role the Founders prescribed: PROTECTING property rights (not violating them) and enforcing private contracts among businesses and people who act freely (not dictating the terms of how businesses and people operate and act).

MC,

I’m wading off into the waters of utopia here but I hope you hang in there with me. It seems a lot of your problem with government regulation is that the government is inevitably made into toadies by businesses. If a government oversight could be honest and our elected officials serve as public servants like they should, then would government regulations on the the free market sound a little more appealing to you? The idea of an honest government doesn’t seem that far-fetched to me if we have an active and alert electorate paying attention. Unfortunately, I think it’s safe to say America lacks that at the moment.

Also, I’m going to make a sweeping generalization here, but wasn’t it a lack of effective regulation that lead to the housing collapse and our current situation? I’m curious to your take on that. Sorry I keep asking all these questions (and believe me, I have many more) but this is the most actual information I’ve heard from a libertarian and I think it’s interesting.

I thought it was only “libruls” who thought Cheney a war criminal.

CosmosDan said:
But this law still allows severe discrimination by one group toward another. Do we have any practical example of this concept working in a modern nation?

This country was very libertarian up through the Civil War or a bit after, with the horrible crime of slavery being its terrible flaw. But everything that is RIGHT and PROSPEROUS about this country comes from where natural law is followed. (Inviolate ownership of oneself, one’s property, one’s liberty, and the fruit of one’s own labor, checked only so as not to infringe the next man’s liberty).

And everything that is WRONG and KILLING this country comes from where this natural law is abused.

So, when you ask for examples of this working in a modern country, look at ANYTHING that works in a modern country and there you have it. The reality is that ALL modern “first world” countries are in trouble. None of them work and none are sustainable. They are all living artificial lives, with lots of redistribution of wealth through confiscation, which CANNOT AND WILL NOT be sustained.

Further, the only reason it has lasted as long as it has is because of massive leveraging. It is foolish to judge how one is doing by how one is living. Confiscatory redistribution feels good at the time but causes a bigger hangover later. Many voters historically have gotten this wrong almost every time, which is why we should eliminate government borrowing constitutionally.

Consider a family with a bunch of credit cards, going out to eat at nice restaurants every night, buying new cars and electronics, etc, racking up huge debt. And then consider them scrimping and saving and sacrificing to pay off that debt.

Anyone who ASSESSES how a country is doing simply by looking at quality-of-life at various times will wrongly conclude that prosperity comes with those periods of reckless borrowing and spending. And will also wrongly conclude that working hard, and scrimping and saving, creates lower living standards. But this is DEAD WRONG. It is EXACTLY BACKWARDS. The primary illusion that allows this fatal mistake is DEBT. If taxpayers had to pay in full as they went, they would better manage their government’s reckless spending.

It sounds as if you are working on the assumption that modern first-world nations actually work by their current M.O.s. They don’t. Their current M.O.s are actually their deaths, delayed only by the consumption of stored wealth supplemented by massive borrowing.

When financial markets collapse the next time (and they always do, because history shows such rolled-over debts are ALWAYS defaulted on eventually), it will become far more clear to the masses who the reel producers are, with the painful lesson of what can be sustained and what cannot. If people studied history properly, they might discipline themselves to avoid such fatal mistakes.

MASSIVE government overreach will collapse this country, as it has collapsed every country and every empire in history that engaged in these practices. Bank on it. The ONLY hope to save it is to shrink government back to 1/10th or less of its current size. Fighting this is like fighting gravity. We do so at our peril.

Gasket said:
What happened to Liz Cheney…or whatever his daughter’s name is? I’m talking about the one who introduced Dick at last year’s event IIRC. Haven’t heard her yapping in a long time.

Her role was to rehabilitate the Cheney name. She failed to do so. Only a small portion of Republicans, the Neo-Con war mongers, view Cheney as favorable. The effort has officially ended, and Liz is washing herself for a new phase of her public life, untethered to the failed Cheney endeavors of the past.

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Hey Jon, I couldn’t help but notice the difference in Mediaites coverage of CPAC V their coverage of the Nutroot convention. Just something to think about.

Right, Bitter Tormented Michelle in Utah. You love war, and you love war criminals, so anything to deflect from the essential message in the news, to-wit: even many Republicans view Cheney as a war criminal. Diversion seems to be the essence of your life.

