Reason on why Republicans need to get their clocks cleaned in 2008
While I'm not thrilled at the prospect of an Obama administration (especially with a friendly Congress), the Republicans still need to get their clocks cleaned in two weeks, for a couple of reasons.Why the Republicans Must LoseFirst, they had their shot at holding power, and they failed. They've failed in staying true to their principles of limited government and free markets. They've failed in preventing elected leaders of their party from becoming corrupted by the trappings of power, and they've failed to hold those leaders accountable after the fact. Congressional Republicans failed to rein in the Bush administration's naked bid to vastly expand the power of the presidency (a failure they're going to come to regret should Obama take office in January). They failed to apply due scrutiny and skepticism to the administration's claims before undertaking Congress' most solemn task—sending the nation to war. I could go on.
As for the Bush administration, the only consistent principle we've seen from the White House over the last eight years is that of elevating the American president (and, I guess, the vice president) to that of an elected dictator. That isn't hyperbole. This administration believes that on any issue that can remotely be tied to foreign policy or national security (and on quite a few other issues as well), the president has boundless, limitless, unchecked power to do anything he wants. They believe that on these matters, neither Congress nor the courts can restrain him.
That's the second reason the GOP needs to lose. American voters need to send a clear, convincing repudiation of these dangerous ideas.
the latest
latest episodes
Totally Agree! AND vote out the Democratic leaders in Congress too. They haven't done America any favors either.
I just sent an email related to this subject to a friend of mine not one minute ago, so I'm going to keep going while I'm hot.
The modern Republican party isn't in it for limited government. Their base is xenophobes, homophobes, racists, and religious extremists. They don't care about limited government. They spend like there's no tomorrow because they literally believe that there may not be a tomorrow.
Luckily for them, being the party of haters isn't working out so well this year. If the Democrats don't become what the Republicans became, they're going to be in power for a long, long time.
But that's good news for the Republican party.
By that time, the xenophobes, homophobes, racists, and religious extremists will be greatly reduced in number, and they'll have nothing left to run on but limited government -- and that's ok! Limited government is a perfectly legitimate platform to run on! Racism, hate, preemptive war, etc. is not!
Can I get an AMEN!?
A-Friggin' Men.
Think about how bizarre it is for a libertarian magazine to favor a candidate with the left-wing (by American standards) economics of Obama. This should tell you just how far the Republicans have fallen. The big question is: will Republicans learn from their mistakes? Will the libertarian faction of the party finally gain power, or will they entrench themselves even deeper in their anti-science holes?
If Obama lets Pelosi et al. run hog wild, the Republicans could get back in the door without actually learning anything.
But seriously, I couldn't agree more with Radley Balko's summary.
It'll be interesting to see if the Republican party will ever re-re-invent itself (expelling the aforementioned nutter base), or whether it'll go the way of the Whigs, and a new major party will emerge.
I agree. No matter who wins in this election, America looses.
I love the Constitution, and feel that it is the greatest document written in the last thousand years. Unfortunately, both candidates are enemies of the constitution.
Obama is no fan of the 2nd amendment, while the Republicans have been firmly against the 4th and 5th ammendments. The Republicans (or, at least one in particular) have also worked to make this country a police state, spread fear, and spent lots of money on useless security measures, as well as get us in a useless war.
I tend to be conservative, but a "traditional" conservative who hates the direction the Republican party has taken in recent years.
What really worries me is that Obama will nominate supreme court justices who do not interpret what the constitution says, but will twist it to say what they want it to. Any moron reading the 2nd amendment can plainly understand what it means. The purpose of the bill of rights was to put limits on how the government can control the people, yet the recent decision on the 2nd amendment, while correct, was decided by a 5-4 margin. What were those four thinking? That, the 2nd amendment means that the government has limits on the power that the government can take away from the government?
If you don't like part of the Constitution, there is a process to change it (hint: it is called an "amendment"). But merely sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la - I can't hear you" and pretending that it says something else is completely dishonest.
Meh. America is still the best, and most free, nation in the world. But, it is getting less so every year.
Al-Qaida-linked Web site backs McCain as president
Oct 21 11:40 PM US/Eastern
By PAMELA HESS
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency.
The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."
Pln tld Jms Dbsn n Mndy tht sh's pttng th tcm f th lctn n Gd's hnds.
Libertarianism of Balko's bent is an un-nuanced cop out.
In God's hands hey?
I am not much for 'tough love' but imagining the spanking she's about to get...
Some other points to consider:
Republicans hold on to their base of intolerant stupids, like a white elephant, because there's sadly alot of them. It's a significant voter demographic.
Remember that neither Democrats nor Republicans are really ideological; they're both coalition parties composited from several demographic blocks.
This also explains why, ideologically, neither party actually reconciles their belief systems. They only agree at certain intersections, in a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of way.
Of course, this is what political wonks love, and political geeks feel driven mad about. Wonks just want to "win". Geeks care about issues, and see political power as a means rather than an end in itself.
Personally, I think George Washington was right,
Furthermore, I recommend reading Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy by Robert Michels.
xaxat@10: Calling it an "un-nuanced cop out" without explaining what you mean is unhelpful to the conversation. Care to elucidate?
Been saying this for years... and finally did something about it. I left the USA over a year ago and have been much happier looking from the outside in. I love my country but we've become fat, lazy and stupid and those fine qualities are now reflected in our "leadership." What a joke (both parties, the house, senate and executive branches). Sad really.
Oh give me a break, do you actually know any republicans or is it just easier to think in terms of good/evil stereotypes?
Colin Powell... Radley Balko... Conservatives with the power of REASON, a conscience that has not been dictated to them by the pundits, and who have not blinded themselves to the real issues, are waking up and speaking up, leaving little excuse to remain in ignorance.
HARRKEV: As enticing and easy as it may be to prove you wrong, I'd rather not see this devolve into another gun control debate thread. Let's try to stay on topic here, ok?
For your amusement:
http://www.palinaspresident.com
Why not vote Nader and give them both a swift kick in the ass ?
