Slashdot Mirror
Senator Arlen Specter Becomes a Democrat
Akido37 was one of many readers letting us know that US Sen. Arlen Specter has changed parties to become a Democrat. This gives the Democrats 59 seats in the Senate, and 60 if and when Al Franken gets seated from Minnesota. However, Specter said in his announcement that he will not be an automatic 60th vote for breaking Republican filibusters. While the senator's move seems to have surprised many Republicans, it is understandable to moderate Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, who said, "You haven't certainly heard warm encouraging words of how they [Republicans] view moderates. Either you are with us or against us." Specter noted that in his home state of Pennsylvania, 200,000 formerly Republican voters switched party allegiance last year.
...nothing of value was lost or gained.
Doh!
This does pose a dramatic shift in the balance of power. While a lot of votes do go on party lines, often most of what happens is self interest, with politicians doing what is most likely to keep them in office. Specter is just doing a better job of staying with the times rather than any real change in his personal convictions.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
Specter noted that in his home state of Pennsylvania, 200,000 formerly Republican voters switched party allegiance last year.
So you switched your allegiance cuz it would give u better chance to keep getting elected, Mr. Specter, regardless of your actual political beliefs? (Not that I think either party is that different from the other)
...Specter was a Republican to begin with?
It is believed that it is the very same senator who entered the Republican Senate Caucus emerged 30 years later unscathed, unblemished, eh, in the pristine form, entered the Democratic Senate Caucus. Who would believe such a theory? Senators are not bullets made by Western Case Cartridge Company.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Gee - big surprise. This news comes just a weekend after news that his primary challenger, Pat Toomey, is showing a commanding lead in the polls.
I can see the fnords!
While I may support Democrats more than the Republicans, I find the general principle of changing parties mid-term a disgusting and cowardly betrayal of trust.
You were elected as a Republican, for better or for worse. You should either finish your term as one, or if you can no longer consider yourself a Republican, resign. At the next election, feel free to run as a Democrat or whoever the hell you want. But for this term, you should act for the people who elected you. That's the principle of representative democracy.
I'd even accept the compromise of, when one leaves or is kicked out of the party, he/she should have the right to stay as an Independent member until the next election. But joining a party different from the one you were elected under, in the middle of your term, should be outright unconstitutional.
And all New England Patriots players quietly register as Rep.
This just goes to show that the neo-cons have brought the Republican party to its knees. When are they going to learn. They now have the "fiscal conservative" religion, but there is a lot of doubt whether they can follow through with what they can say.
Fiscal policies aside, their doom was being so darn war driven. Not that the Dems aren't, but they took it to a new level.
Specter would have been smarter to have went independent. Does he really need a party? He has the name recognition.
I had to laugh when I read, "they're becoming more conservative" because that's what Bush was for the last 8 years. It's a little late to be saying you don't like it. He might as well come on the record and say we shouldn't invade Iraq....oops, late on that one too. Switching primaries is an interesting approach. I guess his voting record can or will sink him.
Need to get back to being party of extreme tax and spending cuts.
Stand for something than being a 'less than democrat' party.
Idea - Shut down the government next time in control and FORCE massive spending cuts. Bureaucracy jobs suck up a lot of money and don't produce jobs.
We need to start limiting our cancerous entitlements too.
Get rid of all business taxes and illegal property taxes. Yeah government confiscation of property is against everything that people who fought for freedom of independence. Property laws are in our original constitution. Taxing them and confiscating land is immoral and wrong.
Mother England has been replaced by 'High Taxation. Hidden Socialist Runaway Central government'.
Nerds are citizens, therefore we have an interest in this. We aren't idiots, therefore we don't have an interest in celebrity news.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You know, this is a good move for Pennsylvania. Spector has been demonized by his own party for some time now. VERY wierd for a 30 year senator in a party that embraced Ted Stevens so fondly.
One of the important parts of all this is that Democrats agreed not to run a candidate against him in the primaries. The GOP has at least 3 candidates they wanted to run against him in the primaries before he made the switch.
The thing about the GOP that really sucks is that it eats it's own when it loses. Spector is not the only senator who has been castigated by his own party in a state that is becoming more progressive. Don't be surprised to see this happen again in the next 12 months.
M
1. his presence will serve as a brake on more progressive legislation.
2. being a Democrat will prevent the Dems from offering up a more progressive candidate to oppose him had he stayed Republican.