BTW: Netroots is a media event. CPAC is an ideological event. Again, you’re confused, as usual, comparing light bulbs to Velveeta.

im_lovin_it said:
MC, I’m wading off into the waters of utopia here but I hope you hang in there with me. It seems a lot of your problem with government regulation is that the government is inevitably made into toadies by businesses. If a government oversight could be honest and our elected officials serve as public servants like they should, then would government regulations on the the free market sound a little more appealing to you? The idea of an honest government doesn’t seem that far-fetched to me if we have an active and alert electorate paying attention. Unfortunately, I think it’s safe to say America lacks that at the moment. Also, I’m going to make a sweeping generalization here, but wasn’t it a lack of effective regulation that lead to the housing collapse and our current situation? I’m curious to your take on that. Sorry I keep asking all these questions (and believe me, I have many more) but this is the most actual information I’ve heard from a libertarian and I think it’s interesting.

Yes, but…

“ASSUME an honest government” is like the bonehead, booksmart economist on the deserted island with a can of food saying “ASSUME a can opener. It’s a flawed assumption.

Foolish people laugh at libertarianism tossing around unfounded statements like “it’s impractical” or “it’s unrealistic” or “human nature won’t allow it.” This is PRECISELY BACKWARDS. What is impractical and pie-in-the-sky is that anyone will ever break human nature and defy ALL of history by finding uncorruptible governments. Government WILL be corrupted. So the answer is not to seek uncorruptible government. The answer is to SO LIMIT GOVERNMENT that the corrupted can’t do too much damage before they are removed. The more power they have, the more they will SEIZE, making it more and more difficult to turn them out.

And try another gestalt view. The history of prosperity is VERY clear. The greatest prosperity has ALWAYS come in places with minimal government overhead and maximum freedom, where government’s only role was to PROTECT liberty and property rights. As I wrote above, the illusion of wealth in times of large government is just that: an illusion created by the consumption of stored wealth (created BEFORE that huge government was sucking the blood from the economy) and consumption of borrowed wealth (to be increased and rolled over only until eventual default.)

BTW “I’m_lovin_it”, I was peobably a bit cold and terse there in my haste. But my point is fairly simple. In short, nothing will ever change human nature such that “honest government” is realistic or practical. It will ALWAYS be abused. The only hope is to keep government small, such that the People control the power and can squash it when it INEVITABLY becomes more and more corrupt.

BTW, no country has ever succeeded in the long run. (Steven Wright: “I intend to live forever. So far, so good.”) But the ones that have been most successful and have made it the longest are the ones that most closely emulate the freedom I describe. The more power government gets its hands on, the sooner the demise.

CosmosDan said:
Is there any web sites you might recommend where I can read how these basic principles apply to real life.

I think it is simpler than you are envisioning. You can do ANYTHING. You can say anything. Everything that is yours is yours and yours alone (Anything given to you by another owner, or the fruit of your labor) . No one can stop you, and no one may take ANYTHING of yours away, and government’s ONLY job is to put a stop to anyone who tries to stop you. With one exception. When you go through life doing whatever you want, you can’t directly trample the liberty of anyone else, or take any property away from anyone else. And the only exceptions to this are the ABSOLUTE minumum of taxation to support the government in its execution of those protections, and those protections ONLY.

In many ways, it is easier to describe by saying what isn’t allowed rather than what is. Perhaps that will be easier.

Here’s a quick start that may sound flip but actually is not. Take a look at the Federal powers of Congress: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

Now look at the 10th Amendment. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am10

Look at how incredibly limited Congress is, by the letter of the government”s contract with the People. The enumerated powers of Congress (Section 8) have limited jurisdiction, and the 10th Amendment says very clearly that what is not explicitly enumerated is ABSOLUTELY off limits.

So now, consider natural law through examination of its abuses.

Look at federal laws about food. The federal government HAS NO JURISDICTION over food, what should be in it, etc. Fred wants to sell you food with saccharine in it, and you want to buy it? Fine. The federal government should have no say.

Okay, how about farm subsidies? The feds clearly have no authority to take money from Mary and give it to John because John grows corn for ethanol production. Further, the feds have no authority to tell anyone he needs to put ethanol into gasoline. The feds have NO say here. Their action is ILLEGAL when they do. And it doesn’t matter how many lawyers they line up to write thousands of pages of mumbo-jumbo to justify it. The supreme document makes it clear their mumbo-jumbo is bullshit.

Look at federal intervention in other countries. Again, totally out of bounds. The federal government is ONLY authorized to DEFEND the country. All the crazy notions about “pre-emptive” defense are completely ILLEGAL. You aren’t defending the country by invading everyone on the belief that they are a threat.