Calling it an "un-nuanced cop out" without explaining what you mean is unhelpful to the conversation.
I'd call it a gem of unintentional irony.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
1UPMUSHROOM@16: C'mon down to Texas. That description is rather apt.
JACKSONBAKER323@18: Yeah, getting less than 3% of the vote'll show em.
ANTINOUS: Very often you make my day. =D
Oh give me a break, do you actually know any republicans or is it just easier to think in terms of good/evil stereotypes?
Seen any youtubes of recent McCain rallies? It's not Freshyill's fault that the GOP base is what it is.
And for the record, I know some Republicans, and they wouldn't disagree that their party has devolved into an ugly, ignorant, hate-filled mess.
I'm a republican and I agree. I think we should loose this one. We've lost our way.
But as to the remarks about having an ignorant xenophobic base I think you need to make some more republican friends and stop believing everything you watch on TV.
@ 1UP_MUSHROOM
it's hard to argue that republicans don't cater to xenophobes, homophobes, and religious zealots (specifically, christian zealots). just a cursory perusal of majority positions of party members on social issues should give you a clue.
neo-conservatives, social conservatives (including the anti-abortion movement), fundamentalist Christians, "national security" jingoists (including the military-industrial complex), supply-side businessmen (including "big business" seeking subsidies, e.g. agribusiness / farmers seeking subsidies), the "law and order" fascists (including the prison-industrial complex), and limited-government fiscal conservatives
Any I'm missing?
Their base is xenophobes, homophobes, racists, and religious extremists.
Oh give me a break, do you actually know any republicans or is it just easier to think in terms of good/evil stereotypes?
I think that accurately describes most of the republicans in my immediate family, sadly.
Heres the thing, there have been a lot of disaffected libertarian Republicans sense at least 2004, and really, longer then that. However, the democrats have done nothing to court this segment of the republican base (and its a pretty big segment), reading this thread its easy to see why. Too many leftists are content to stereotype republicans then strut around feeling morally superior to the cartoonish strawmen they have created.
Too many leftists are content to stereotype republicans then strut around feeling morally superior to the cartoonish strawmen they have created.
Will the unintentional irony never stop?
They've failed in staying true to their principles of limited government and free markets.
They have never believed in limited government. That's just the con they use to get into power. The primary impulse is the Will to Power and the means to acquire that power is fear. You tell the ignorant bigots of the south those blacks are going to marry their daughters. You whisper into the ears of the fundies about their dreams for a theocracy. Or you tell the poor whites those wetbacks are gonna steal their jobs.
It's all a con. Some of the Dems aren't much better. They tell us whatever it is we want to hear but once in power they pursue their own agenda. What we are doing now in response to that is what we call "more better Democrats". First we need more Dems just to reverse the damage already done. Then we need better Dems, candidates who truly reflect our needs and not those of vested corporate interests.
If the Libertarian right is truly interested in change I'd suggest Marcos's book Taking On the System which...
argues that if activists harness new technology such as blogs, podcasting and YouTube, they can bypass the old-world gatekeepers to communicate to the masses in order to bring about political change.
I see no reason those same ideas couldn't be applied to the GOP. There is a problem though, much what is labeled GOP grassroots activism isn't. It's astroturfed top down propaganda, blast fax talking points and whispering campaign e-mails. The authoritarian personality doesn't do activism. It obeys.
Of course, I believe that Libertarianism has been throughly discredited by the current economic crisis but that's not really here nor there at this point.
From a fiscally conservative point of view, the Republican Party jumped the shark when Reagan fired David Stockman.
Awesome new McSame video......like watching a slo-mo trainwreck.
sane people who were formerly called republican need to create a new, clean party. The old Republican brand is irredeemably soiled and must be buried at a crossroads with a scythe through its throat and a mouth stuffed with garlic.
@PHIKUS#21 Perhaps if enough people realized the same things that the writer has they could vote for who they want to, not the lesser of two evils, and maybe it could "show em". Sometimes winning isn't everything. But if you feel you must vote for the person that you think has the best chance of winning so that you can feel accomplished, or justified, be my guest, at least you're voting.
#28:
How would you propose they do that? With the exception of the headline issues, they stand with the modern Republicans on the wrong side of libertarian issues. They're big government, social spending protectionists. What is there for the typical libertarian to believe in.
We just have to hope that a Democratic supermajority combined with the current economic crisis doesn't lead to a repeat of the hundred days, and another massive inflation of government. If that's what we get (and that's what Obama and the rest of the party seem to want), you can be certain it will lead to fewer civil liberties. Not more.
1UP MUSHROOM:
the democrats have done nothing to court this segment of the republican base (and its a pretty big segment)
How could they? I consider myself part of this segment and voting for Democrats makes me feel like I'm partly betraying my whole philosophy of life. How exactly would the party of entitlements lure people who believe that most entitlements create a sub-strata of people who are perpetually dependent?
I don't really want to get into another rehash of this either, but your argument doesn't reconcile if you begin with
and end withI read that as saying, "the thing they didn't do caused this crisis, proving that what was not done is invalid".So let me ask you something then, how do you guys explain the Ron Paul republicans? Are they all closet racists? Zenophobes?
Too many leftists are content to stereotype republicans then strut around feeling morally superior to the cartoonish strawmen they have created.
Too many 'libertarians' are content to insist that they're not part of the ignorant, racist, Christianist base of the GOP, while doing nothing to clean their own house.
#38 Wow, is that a "I know you are but what am I?"
#34 Im not sure exactly, but refraining from categorizing us all as racist ignoramuses would be a good start. A principled stance on FISA immunity or saying no to the largest bail out in the history of the world would be a good start.
So let me ask you something then, how do you guys explain the Ron Paul republicans?
There's a sucker born every minute?
that's a wrong question to ask in this context. the relevant question is, are the so-called "ron paul repbulicans" representative of the majority of the party? or relatedly, which constituency has more political clout amongst the republican party? the "ron paul republicans" or the "christian right"?
is that a "I know you are but what am I?"