3. He'll likely vote as a "liberal" Republican, ie: with the interests of capital in economics, in the interests of no one in particular (i.e. who ever pays his bills) in social issues.
Good:
1. He'll likely vote with the Dems about 60% of the time.
2. This will force the Republican party (now the property of ignorance and corruption) to be more considerate and thoughtful of their positions.
3. This could lead to someone like Snowe defecting as well, which would really bury the Republican part, possibly for good, as it could split between the Bible Thumping retard faction and the neocon fascist faction, which would work to the benefit of the Democrats.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
http://tinyurl.com/dlzo96
"My life had got no better, same damn 'Lo sweater. Times is rough and tough like leather," said the senior senator of his 29-year membership with the GOP. "I figured out I went the wrong route. So I got with a sick tight clique and went all out."
Nice to see Change we can all believe in.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
a regional party further marginalizing them selves by moving to the right. Specter had to jump ship because he was going to be challenged in the primary by someone from the far right of the party. He left because the more moderate members of the GOP in Specter's state have seen the handwriting on the wall and have already left the party to either join the Democrats or go Independent.
I may not be a smart man, but I know what an inode is.
Suddenoutbreakofcommonsense tag needed
All your database are belong to U.S.
It's a joke. Who cares? Specter was pretty much a lock on most votes for the Democrats anyway. He was just a way for them to get a Republican to vote with them and then scream about how great they are at "bipartisanship." LOOK! A REPUBLICAN SUPPORTS US! Ignore all the others that stand by their principles. He's been pretty much a schmuck who basically votes to please Philly and Pittsburgh. The rest of us he thinks can all go hang.
He's 79. Have you ever noticed politicians all want you and me to retire by 72 at the latest? But they're supposed to keep getting into office until they're dead? And in some cases afterward? We need to have an age limit on politicians and judges. Over 70 and they should ALL be forced out of office. That's a law that really needs to be passed.
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
First I am a conservative though not a Republican. I am all for this.
I want the Democrats to have to own what happens the next few years. After all the years of hearing them harp on Bush deficits I want them to have undeniable majority so they are undeniably responsible for the economy busting budgets they are signing off on. I want ownership to be a non question. While there are good people on both sides of the aisle as a whole I think the entire Congress stinks.
Their actions have become the best reason for term limits. Too many of them think themselves as kings and queens, benevolent in their view because they know better and they are better - in their own minds. They game the system ensuring two party rule and the American people are more enamored with American idol personalities and similar : see Obama.
Now we just need Snowe to flip. She is nothing more than a RINO as well. Make them honest - if you vote one way consistently then be willing to take up the mantle of the party you align with. That way when it comes time to swap parties in power you can get outed. The tragedy is that most won't. They have so many connections and so much power from their office that unseating them takes serious criminal acts and even that is not a guarantee they don't get back in.
Its a great day. Now the Democrats have their "majority" and the hot seat is all theirs. The question becomes, do they do to Obama what they did to Clinton? See the flip side is that when one group has a real majority they don't answer to anyone - including the President. After all they no longer need them. It also leads to internal factions which happened to them in the early nineties. That majority benefits and hurts them.
But the key is, they cannot escape the responsibility for the spending spree or legislation. It will give Obama a convincing excuse too for what he signs off. So he can claim its not what he really wants "but the reality of the situation..."
So, awesome, and lol. Can't wait to see all the excuses for doing stuff that people would eviscerate Republicans for doing.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
tl;dr
Well you, or at least others on your side, wanted America to lose a war for the same reason just a few years ago.
So big whoop.
----(o)----
This is just a case of survival. Specter was down over 20 points in polls regarding the 2010 primaries, and would have certainly not made it to the General Election.
And they really didn't care how many Iraqis would die if we pulled out of Iraq.
The problem with wanting a collapse is that they'll somehow pin it on capitalism (ie freedom) and then proceed to reduce freedom.
The worst kind of slavery is the one you choose for yourself.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Nope. Nobody on 'my side' has ever wanted America to lose a war. Try again. Here's a hint: you may want to stop looking at politics as something with 'sides' and realize we are all in this together.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Actually, that was a right-wing projection. Democrats never wanted us to lose the war, they wanted the U.S. to stop pursuing the policies that were failing. Republicans, in their typically hyperaggressive way, screamed themselves red in the face that this was wanting America to lose. Put another way, Rush Limbaugh explicitly has said he wants President Obama to fail. Not his policies. Not his programs. His entire presidency. No Democrat of any significance actually made any statement calling for the war to be lost.