Likewise, look at Obamacare. Again, the feds have ZERO authority here. The definition of “regulation” has been co-opted because it was easier to change the language than the Constitution. Regulation is “makinng regular.” Regulation of interstate commerce was PREVENTION of states interfering with private business. It was supposed to make free trade, meaning FREE OF GOVERNMENT interference with interstate tariffs, etc. It meant the feds could ENFORCE the contracts drawn up by private parties in interstate commerce, and prosecute fraud. It does not mean the Feds can tell you what has to be in your health insurance policy, or worse, that you MUST buy a health insurance policy, or worse, that you must surrender your property to some other person so he can buy a health insurance policy.

The power of taxation is only valid when the taxation funds the execution of these very limited powers.

The vast majoriry of the behavior of the federal government is COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL.

The natural law, noted by the Founders as the JUSTIFICATION for our government, makes this clear. So, if you seek practical application of the natural law I describe, start by striking down all of the government’s overreach.

Just_MC said:
This country was very libertarian up through the Civil War or a bit after, with the horrible crime of slavery being its terrible flaw. But everything that is RIGHT and PROSPEROUS about this country comes from where natural law is followed. (Inviolate ownership of oneself, one’s property, one’s liberty, and the fruit of one’s own labor, checked only so as not to infringe the next man’s liberty).

It sounds like you’re assuming that is true, and don’t really have any examples to offer.
I’m going to copy some of what you’ve written for further consideration.

Just_MC said:
It sounds as if you are working on the assumption that modern first-world nations actually work by their current M.O.s

I’m not. I believe mankind is constantly changing and evolving and not in a straight line of improvement. We need to constantly evaluate and change.

Just_MC said:
Government WILL be corrupted. So the answer is not to seek uncorruptible government. The answer is to SO LIMIT GOVERNMENT that the corrupted can’t do too much damage before they are removed. The more power they have, the more they will SEIZE, making it more and more difficult to turn them out.

I agree that government will be corrupted and can see the positive side of less government. That said, I think a major problem has been so many average citizens not being aware and engaged in their role as citizen, which allowed the government corruption to grow. The type of government we have requires more involvement from citizens than just voting every couple of years, and we as citizens haven’t been doing our job.
The lust for money and power will exist even in smaller government. The difference being that the corruption and power will shift the privater sector, as it already has to a large degree,
Most of what you call government overreach came about because of corruption in the private sector

Just_MC said:
BTW “I’m_lovin_it”, I was peobably a bit cold and terse there in my haste. But my point is fairly simple. In short, nothing will ever change human nature such that “honest government” is realistic or practical. It will ALWAYS be abused. The only hope is to keep government small, such that the People control the power and can squash it when it INEVITABLY becomes more and more corrupt.

For that to happen the people have to stay involved and aware. You can make the argument that the government is an extension of the people and our role should be to control greed and corruption where we find it.

CosmosDan said:
It sounds like you’re assuming that is true, and don’t really have any examples to offer.

How about EVERYTHING that was invented here? Mass production of cars, modern farm equipment, telegraph, telephone, airplane, personal computer, etc. Virtually everything was possible because of low barriers to entry in business. Imagine how the Wright Brothers would have done with the equivalent of 5 figure requirements for incorporation just to get started. Imagine the lack of incentive to venture into these fields with capital when taxation was going to take half the profits or more. Etc. Imagine if most of the available capital for research was eaten by taxation, and all the decisions about how to deploy that capital had to be pushed through policital channels rather than by the innovators who saw a market. Imagine if you had to be politically connected to go into business, preventing a huge percentage of the real producers and innovators from their achievements. And on and on.

CosmosDan said:
For that to happen the people have to stay involved and aware. You can make the argument that the government is an extension of the people and our role should be to control greed and corruption where we find it.

Control greed? What does that even mean?

If you run things my way, the greedy have little recourse to satisfy their greed other than to PRODUCE better value for consumers or to resort to direct theft.

But when government can control all the detail of how business is done, theft is organized by decree. Rather than getting rich by producing something else for which others want to trade, the greedy can use government FORCE to steal what they want. (You have to buy MY lightbulbs, rather than the ones you want, because I paid off the politicians.. You have to switch to plastic bags, because I bought off the politicians. Then you have to switch back to paper, again because of who controls the politicians. You have to buy my rope because you can’t use industrial hemp, because I bought off the politicians. Etc.)

PEOPLE should decide ALL of their trades, for themselves. Government is there to enforce the contracts in those trades, NOT to dictate the terms.

Well, this should warm the cockles of the Uberprogressive Lefties on this site. It is very good to know that your side isn’t the only “crazy” group of people on the planet….we suffer the fools, not so gladly.