Since you referenced your own comment, I'm at a loss. Sybil? Is that you?
The Dems flirted with the concept of a balanced budget a while ago, that would go a long way in courting on the fence libertarians (worked for Bill Clinton).
#38:
Sure we did. We nominated the least religious, most moderate republican in recent history... Which only served to prove that you can't win an election that way, and converted the guy we nominated into a pandering, blabbering idiot. Now we're left with what? Bob Barr?
What do you have to show for the efforts of your party? The biggest extremists you've got are currently the speaker of the house, the soon-to-be president-elect, and the runner up. You better watch were you point that thing...
Sorry #39 not 38
The GOP didn't care about expanding Presidential powers because they thought they would have a permanent majority, thanks to Karl Rove's sneaky stacking of the deck. Whenever I tried to point out to conservative friends that "they wouldn't approve of a President Obama or Hillary Clinton having similar powers as Bush claimed" they would shrug it off as "that'll never happen!"
If McCain loses, the GOP base will shout "voter fraud" or something similar, but they should be placing the blame squarely where it belongs, on the people who have discredited the GOP: Bush, the neo-cons, and ESPECIALLY the conservative media like FoxNews and Limbaugh for-- those guys have been lying through their teeth for years, telling us "things are going great in Iraq" as the body count continued to rise, and complaining about liberals as being "hateful" while at the same time calling them "nut jobs" and "Nazis." Fair is fair.
iUP@37: You know Ron Paul is the exception. If he'd gotten the nomination, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I like Ron Paul on everything but Abortion and Immigration. I appreciate that he didn't vote for the Patriot Act, while every other Republican did. If it were his campaign, we wouldn't see it pandering to the ignorant racist xenophobe homophobe fundies that the McCain / Palin ticket is cultivating.
1UP@40: The Republicans did not take such as stand on the FISA bill. They voted in lock-step. By your own reasoning, what about Dennis Kucinich and others who voted and vehemently spoke out against it? There are some Dems that made such a stand. Just not enough to overturn a veto.
JACKSON@33: I honestly believe Obama would make a better president than Nader. It's not about feeling "accomplished." Rather than simply blowing you off by saying the typical "You're throwing away your vote" I invite you to read the comments I made in another thread on how I feel about voting 3rd party in this election, even though I agree that we need more than a two horse system in general. It's easy to speak in platitudes and quote George Washington on the ills of party politics, which I agree with, but real solutions for the here and now are a little more elusive. Let's regain control of the stagecoach barreling over the cliff with no driver first, then we can fix the wheels. =D
Haven't the Democrats in Congress been pretty much supporting Bush, too? The war in Iraq, Homeland Security and its updates, misc executive power, the bailout?
Isn't the "opposition" party in Congress supposed to put a check on-- or at least make a show of opposition to-- what the president is doing wrong? How is a vote for yesmen symbolic of disagreement?
A vote for a Democrat for congress is not against what his Republican counterpart actually did differently, and it's not against what the Republican party in general did differently, it's supposedly against what the Republican president asked for and the congress of both parties gave him. It's at best symbolic of a symbolic vote.
As long as I'm voting symbolically, I'm going to vote Libertarian.
Zuzu #26 and Phikus #21: Well, you would be missing the ones in, oh hey, Texas!, who put Ron Paul in office, for instance.
Rove?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081022/ap_on_re_us/rove_accosted
I AM BEYOND SICK OF PEOPLE PICKING SIDES. You all are too nearsighted to get a clue. Its not about republicans its not about democrats, its about the issues and if it wasnt for the 2 ridiculous parties something might actually get done around here.....
Studies have shown that if you take a group of the same minded individuals and place them in a room with 2 different colored shirts, telling them all to put one on. They will quickly separate themselves in the room to the red and blue side, then they will debate themselves silly, standing up for their color/side. Its a con game and you all fall for it. What the hell can be accomplished when people pick sides, not on the merit of the discussion but instead for their team. Nothing
What amazes me even more then peoples ability to fall in line and suppress their beliefs to not "CROSS PARTY LINES" Is the fact you cannot even see past the con game and realize we rarely ever have a decent candidate.... Literally you get millions of people just totally and blindly supporting their team regardless the person or cause, or even their belief about the cause. Why is it that the only time anything really gets done is when there is a BIPARTISAN effort? Oh its because things become more obvious and real when they are separated from the con game. You people are too blind to even see that there is NO DECENT CANDIDATE!
Lets look at this in another light shall we?
Lets say everyone loves steak and you want to eat steak. But the blue team wants oranges and the red team wants apples. Well theres your choice, its boiled down to only 2 options neither of which are what you want but since you picked the blue team, it appears you will have oranges. Stupidity at its worst. Furthermore both teams parties are bought and sold long before they ever even get near the presidency. Lastly you end up with overly intelligent people who dont have parties being laughed off the stage simply for their lack of boxing themselves into a party.
I assure you neither Dem or Rep will ever have a person that isnt hand picked by the huge conglomerates that really run the country, make laws, etc. Have any of you Dems or Reps actually listened to someone like ralph nader or ron paul? I spent half my life thinking there is never going to be a decent candidate, even I ignored the "other" candidates until I actually sat down and listened. I was literally amazed at the level of intelligence some of these people had, that were quickly dismissed as nuts. In fact the things ron paul and ralph nader have been saying for over 10 years are now being said by our current candidates. One can only wonder what great things would have come to light if one of them had been president instead of bushy.
I knew a lot about bush before he became president and everything made me sick, yet I sat and saw blind support for about 6 of his 8 years, now you fools finally realize the degree of mistake you made voting for him..... The country is in complete ruins, the same thing he did to everything his entire life. He entered the air force with the lowest possible score, he failed more than 5 oil companies just randomly drilling for oil until they were tapped out of money. He cheated in school, did massive amounts of different drugs, there is even a picture of good ole president bush punching another kid in the stomach during a rugby match, it made the front page of his school paper. Yeah thats the kind of idiot I want funneling our money to other countries.
MARK MY WORDS!!!