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
tl;dr version:
"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! I'm rich and i shouldn't have to have any responsibility for the things i do to others, the environment or economy! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! YOU'RE ALL POOR BECAUSE YOU ALL STINK!"
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
The recent dramatic increase in violence in Iraq should serve as an ominous sign we may very well be proven correct.
Whether you want to acknowledged it or not, there is a real difference between the liberal fear (circa 2000) that George Bush would pursue policies that would prove disastrous to the United States, and the current behavior of the Right, cheering for Democrats to fail so they can regain power.
3 parent There are some good concepts in there - like can be found in any philosophy. But as for the book itself, that should be the Cliff's Notes.
That which does not kill us makes us... st
Republicans can't gun for Specter in the primaries any longer. Specter will run in the Democratic primary instead, where Ed Rendell has promised to do everything he can to give Specter a clear field. Pat Toomey of the Club for Growth is now the clear front-runner for the Republican nomination, and he's well to the right of Rick Santorum, who the Pennsylvania electorate overwhelmingly rejected in 2006. A Toomey/Specter matchup is extremely heavily weighted to Specter's favor among the PA general electorate, even if it's weighted the other way among the PA Republican primary crowd.
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
If the US pulled out of Iraq... who or what would be killing Iraqis? Other Iraqis? Sounds like an Iraqi problem, not a US problem.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
You are basing your argument on the classical philosophy that a vote, when cast for a person, essentially places trust in that person to serve as he or she sees fit, for the duration of his term.
I call that position bullshit and reject it in principle. I refuse to place unconditional trust in a politician, or be so naive as to believe that he is indeed there to serve his constituency. Politicians will always do what is in their self interest (wow, just like the rest of us). That's why we have the party system, so we have an extra layer of protection. We don't JUST vote for Specter, just like we don't just vote for any Republican. We vote for both. We vote for Specter AS LONG AS he maintains the principles of the party he was running under, in this case, Republican.
Partisanism has lots of problems, but I firmly believe that the extra layer of safeguarding against do-what-I-fuckin-like politicians makes it worthwhile. We don't place unlimited trust in the guy, we only vote for him as long as he maintains integrity to the party under which he ran.
If someone WANTS to run under the platform of "unlimited trust", he should run as Independent. There's a reason why almost nobody gets elected as one.
For those that are not aware:
There has not been a Republican filibuster in this congressional session. There's no indication there would ever be one. Specter was already a vote of the Democrats on the only bill that came close: the Stimulus Bill.
This makes no difference on filibusters. If you think it does, you haven't been paying attention.
This is "yet another Washington insider declares for the party of government."
Being a libertarian, I don't really have a dog in this fight, I think that most politicians are crooks. But do you have any idea how irrational & childish you sound?
There is a huge difference between wanting your country out of a war & wanting your country to *lose* a war.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Arlen Specter is one of the worst, most soul-less, most belief-free individuals in politics. The moment most vividly illustrating what Specter is: prior to the vote on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, he went to the floor of the Senate and said what the bill "seeks to do is set back basic rights by some 900 years" and is "patently unconstitutional on its face." He then proceeded to vote YES on the bill's passage.
I came here for a good argument
But, but ... while I distance myself from the nutcases in my party, your statement seems to embrace the nutcases of yours. At least we both admit the nutcases exist, but I like my position better than yours.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
>90% of Americans think that way. It's funny to sit on the outside and see Democrats fear monger about the Patriot act being a horrible piece of legislation that the Republicans put into place, then instead of repealing it when they took power the Democrats use it to put Conservative Idealists on a list of possible terrorists.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
"Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, pressed an amendment that would strike a provision from the bill that prohibits terror suspects from challenging their detention in the courts. ''What the bill seeks to do is set back basic rights by some 900 years,'' said Mr. Specter, who traced the ability to challenge one's detention to the Magna Carta"
Slashdot isn't about being the fastest to the news story, it's about the audience.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
I'm not happy with Arlen leaving, but I understand it. The thing is, if Arlen ran, the free trading Toomey would win the primary, lose the general election, hoping, vainly, as Republicans have for twenty years, that rank and file laborers will forget that the guys more likely to keep foreign competition out pave their meal ticket more than the guys that talk some Jesus. Were Toomey to beat Arlen in the primary and lose to another Democrat, its very likely that the "sixtieth vote" would follow lock step with card check, national health insurance and carbon trading. Given the extent of the disaster for we right wingers, I'd almost consider it a victory if all the Democrats got was national health insurance. Bush is just the gift that keeps on giving for the left.
