Slashdot Mirror

This one's a WHOPPER: "There's no denying that the country has been tilted sharply to the right since Reagan got in."

Actually, it's EASY to deny.

In 1980 NO significant politician in any party was so far left that he/she would self-identify as a"progressive" or a "socialist". If anybody suggested such a thing, even the most-liberal Democrat politician would strongly deny it. Today, Hillary is running around calling herself a "progressive" and Bernie is self-identifying as a "socialist" - there IS no traditional/normal Democrat running in the 2016 election cycle.

In 1980 NO significant politician publicly supported ANY homosexual/bisexual/transexual/transgender etc policies. Even the most left-wing Democrat would not support gays in the military or gay marriage etc.

In 1980 ALL significant politicians were for a strong national defense including a massive nuclear arsenal. Democrats used to appeal to the "no nukes" part of their base by claiming to be for disarmament, but the Democrats who ran the congress back then by huge majorities were fully funding the arsenal that was then something like 10 times larger than what we have now. Thee most-famous US Democrat presidents, FDR, JFK, LBJ had all been for a super-muscular foreign policy that would make many modern Republicans blush.

In 1980 NO significant politician was for unlimited abortion, including so-called "partial birth" abortions. Bernie and Hillary are both in that camp and as a state senator Barack Obama supported,/a> post-birth abortions (kill the kid AFTER it's born). In fact, the 1970's push to legalize "the pill" was promoted (by Democrats) as making the whole abortion thing (which ALL politicians used to treat as tawdry) unnecessary. Even Roe v. Wade which was shocking to many in legalizing abortion had not made it as unlimited as Hillary and Bernie now casually promote.

In 1980 all significant politicians agreed that illegal immigration was bad, the arguments were over how to stop it and what to do with the people already here as it was stopped. The 1986 Reagan amnesty was part of a deal to secure the border and was a promise to the American public that it would never happen again. Even a decade ago almost all Democrats were campaigning against illegal immigration, including Hillary. Now Bernie and Hillary are both campaigning on promises to not enforce the nation's immigration laws - funny given that upon taking office they would take a solemn oath to uphold the laws...

The entire nation has been shifted VERY far to the left in the past 30 years as even many modern Republicans now support stuff not even the most liberal Democrat used to support. As a nation we are paying a price. Our economy is now crap for most younger people, and the federal government last week produced a report saying this is the "new normal". The nation's economy has a severe case of left-wing regulatory arteriosclerosis, and socially we are becoming bestial, with people viciously attacking people they disagree with politically.

Check out The Madison Fund - a strategy for treating government as an insurable risk.

Obama is touting this model of "green energy" that pollutes the environment just as much: http://poorrichardsnews.com/obama-administrations-model-green-energy-solar-plant-exceeds-pollution-regulations-of-traditional-power-plants-by-nearly-double/"

This guy's a moron, and maybe it's OK that they ran him in ...

Really? What makes him a moron -- the fact that our society has become so ridiculously rigid you can't wear a costume outside? Are we all going to have assume the uniform of loafers, dockers, and a button down shirt?

The morons here are the cops, the principal, and a society that has totally lost any contact with good sense. But then, this is Massachusetts -- home of the city that accepted a total eradication of the 4th Amendment (1) and lost it's shit over a blinky toy (2).

(1) http://poorrichardsnews.com/po...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...

The Michigan teachers union sics bill collector on former members after they legally opted out of the union:
http://poorrichardsnews.com/po...

The one that challenges the Republican views that:money is speech, and since the rich have more money they should get to decide what speech I should listen to.

You think the view is exclusive to Republicans? Then you either don't pay enough attention, or you need your head examined.

Remember during the sequester, the Democrat President shut down public access to the White House, but sold access to "donors" at half-a-million a pop.

Not to mention, >8 of the 10 richest Congressional districts are represented by Democrats, not to mention the fact that7 of the 10 richest Congresscritters are also Democrats.

With apologies to Charles Baudelaire - "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that Republicans are the party of the rich."

What does it matter? Both parties serve the corporations.

The one that challenges the Republican views that:money is speech, and since the rich have more money they should get to decide what speech I should listen to.

You think the view is exclusive to Republicans? Then you either don't pay enough attention, or you need your head examined.

Remember during the sequester, the Democrat President shut down public access to the White House, but sold access to "donors" at half-a-million a pop.

Not to mention, >8 of the 10 richest Congressional districts are represented by Democrats, not to mention the fact that7 of the 10 richest Congresscritters are also Democrats.

With apologies to Charles Baudelaire - "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that Republicans are the party of the rich."

Most libertarians [...] believe in minimalist government, not no government.

This is true, but it's somewhat complicated. Whether { we can do away with all government tomorrow } and whether { coercive national governments with minimal powers are the perpetual ideal } are two separate questions.

Some libertarians (ex. "Anarcho-Capitalists" (not to be confused with any other kind of anarchist (a chickpea is not a chicken))) believe in no government - which of course is a long-term vision. This means universal recognition of NAP, and all higher-level governance being voluntary.

Most libertarians are gradualists - we recognize that coercive government is a consequence of human folly which is not going to disappear overnight. Pure free market is a more complex system of social organization, which requires a more literate populace with better access to technologies that will make the centralized state obsolete. Some pro-capitalist libertarian gradualists even go as far as advocating direct wealth redistribution, because it would be much more efficient than the welfare state - a step in the right direction.

The transition to a freer society is not inevitable (no "historical determinism" here), and the "powers that be" (and their moochers) will of course resist. But many trends are working in our favor. Globalization and cultural integration will make nationalist collectivism less potent. The Internet is making censorship very difficult. Secession movements are becoming more and more popular, leading to more intergovernmental competition. Intergovernmental competition rewards the freest economies with the inflow of brains and capital. You get the idea.

We'll end up with thousands of nations (including seasteads and some day space stations), and people will be free to vote with their feet. Some will have freer markets than others, but the more choice people have the closer we come to the ideal of doing away with involuntary government.

--libman (old account)

Sadly this is more common that let on. They did the right thing in this case, giving her the boot, but it's not the case across the board.

I'm not a Republican and I think this is wrong. Republicans and Democrats have the same major flaws rather they like to admit to it or not.

Limiting exposure to different types of thought is now mandatory in many colleges.

No, the term "Liberal Education" originally applied to the old definition of "Liberal" which encouraged independent thought, positive action, and a base of factual knowledge. The modern version follows the modern definition of liberal which is some blend of Marxist - punishing those who excel to benefit those who do not. The opposite of Darwinism, yet teaching Darwinism is very high on their agenda. I've yet to figure out why those who most adamantly demand the teaching of Darwinism are those most against it's implementation. The scientific method may be taught in the science classes, but outside of that enlightenment type classes have little to do with enlightenment and more often than not teach hate under the guise of the opposite.

I hear PRISM works pretty well ...