Mccain is not the answer
Obama is not the answer
Palin is ridiculous
Biden is a decent guy but also not the answer.
Once again we are faced with 2 choices neither of which are palatable to the intelligent like myself.
You all share in the delusion that what you do will or can make a difference.
Finally, imagine if you will that we need a new school counselor. Our choices consist of two different abu ghraib guards, sure you can spend the entire year debating which one is a little better than the other, but do any of us really want either criminals in control of our children??? NO! Come on people think for yourself before its too late!!!
You are being brainwashed by billions in advertising supplied by people who will eventually expect a large return on their investment in the form of policy change, law making, votes, and even war.
Sometimes I feel like im the last sane person on the planet whose opinion cannot be warped by others.
Trust me, those things are very fleeting, just ask the republicans about that. Sitting on your laurels and assuming a majority is your birthright is a sure-fire way to lose big in 2 years.
I placed an early vote for Obama yesterday (and for Rick Noriega, the Democratic challenger to Senator John Cornyn [R-TX]). I know that the odds of Obama winning Texas are slim to none, but it feels pretty good that, for the first time since I've been old enough to vote, the person I support for POTUS will probably win.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/22/rigging.election/index.html
Zuzu
I read that as saying, "the thing they didn't do caused this crisis, proving that what was not done is invalid".
Fair enough. It appears contradictory because I didn't want to go into excessive detail. What happens I think is that motives and people change over time. So you have Pat Buchanan coming up with the "Southern Strategy" i.e. let's exploit white southern racism to gain political power. Over time you get lots of racists in power. Take a look at the National Review the one time premier conservative magazine started by William F Buckly jr. Crypto fascist that he was at least he was literate and knew what an argument was. Today the NR's editor Katherine Lopez is functionally illiterate. Or take Johanna Goldberg, a home schooled trust fund baby who wouldn't know an argument if it ran him over, backed up and ran him over again.
Or in other words, at first you take advantage of the stupid because they are easy targets but eventually the stupid overwhelms you.
Did Alan Greenspan really believe in that clown Ayn Rand or was he merely taking advantage of her insanely stupid ideas to promote himself? His actual behavior as Fed chair contradicts his professed beliefs and make me think they were never truly his to begin with. Either that or he didn't know his own mind. Which is certainly possible I suppose.
I guess sheer greed can overwhelm anyone's principles. What would you do for 700 million? Ask Treasury Sec Paulson about that. But if that's that case it's a clear refutation of Libertarianism which believes as a matter pf principle that greed is good and that allowing greed full reign will yield all matter of wonderful things. I call bullshit.
#7 HARRKEV
Yeah. . . uhhh. . . the thing is, the 2nd amendment is too simple, it's very very vague. When it was written "arms" meant "muskets" or "swords", not "machine guns" or "grenades" or "flame-throwers." In fact, we could interpret it literally to mean that any American should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. I could go on, but like others here I don't really want to get into a long argument about the 2nd amendment.
Just realize: liberals are not as opposed to the 2nd amendment as the NRA likes to insist; there are plenty of liberal hunters, and plenty of liberal collectors. Like Al Franken said about the 2nd amendment "{It's} good, but it could have been clearer." I personally feel that we should add another amendment that clarifies the 2nd amendment with regards to today's modern weapons, otherwise we will have this argument over and over with no way to settle it.
thank gawd that the republicans are showing the world what 'elitists' the dems are! : http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14805.html
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/eades/2008/10/mccainpalin-supporters-slash-t.php
FUTURENERD@50: I didn't miss them. I know a lot of them personally, but they are far from representative of where the Republican party is at, and you know it. They tried to actually take over the Republican delegation here, and were unsuccessful due to dirty tricks of the mainstays of the Rep. power base. As I said previously, if they had been successful, or had managed to get the nomination, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I know from which I speak when I paint this ugly picture, as it runs through my family as well.
@40
No, it's more of a, "Wait, you soiled your pants and are blaming *us* for not doing enough to clean it up?"
@46
We nominated the least religious, most moderate republican in recent history... Which only served to prove that you can't win an election that way, and converted the guy we nominated into a pandering, blabbering idiot.
And now you've got GOP congresscritters going out and accusing other congresscritters of hating America and wanting it to fail; a presidential campaign that continues to smear the other candidate as a terrorist; a political operation that is stoking embers of racism, hoping that it'll send enough voters to the polls with "the nigra's a terrist commie" on the tips of their lizard tongues so that maybe McCain could pull it off.
Your house is a disaster. You haven't even begun to clean it up. In fact, it's a firetrap that now threatens the entire neighborhood.
And Pelosi, Obama and Clinton are our "biggest extremists"? Hilarious.
Phikus@49 The Republicans did not take such as stand on the FISA bill.
I noticed, believe me, the Republicans earned thier fall from power. What i find frustrating is the Democrats managing to be only *slightly* better then repubs. A few Dems opposed FISA immunity, but i couldnt help but notice that Obama didnt. I dont know if any dems opposed the bailout, but, again, Obama didnt. Futurenerd got it right @50, the dems rubber stamped all the bullshit Bush did for the last 2 years without even so much as a peep at a time when a principled stance would have done much to lure freedom loving libertarians to the dems, (and, more importantly, away from the repubs). We may not be a majority of the GOP (except out west) but we are a sizable enough minority that our presence or absence will be felt.
I'm hoping that whoever wins, it's by a huge majority. A close win would only increase anger and suspicion towards the other side. As a Republican, of course I hope our team wins, but if Democrats were to win big, I'd feel a lot better knowing that this is what the vast majority of Americans wants.
If it were to go the other way and Republicans win by a vast majority, will you be able to accept that this is what America wants?
can't use that name anymore Tom, it's too disgraced and mutilated.
"Refugeeicans" , "The Refugeeican Party",
I like turtles.
@ # 63 Takuan - Huh? Which name? Republican? Hence your "Refugeeicans?" What you talking about Takuan?
#30 said: "Of course, I believe that Libertarianism has been throughly discredited by the current economic crisis but that's not really here nor there at this point."