I'm a Republican and the GOP's basic problem is that it has utterly forgotten that while the south and west tend to be for free trade, the Northeast leans protectionist. When Republicans remember that, they win. When they forget it, they lose. Mainstream America is already with them on values, but the GOP has a knack of forgetting that in America money matters more than one's attitudes towards gays...
The Republican myth of Reagan the free trader ushering in a wave of prosperity has not served this party well. Reagan was no free trader, although he talked a good game of it. According to the Mises institute, Reagan was the most protectionist president since Hoover. But, we note, he won twice in some of the biggest set of landslides ever. Gipper could do whatever he wanted in Ohio, PA and MI as long as he told the Japanese to go pound sand on imported cars - which he did. Obama did the same thing - and its a testimony to the GOP that he did the same thing that Reagan did - run protectionist.
This is my sig.
Glenn Greanwald says it well:
In my opinion, what the DemocratIC party needs more of isn't warmed-over has-been Republicans but, rather, liberal Democrats who are actually, you know, LIBERAL.
-S
And the debunked point hits again! Republicans are the only ones who actually want anything to fail. Find any Democrat of any national significance who has actually made a statement about wanting a collapse, please.
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
The ideology of free market capitalism is broken? Ahhh, so that explains the worldwide trend towards nationalization of industries, central planning of the economy and redistribution of income by the government in the name of equality... Thanks for clearing that up, now it all makes sense. Oh wait, it is actually exactly the opposite.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Right. People need a wake up call that the free market is broken, and the fix we need is to nationalize the banks and the health care system, which is exactly what will happen if things get bad enough. You folks better start praying things don't get that bad, and that we continue to limp along with the broken system you prefer, rather than scrapping it and going with what has been proven to work: socialism. Don't forget, it was you free market, deregulate everything folks that put us in this position in the first place.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Look .. You don't decide now.. Your insurance company does. Unless you are very wealthy you just go along with them and hope for the best.
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
My, how compassionate and humanitarian of you. Aren't those things supposed to be core underpinnings of liberal values?
The Repubs just want it to fail in a manor that wakes people up so it doesn't happen again.
Like, a country manor outside of Derbyshire? That's a nice play for anything, even failure! It's a bed and breakfast as well.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
FAIL.
The right-wing extremism report was initiated by George W. Bush's White House, as a counterpoint to the left-wing extremism report issued earlier this year. The right-wing extremism report further did not identify conservatives as extremists; it identified two major groups within right-wing extremists, those being hate extremist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and single-issue extremist groups like abortion-clinic bombers. Agreeing with any of the issues does not mean that they called you an extremist, only that extremists have been known to share that issue.
Some squirrels are male and some squirrels are female. You are in all likelihood either male or female. This does not, however, mean that you are necessarily a squirrel. It's the same argument, except with 'squirrel' in place of 'extremist,' 'male' in place of 'hate groups,' and 'female' in place of 'single-issue groups.'
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
There are hundreds of regimes around the world doing worse. Some of them we even put in power. We do nothing there, why is Iraq different? THAT is the question. Why are we meddling there, and not in any place with real problems, like Somalia?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"In other words, if you're not near death, you can't see someone who can actually help you"
Last year I had an earache. I knew I wasn't dying but it was a bit annoying. I phoned the doctor's surgery, they gave me an appointment that evening. I went to see the doc and he checked my ear, gave me a prescription for ear drops which I took to the chemist and it sorted out my minor infection.
Parent's poster is wrong. You don't need to be near death to see somebody who can help you.
Oh these Americans, so over dramatic.
Perhaps that was the problem, I wonder if the American friend went to the local doc and explained "OH MY GOD DOC! I've been sharing a house with a SMOKER, for TWO WHOLE DAYS, I think I've got CANCER, and I AM DYING!". I can imagine a British doc saying "yes yes well calm down, have you had any extreme symptoms? No? well, let me do a check... everything seems in order. How about you ask your friend to stop smoking in the house or perhaps you move to another flat. Get out and take up a little exercise as well."
I think the doctor would be sitting there thinking that if the problem was the guy was living with a smoker, why didn't he move and so solve his problem?
As another poster has noted, we have public health services in the UK but also private doctors, nobody stops you going to a private doctor if you want to pay.
(ok I've been a little jolly in this post and apologies I am sure your friend was in distress and I wish them well... but you did set me up a bit there. You suggest that "health care is something to be earned and not a right" and then complain your friend who'd been living in the UK for only one year couldn't get free specialist treatment. Why didn't he go and pay for a private specialist?).
"Eh. Specter is an old school reagan-ish republican."
There is nothing even remotely "Reagan-ish" about Arlen Specter. The only principle Specter has ever had are the ones that keep Arlen Specter in power. Though it puts the GOP in a painful disadvantage in the Senate, I am well and truly glad to see him gone. Besides the shiny new (D) beside his name, the only difference in Specter is that now he'll have to stab the Republicans in the front.
And Democrats, while you're happy about your new supposedly filibuster proof majority, consider this; if history is any indication, sooner or later you'll need Specter's vote on something. And he'll screw you guys too. When a whore leaves her husband for another man, does she ever really stop being a whore?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Considering your own ideology to be more important than the wellbeing of everyone else is the hallmark of libertarianism.
Senator Specter finally jumped ship to the party he has pretty much been a part of for the last 12 years or so. And, the timing couldn't be more perfect. Senator Specter, who has been a major RINO, was getting his arse handed to him in the polls related to a Republican primary. So, he jumps ship in the hope of retaining his seat. But, it will be to no avail, he will lose his seat next election anyway, sucks to be him.
What part of "News for nerds" is this? I could understand a lot of the Obama stuff because it's reporting the tech related things. But where's the tech angle here?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Not in so many words, no. Many Democrats have, however, called for us to pull out of Iraq under conditions that are equivalent (in my, and many other people's opinion) to admitting that we've lost. In the end, it's all how you look at it. To the Democrats, as long as they don't come right out and say that they want us to lose the war, it's OK; to many non-Democrats, they're acting exactly like they would if they did want us to lose. Me? I don't think they've either looked at their stand closely enough to realize what it sounds like to the other side, or would care if they did.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
You folks better start praying things don't get that bad, and that we continue to limp along with the broken system you prefer, rather than scrapping it and going with what has been proven to work: socialism.
Not sure what you've been smoking, but your obviously not sharing.
Actually, socialism wouldn't be too bad. Like everyone else, I too would sit on my ass waiting for handouts that will never come.
More moonshine, more moooooonshine!!!
Life is not for the lazy.
Dear god, I read that entire hundred-page speech about ten years ago. I still don't know quite why.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
You obviously have no idea what american health care costs are. Nor did you even specify how the son got hurt.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
So do you actually intend to trivialize the atrocities going on in one nation to make your own pet projects appear in greater need, or are you just putting on a very convincing illusion?
The morality of going into Iraq can be debated for hours on end, but in the end, what was done cannot be undone. It does, however, put a much more immediate responsibility on those who do it to fix the problem they caused, whatever the cost. This is not pleasant, but duty isn't always. Right now, we have more immediate responsibilities than Somalia. We are, thanks to our new President, abandoning them to an incompetent -dare I say, saboteur- government that spends a lot of time acting as though it actually wants the insurgency to take over.
This is what the liberals want. Loss may not be the first thing on their mind -I would certainly hope it isn't- but it is an inevitable and foreseeable consequence of what they want, and they appear to accept this. Why, then, do they act surprised when people believe that losing is in fact a desired goal, when it is clearly at the very least an acceptable cost?
> we only vote for him as long as he maintains integrity to the party under which he ran.
You only vote for somebody if they are loyal to their party? Because elected representatives following their conscience/opinion/interest subverts some fantasy you have that political parties offer some "extra layer of protection?" They've done quite the opposite - they've replaced the three branches of gov't the Constitution established with two branches - republicrats and republicrats.
Besides extra layers of protection, there are other things political parties have in common with diapers. I like the advice of Mark Twain - change them often.
And next election, please re-consider where elected representatives' loyalties should lie.
And my comment wasn't just about speed.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
We have so many laws and regulations now...it is crippling, and all that having majority does, is bring on MORE laws and regulations. We need a 'reset' not more laws, but, that will never happen.
IMHO, the government governs best when it is in gridlock.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Well, Barry is in charge now.
Why aren't we in Somalia?
Why aren't we in Darfur?
Why did North Korea start up it's reactors again?
I suspect that many of Barry's supports will either be disappointed about the lack of intervention in their trendy causes or will be silent about it.