Not quite true. Everybody wants to talk about regulation. Bah. Wall Street has learned its lesson. Budding economists will be writing a slew of master's theses for decades to come. Nobody wants to drive their own company out of business. You don't have to tell a kid not to touch a hot stove twice.
I *AM* in support of guidelines for a modified credit rating system. If you want to buy bad debts, shame on you. A fool and his money, yada yada yada. Buying bad debts and making risky loans should not be illegal, but you should at least know what you are getting into before you buy.
Tightening down regulations on Wall Street is like closing the barn door after the horse has already escaped.
#55 Aside from insulting a bunch of people, i dont think you made an actual point. That's kinda what im getting at here, just declaring a whole bunch of people to be bigots is intellectually weak and ultimately counter productive. There are a lot of different people in the republican party and their views run the spectrum, but you wont know that from the views of the thread warlords here. Seriously, is freedom such a poisonous concept that it has *no* place in the democratic party?
Loquacious anonymous,
I agree completely with your Drazi analysis, but what are you suggesting that we do.
Also, this is not a Second Amendment thread.
1UP@61: GRIMC@60 said it best: "Wait, you soiled your pants and are blaming *us* for not doing enough to clean it up?" Nicely put!
I totally agree with the rest of that comment as well. Thanks GRIMC for cutting through to clarity so well!
TOM HALE@62: I congratulate you on your best comment here at BB to date. I'll answer it by saying: Yes, if it is indeed a fair election this time. Your party's track record this century is down 2 for 2 so far in this regard, however. If more of the same is what this country truly wants, then I'll be finding somewhere else to live, for it will have betrayed its core values.
thread warlords
Hmm. Maybe I'll try that on for size.
However, just to be clear, nothing has been unpublished in this thread.
escapees from the rotting, vermin ridden carcass of the former republican party need a new handle. Apt they be "Refugeeicans" since they are in fact refugees from decaying evil. Let the dead-enders and real monsters perish in the stinking, blackening muck of decay and hopeless sticky strands of finally-dying Evil. A good hosing or sand-blasting and the few survivors that can pull themselves up from pure depravity will be fit for human company and actual participatory democracy.
#36: "How exactly would the party of entitlements lure people who believe that most entitlements create a sub-strata of people who are perpetually dependent?"
The Republicans, a party of entitlements, have managed to do this by consistently saying one thing and doing the opposite. On their record the Republican Party is strongly in favour of big government, handouts and entitlements.
Look at Reagan's massive increase in the size of government. And today, George W. Bush is a typical Big Government Conservative, using the once-reviled Department of Education to ram the federal government's unwanted nose into places that the Republican Party once insisted it did not belong. He has also massively increased non-military spending for some reason.
Most recently, of course, we have seen the Republicans enact the largest ever transfer of taxpayer dollars to the most highly entitled individuals on the planet: Wall Street CEOs and their minions.
To an outside observer it is incomprehensible that anyone in the US continues to believe that the Republican Party is at all interested in smaller government, fewer entitlements or balanced budgets.
Whoa there, buddy, check your voting records, i think you might find a few D's voted for that, too.
I agree, however, the Democratic party generally makes it known that you wont find those things in the Democratic party either, and that the D's are, in fact, hostile to people with those views.
HARKEV@68: "You don't have to tell a kid not to touch a hot stove twice."
No? The S&L debacle in '89 did not keep that kid from repeating his mistake. THAT bailout taught him there are no repercussions to his excesses of greed. Now he's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar AGAIN and you're betting he's learned his lesson? If you are a parent, you must be raising a bunch of little Jeb and Marvin Bushs. If not, for the love of humanity, please do not breed.
1UP@69: "Seriously, is freedom such a poisonous concept that it has *no* place in the democratic party?"
Hunh? If you want to convince others to refrain from generalizations in characterization you're doin' it wrong. Please go back and start trying to make some sense.
#73 Just to be clear, I did not mean to insinuate that anyone had been unpublished.
#74 Takuan - (off topic)Who are you? Do you have anything published?
Do you really think that the worst of the Republican party are more evil than the worst of the Democratic party?
#77
Oh, well, yes sir mister Phikus, sir. Just to be clear, tho, you do know what libertarians believe, dont you?
1UP@76: If you want to desperately keep trying to say the Dems are just as responsible for the past 8 years of ridiculousness as the Reps you can, but you are losing more and more ground with each such comment.
One question: When are you going to open up a theme park to your fantasyland?
"Wall Street has learned its lesson.....Nobody wants to drive their own company out of business."
Actually, we must congratulate Wall Street for learning this lesson on multiple occassions!
The problem with this logic is that it ignores the short-term motivations of individual traders who stand to make more in their end-of-year Christmas bonuses than I will make in my entire career. These people didn't start the businesses they work for, in most cases, and like most of us in post-Industrial America, they no longer feel loyal to the company or keep the company's interest ahead of their own. There are perverse incentives for CEOs as well as financial traders to make short-sighted decisions for personal gain that will have to be cleaned up by the next guy. I can't blame them, either. They are all playing by the current rules, and lots of them have vast personal fortunes to show for it, even as their companies are gasping for air.
1UP: "Oh, well, yes sir mister Phikus, sir. Just to be clear, tho, you do know what libertarians believe, dont you?"
Why, yes, Mister 1UPMUSHROOM. Do you know what liberals believe? To say we don't have room for freedom betrays the same kind of generalization about the members of another political persuasion as you are supposedly railing against. Is that clear enough for you? In making your point, it would help your side if you refrained from blatant hypocrisy. Thanks.
Calm yourselves.
There are perverse incentives for CEOs as well as financial traders to make short-sighted decisions for personal gain that will have to be cleaned up by the next guy.
..."It could be structured by cows and we would rate it," one Standard & Poor's employee wrote in a company email cited by Waxman. "Let's hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards falters," wrote another in an email obtained by Waxman's committee...
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=6079598&page=1
You speak truth.