It's one thing to bitch about the other guy and another thing altogether to be in charge and make decisions and stand behind them.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Who?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
See, this is your problem. You project your own inadequacies onto the rest of the world. Most of us work not because we have to, but because we are good people who want to contribute. Thankfully, most people are not lazy, selfish assholes.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Why should we?
We should only do things that protect and spin things in the interests of our country. That is what our country is for, to protect and promote our interests, nothing more.
Anything we do, charity wise, while good....is just a plus, it is not the responsibility nor job description of our government.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I suspect you don't listen to Rush. Because he explicitly said the opposite of what you describe.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
What was that? Darfur? Timor? You want us to what in Darfur?
I've heard Rush a few times...not my cup of tea.
But, really why do so many people on the Dem side give him so much attention? He is just a radio entertainer. He holds no office. Has not run for any that I know of. And he does not run anything in the Republican party.
Who cares what he says?
Now, if some elected official says this type thing...well, then you have an argument. Someone that IS involved in policy making, can and should be held responsible for their actions and votes.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
If the ideology we're talking about is the unconstitutional, moderate socialism that we have now thanks to both parties, then certainly it's broken. Maybe we could try capitalism and the rule of law next?
Revive the Constitution.
"what has been proven to work: socialism"
Are you on drugs?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
he just wants to keep his job, running as a Dem will give him better odds. If he stayed as a Rep, I don't think he would have gotten the Rep nomination running vs Pat Toomey. Business as usual - its all about the money.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
There are nations (eg. Israel) where voters vote for parties. The US is not one of them.
In the US, you vote for a representative, who may choose to associate with one of the Big Two parties. (Originally, there was no concept of parties, but that lasted all of about five seconds.) Once elected, your rep may vote his/her "conscience," regardless of what his or her party lean toward.
At least this way, he's being open. There's no reason he couldn't have kept his nominal Republican status and voted the other way. (Though there are obvious publicity advantages in making an announcement.)
Arlen Specter has been a Democrat all along. He's finally admitted it.
There are hundreds of regimes around the world doing worse. Some of them we even put in power.
You'd think we would have learned by now not to keep putting new regimes in power, just to have them become our Mortal Enemies (TM) 10 years later.
This has everything to do with Arlen's political survival (aka pulling a Lieberman) as he was about to be voted out of office in the Republican primary there.
And I'm not sure that it's a clear cut win for Democrats... Arlen will be an uncertain ally at best, and negates the Democrats ability to run someone really far to the left against Toomey in PA which I'm sure they would have loved to do. So, a mixed bag. Arlen's effectively been a democrat (or at least not a republican) for many years now anyways, so while this is a PR blow to be sure it won't change much as far as senate politics are concerned.
As far as Arlen trying to say the GOP has moved right since Reagan's days? Hogwash, they've moved left and become indistinguishable from Democrats which is why they're being punished by the voters. Arlen's own appeal to Reaganism is offset by a quote from the man himself:
"A political party cannot be all things to all people. It cannot compromise
its fundamental beliefs for political expediency, or simply to swell its
numbers. It is not a social club or fraternity engaged in intramural contests
to accumulate trophies on the mantel over the fireplace...No one can quarrel
with the idea that a political party hopes it can attract a wide following,
but does it do this by forsaking its basic beliefs? By blurring its own image
so as to be indistinguishable from the opposition party?"
Personally, I'm glad Arlen made his selling out official. Republicans may be down and out right now, but the path back does not involve selling out our principles.
K go ahead and mod me down now. :-)
Many Democrats have, however, called for us to pull out of Iraq under conditions that are equivalent (in my, and many other people's opinion) to admitting that we've lost.
So as long as we never say out loud that we lost, it doesn't matter that thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands (perhaps many tens of thousands) of others have died for no practical gain? Sounds like a Fox News reality to me.
> Here's a hint: you may want to stop looking at politics as something with 'sides' and realize we are all in this together.
Actually, no we aren't. If anything we are even more divided on the basic notions that should decide the basic course of political affairs than we were in the 1860s.
On one side you have the social democrats (Democratic Party) who want, being charitable, European Welfare Socialism and Big Sister. On teh other side are those who still think the Founding Fathers were on to something. And there isn't much room for compromise between worldviews so divergent. The Democrats have long understood and I think important elements of the Conservative movement (not the Republicans as of yet) now realize that we are fast approaching a 'there can be only one' point in history, where one side must finally confront and defeat the other.