McCn grs wth Mrth n Mn, P
NOEN: Your goofy theory that the current economic crisis somehow discredits libertarianism is about as absurd as saying that the Spanish Inquisition discredits Christianity. It makes no logical sense.
ROSCHELLE@86: That clip was previously linked in this thread @32.
#81
So did you miss the part where I said that republicans earned their downfall? Perhaps you skipped the part where i said that libertarian leaning R's have been dissatisfied since 2004? Or did you skip the main article about how R's deserve to get their asses kicked?
Stop worshiping the Democratic party long enough to see that they have been going along with the Republicans from the start. Are they *as* responsible, no? but you cant brush aside the last 2 years of a democratic majority either. Remember how the D's were gonna get us out of the war? How about the patriot act? If the D's are such champions of freedom why wasent there so much as a vote to kill that stupid law? How about the DMCA? I guess the democratic majority in both the house and senate couldnt find the time to shoot that one down, what, with oh so important things like censuring Rush Limbaugh and all that.
Also, I cant help but notice that you did not really answer my question. What do libertarians believe?
@PHIKUS#49
It's interesting to read that previous post that you made and look at how it relates to this years election. I too believe that Obama and McCain differ very little, much as you did in years previous. Both voted for the bailout bill, want to stay in Iraq, have talked about invading Iran, support Nafta. Neither want true Universal health care, same sex marriage, the list goes on and on. Just to make sure that you feel safe that I'm not going to help hand the election to McCain ( who in polls is actually losing votes when Nader is added into the mix ) I live in Alabama, not exactly a swing state either. Not that it really matters, if either of the major candidates win they are going to bend us over the constitution and forcibly remove our rights.
1UP: I agree the Dems are an unsavoury lot. My point was just that it is incomprehensible to me that anyone would believe what you're saying about the GOP.
As to the Dems being against balanced budgets, I seem to recall some guy named Bill Clinton who might disagree that that is a fair characterization. This is not to say that ALL Democrats are in favour of balanced budgets, any more than ALL Republicans are in favour of spending like drunken sailors on leave. But on their records, ignoring the rhetoric of both parties, an observer who did not know what each party is "supposed" to stand for would have a hard time figuring it out.
Which party has overseen better economies? Democrats. Which party has been responsible for the largest growth in government and the debt? Republicans. I'm talking presidencies, of course, but if you look at the effects of each party's influence in Congress you'll see the same general trend, with a few notable exceptions. The party rhetoricians focus on those exceptions, as well as outright lies, to try to build up their own mythology. The data do not bear out their claims, nor does it support the beliefs of their many sincerely mistaken followers.
For example, Clinton balanced the budget with a Republican congress. But Bush failed to balance the budget with a Republican congress, and non-military spending increased as rapidly as military spending, so you can't blame it on the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Ergo, based on a simple differential analysis, draw your own conclusion.
@50 - exactly.
I too will agree that for the longest time I was one of those who said "3rd party is wasting your vote. Try to change the party from within."
Well I came to the conclusion in the last year that voting for either party is a waste of my vote.
@75 "To an outside observer it is incomprehensible that anyone in the US continues to believe that the Republican Party is at all interested in smaller government, fewer entitlements or balanced budgets."
That is exactly why I left the republican party for the Libertarian Party. I just took me a lot longer to figure out the whole "smaller government/fiscal responsibility" was just a line to get votes.
1UP@89: Did you miss the part where Antinous told us to calm ourselves? In the interest of adhering to his request, this will be my last response to you in this thread, since my answering your challenges does not seem to be helping in that respect.
Dude, I am the last person to "worship the democratic party", and frankly, your insinuations are becoming tiresome and insulting. -A true sign you have lost pretense of having an enlightened discussion of these issues. If you cannot distinguish someone defending someone from slander from worship, then there is no point in discussing anything with you further.
What exactly is your point anyway? It seems to be shifting from comment to comment as you lose ground in one assertion and jump to another.
For the record, I skipped nothing.
Did you miss the comment where I mentioned that the Dems have not had a veto-proof majority? What exactly did you expect them to be able to accomplish with this slim majority they have had only relatively recently and what exactly do you suggest? I am highly critical of the Dems performance, actually, in many of the points you have raised, (and one you forgot: impeachment) but I am not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater as I see them still as the best hope we have of reversing the failed policies of the past 8 years. Voting Libertarian is surely not going to do all of the things you seem to have expected from the Dems.
I did answer your question as to whether I know what Libertarians espouse to believe. The answer was yes. If you did not expect a yes/no answer, then you should have phrased your question better.
#91
My point was just that it is incomprehensible to me that anyone would believe what you're saying about the GOP.
If you mean the GOP itself, then, yes, GW Bush killed any thought that the party stands for smaller govt, balanced budgets, freedom, etc. If your talking about the rank and file GOP, then, Im here to tell you that lots of rank and file R's strongly believe in libertarian principles and arent just homophobic bigots like the extreme partisans here would have you believe.
First, totally agree with the Reason article. If only the other alternative wasn't just more of the same with a less theocentric bent.
Agree @52. Of course, there's not really much hope for any kind of change in the political landscape. Too many people feel like they were burned by the 3rd parties in the last few elections. I haven't really heard any main-stream media references to any 3rd-party candidates this election. And while that's probably mostly due to the fact that the two main parties are so much more "newsworthy" what with their "progressive" nature in nominating non-white-males on their tickets, another factor is the fact that both sides are so afraid that any 3rd party will take enough votes away from their candidate to make the other guy win.
Sure, you could try to eliminate the party system and even the nomination system and just let anyone run for president without any party affiliation. However, it's pretty obvious that most of the candidates would still try to label themselves in the media so that people knew which side to line up on.
Finally:
For that to be true, the current economic crisis would have to have been caused by Libertarianism. The problem with making a statement like that is that there are so many factors that contributed to our current situation that even the commonly-cited issues of monetary policy, re-regulation of lending, and property speculation are pretty inadequate in spelling out the whole picture. In fact, a lot of the factors that led to the current decline are very anti-Libertarian in their nature. Libertarianism is only partly about economic and social freedom. It's also about personal responsibility, which includes understanding the increased risk that comes with increased freedom.
Im here to tell you that lots of rank and file R's strongly believe in libertarian principles and arent just homophobic bigots like the extreme partisans here would have you believe.
Assuming that to be true (which I do), how do you defend them looking away while their party fulminates?
@95 - excactly. "Freedom" means also being free to fail.
To be clear, when i say libertarian, i mean people who believe in personal liberty, not necessarily people who are a member of the Libertarian party. This has been my point all along, a great many of us (small l) libertarians reside in the Republican party because there is no place else for us to go. Leftist (at least, leftists here) would rather come up with new ways to insult republicans than try and lure a group of people which actually have a lot in common with Democrats (which is why I asked, rhetorically, if freedom is really that caustic). So what do we do? I guess we have to wait for the R's to fully self-destruct then reform the party more to our liking, because Democrats seem adamant that there is no place for us among the D's.
@96 (Antinous) That is an excellent point. I hope others leave the repubs and let that party continue to implode on itself.
JACKSON@90: Thanks for taking the time to read the previous discussion on that issue.
"if either of the major candidates win they are going to bend us over the constitution and forcibly remove our rights."
One of them will win. That is a certainty. I believe Obama will not do as you say. He has his failings, but megalomaniac does not seem to be one of them, especially in contrast to the current administration or the McCain / Palin agenda. I would have liked Kucinich to have been nominated, but someone that far to the left is unelectable to a majority of Americans right now. I think Obama will set a fine example, knowing he is breaking new ground, and not fall back into the power games that are business as usual in D.C. I also believe he will not throw it all away for a blowjob.
I believe it was NOEN above who said what we need is more better democrats. I completely agree with that. We have a very fine US Rep here in Austin by the name of Lloyd Doggett. We need more like him, more accountability, and more transparency installed at all levels of government. I continue to vote, speak out, protest, and donate to that end.
For those who did not read the previously linked discussion, I vote Green, Libertarian, and Independent when I see a candidate I like better than what the Dems may offer. Put simply: I support progressive causes of any flavor, and would love to see a viable 3rd, 4th, or 5th party in this country. I just don't see that happening overnight (or by November.) If the Republican Party were to go down in flames as many in this thread have suggested, then maybe there is hope that in the future progressives can splinter into greater granularity. When that day comes, I will march with you for the liberty and freedom that I believed was envisioned by our forefathers.
Leftist (at least, leftists here) would rather come up with new ways to insult republicans than try and lure a group of people which actually have a lot in common with Democrats
You know, you keep doing exactly the thing that you're accusing others of doing. What's sweeping generalization for the goose is sweeping generalization for the gander.
*believe. -That last line was meant to be in the present tense.
#96 how do you defend them looking away while their party fulminates?
Most of us arent, we are voting for Obama or just staying home, just look at Radley Balko.
#101 You know, you keep doing exactly the thing that you're accusing others of doing.
That is why i added the parenthetical (at least, leftists here), I realize I cannot so easily characterize the left that way, but i can comment on the endless parade of "republicans are eval!!!" that seems to accompany any political thread here.
I have to admit surprise that with this many comments on this type of subject that we have not seen one "de-vowling" or whatever the word is. One is really unfortunate about the last 8 years is that its the moderate Republicans that are being voted out of office or are retiring. Warner, Chaffee, etc. So what is left is the wing-nuts. Hard to believe that Nixon looks so much better than Bush. I would vote for Nixon with no hesitation over Bush even knowing he would break the law. Where is the part of Eisenhower, Rockefeller, and Gerald Ford?
Where is the part of Eisenhower, Rockefeller, and Gerald Ford?
I still contend that Senator Obama in 2008 is to the right of Senator McCain in 2000.
I can't find one good image of a zombie elephant.
here u go tak. not a zombie, per se, but close! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/3231394/Heroin-elephant-can-never-be-freed.html
and, of course, even with early voting the republicans are up to the same old crap. : http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/22/votes
#7 - Harkev,
really, Obama is not as bad on the 2nd amendment as you have heard. I've owned handguns, and I'm not the least bit concerned.
At the very least accept that he'll be better for the 2nd amendment than Bush has been for the 1st, or Cheney has been for the main body of the document.
Fear not for your firearms. They may be regulated, but they will remain yours. I'm a crazy liberal and even I think everyone (who isn't a criminal, etc..) who wants a gun should be able to have them. I also think ammunition should have the holy hell taxed out of it.
Oy! What part of my previous comment was unclear?
"heroin elephant can never be freed" Close enough.
As to guns: If you want a gun thread,ask for one.
i thought it appropos considering that the repubs (the bush admin) have become the largest distributors of heroin on the planet!
Your goofy theory that the current economic crisis somehow discredits libertarianism is about as absurd as saying that the Spanish Inquisition discredits Christianity. It makes no logical sense.
The Spanish Inquisition does discredit Christianity as do other pogroms and genocides conducted by other religions.
The current economic crisis springs directly from the free market principles of Milton Friedman and the neoliberal monetarist school. This doesn't let libertarians, Austrian school proponents or objectivists off the hook. All hold very similar views with regard to deregulation, privatization, anti-unionism and free market economics. The differences between them are less important than their similarities.
I experimented some more with Google Insights for Search's data regarding the the US presidential campaign. I took a 3-day time span's interest in the candidates and split it out by state and by a small number of top cities where Google-activity was the highest. Very interesting stuff! S t t my Wrd Fc-ff blg.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that has seen this coming. I'm willing to give the existing Democrats a pass — for now. I won't hesitate to vote their asses out in two years, and I'll be voting my Republican junior senator out on his Cuban ass as well (not because he's of Cuban descent, because he's Republican).
Maybe I'll get my Scotch/Irish/German/Welsh ass bounced out of somewhere myself! Talk about a mutt!
Wow, some kinds of pugnacity going on here. My two cents worth: 1968 saw the death of the New Deal coalition, having become absolutely unrecognizable regarding the ideals it was based on (no matter how flawed the politicians or the legislation).
2008 has seen the death of the Reagan Revolution, having become absolutely unrecognizable regarding the ideals it was based on (no matter how flawed the politicians or the legislation).
Now comes the fight over what comes next, but with the pols not acknowledging that the previous paradigm is dead and that, realistically, there is no way to recapture the advantages that either party that had accrued in the past 25-75 years.
We are all in for a decades-plus ride of infighting and it prolly won't matter which party wins the next presidential election. Reagan's ideas didn't become viable until 12 years after the New Deal coalition collapsed in a heap.
My hope? Well, politics is about competing ideas, robustly argued. My personal politics lean toward small "c" conservative, ya' know, frugal lifestyle, small business, limited government yadda-yadda and small "l" libertarianism, ya' know, limited government and absolute rigidity regarding protection of civil and personal rights. But I see no way of governing a modern nation/state solely on those strict principles. Bureaucracy always gets captured. So, if I had a magic lamp, the Republicans would be represented by the small "c's" and the small "l's" and the Democrats would be represented by a New Deal coalition and they would fight like hell over every piece of legislation until a compromise was hammered out and bills became laws.
That would look like a very healthy political system to me. Good luck in finding that in the years to come. And seeing any of that in the current candidates is wishful projection. I think "compromised" is the operative word for either of the presidential wanna-be's.
Before the primaries, based strictly on issue polls, the candidates for president would have been Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Both were laughed off the national scene by the parties and the press. Entrenched power in the parties and the press guaranteed that they would be considered "nuts" even though they represented the nation's political views. So, neither current presidential candidate actually represents the vast majority of the nation's populace. Gettin' the idea that fighting over the merits of Obama vs. McCain might be a waste of time? Well, I do. I'm resigned to suffering for the next 10 plus years and then maybe getting someone who captures the zeitgeist. Or maybe not...who knows, maybe either candidate will throw up their hands when faced with the mess in 2009 and roll up their sleeves and accept that the last 25-75 are not coming back and will make an honest attempt to gather the lot of us together and push forward with a fair and reasonable political consensus that will last a generation. That would be nice, not likely, but there aren't a lot of options going forward. Let's hope and damn well push for a decent next four years. We are going to need it and so will the global system based on our currency, our culture, and our folly.
Republican, democrat - it hardly makes a difference when they are all selling their constituencies down the river.
Currently, I see very few men in Washington with any principles or intellectual acuity at all. I will exempt a few, like Paul and Kucinich, but most are simply opportunists gorging at the taxpayers' trough.
I called Biden, Castle and Carper and told them not to vote for the so-called "bailout" (actually last-minute profiteering orchestrated by the Bush adminstration, as should be obvious to anyone who is really studying what's going on - Bush buddies sell their stocks and load up on gold, Bush cronies panic the market, Bush buddies sell gold and buy stocks at bargain prices, wash, rinse, repeat) and they voted for it anyway.
A senator can validly argue that he is elected to do the right thing regardless of what his constituency want. A representative can make no such argument! With 80 to 90% of the American people opposed to the bailout, it should not be possible for it to pass the house, regardless of the personal judgment of individual representatives. Their job is to REPRESENT us, full stop. Vote the bastards out.
I got my absentee ballot in the mail today - no voting machine for me!
--Charlie
s t gns: f y wnt gn thrd, sk fr n. wnt gn thrd. :p
Mstly jst wnt t pt dwn th Dmcrtc prty rgmnt tht gns r fr sm rsn >nly fr hntng r cllctng. N, rthr, thr >prmry prps (Cnstttnlly) s fr slf-dfns, prncplly frm >th gvrnmnt. (Th "fndng fthrs" jst gt dn fghtng wr f nsrrctn gnst n mprl gvrnmnt, nd thy knw t ws lmst crtn tht >vntlly vn th bst crftd gvrnmnt wld grw crrpt. Hvn't w >lrdy sn t bcm wflly ttltrn?)
ls, rlly wnt Brrtt M107 .50 clbr snpr rfl. :)
ls thnk mmntn shld hv th hly hll txd t f t.Bsds th bvs prblms f mkng mmntn rtfclly scrc, d >lv th cmdy rtn by Chrs Rck bsd n th cncpt.
OMG, ZuZu was DV'd?- he's on your side! And is damn smart - though much of what he says is out of my expertise.
What could he have said that needed DVing?
the ambient commentron flux in the Boing Reactor has to be closely monitored (by someone) When we start crowding the red-line, dampers are engaged across the board, regardless of specific criticalities , as a precautionary measure. We don't want another unrequested postron excursion. Relax, all is in good hands and be happy you at least will have normal children. Sort of.
Why the Republicans need their clock cleaned? Well, they got lots of blood on it, and somebody tried to twist the dial back to 1750 and left it stuck there...
The Democrats have a lot of problems, and have thoroughly wimped out even after winning the 2006 elections, but at this point it's so important to get rid of Bush's gang that we need to elect them. (Fortunately, Obama's going to win California, so I don't have to actually vote for them, though the LP has been taken over by alien reptiles in the last few years and I'll have to hold my nose while voting for them.) The Bush Administration has built a huge concentration of power into the Executive Branch, even asserting that the courts should have no power to stop secret prisons and torture, much less little things like search warrants. I'm not optimistic that the Democrats will turn this place back into America again, but the "mavericks" running under the Republic ticket certainly aren't talking about doing it.
The Dems have certainly replaced the Republicans as the party of fiscal responsibility, mainly by not changing much - Clinton did a good job on reducing the budget deficit (largely by getting lucky with a technology boom transforming the economy underneath him, but also by refinancing high-interest Reagan/Bush debt with short-term low-interest debt, and by being unable to enact his own big-spending programs because the R's kept harassing him over his personal sleaziness.) Meanwhile, GWBush's Republicans have been spending money like drunken sailors, both on-budget and off-budget, and pretending that you can borrow $5Trillion without it affecting the credit market, and pretending that that borrowing isn't just as much of a tax as the income taxes they didn't want to raise.