Two futures lie ahead of us, one of an emasculated politically cleansed America where the State (i.e. national government) reigns supreme over pretty much everything, assigns everyone their place and everyone knows resistence to be futile as we spiral down to Third World status and keep going towards failed state. The other is a miracle where the Democrats, as they neared the moment of triumph overreach and are thrown down by an outraged population and we live happily ever after in a land of liberty with low taxes and regulation... for a time until a new generation must learn the same lessons again, that Freedom ain't Free and that There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Democrat delenda est
LOl...I too wonder what you're smoking, or where you're from, but, your outlook and opinions certainly aren't of the majority of ANY group of people I've known.
If given enough money to live the rest of their lives comfy...like a major lottery win. I've venture to guess (and would put money on it) that the vast majority of them would not work in the sense of a job again.
Personally, I certainly wouldn't. I had a nice taste of it between contracts awhile back. I was off for 7 months...and I LOVED it. Aside from not having money coming in and having to watch some expenses...I found plenty to do with my time other than work or do anything remotely looking like a job.
I got up daily, walked the dog, jumped on my motorcycle, hit the gym for a couple hours...after than, I'd ride around town, figure out where to get a cold beer or two, and meet up with friends somewhere after they got off work. That was my general day...aside from some days with interviews, or tinkering with a fun project at home. That was it.
I can easily tell you, that if I took home something like $20M in a powerball winning, I'd put it back, live on the interest, and never have a job again. Easy life like listed above, mixed in with travel to fun places.
I applaud your for your apparent altruistic attitude and lifestyle, but, I can assure you....that is not what the majority of people feel.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Oh wait, you aren't joking, you sick nutcase. You actually WANT America to fail. You would rather we are all plunged into poverty and chaos than admit your ideology is broken.
Here's a hint: you may want to stop looking at politics as something with 'sides' and realize we are all in this together.
Good job sir. Way to practice what you preach.
"They used to care for traditions, principles, and institutions."
Rubbish. Republicans are being castigated by guys like you precisely because they refuse to abandon the very things you listed. Because traditions, principles, and institutions aren't progressive.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
then instead of repealing it when they took power the Democrats use it to put Conservative Idealists on a list of possible terrorists.
I would love to see an example of this so that I can laugh at the hypocrites on "the left" just like I laugh at the hypocrites on "the right". Now then, can you provide a real example?
"It's popular therefore it's right". Thanks for the insight.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Uhh, the party "in power" of Somalia has been ruling from the US until just a few weeks ago.
I'm pretty sure we have been doing at least some amount of meddling there.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
No...BOTH can be corrupted very easily.
I'd just rather take my side on the free market. Unlike the government that gets corrupted, private industy cannot by force of law and threat of imprisonment, take my money, my freedom or my life.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You caught me. How about this: all non nutcases are on the same side. Libertarians, creationists, and other nutcases can take a long walk off a short pier.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
No...my doctor decides, the insurance just pays.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I'm puzzled by the Overton Window theory. The way it's presented in some places -- like this one -- the US is an extreme right-wing country. ("far to the right of any objective political spectrum.") I'm not sure what "objective political spectrum" that author means. Is it maybe based on the theoretical extremes of government power (ie. absolute dictatorship/communism vs. absolute anarchy/capitalism), or maybe the historical extremes (pretty similar)? Or a non-objective scale of where we are relative to Finland?
If we've got the various governments of the US confiscating an estimated "30.8% of the nation's income for 2008" [Wikipedia] and providing food, housing, education, pensions, and medicine to millions of people, is that really an extreme ultra-capitalist system? Seems to me that we've got one party that accepts massive government redistribution of wealth but feels guilty about it, and another that does the same but is honest about it. Calling the US political parties "rightist" is weird without making it clear what the scale is supposed to be.
Revive the Constitution.
okay, if we're going to play the "your side" game, you have to look at the other side as well.
The side you refer to 'thinking the Founding Fathers' were on to something also believes in the erosion of civil liberties, consolidation of executive power, silencing those who dissent, torture, revoking habeous corpus, forced religion, racial profiling and exclusion, warmongering, etc...
Read some of President Washington's work and tell me how ANYTHING from the last 8 years even remotely comes close to the Framer's vision!?!?
Face it, both sides are out of touch with the Founding Fathers. Both "sides" are corrupted abominations that offer little in the way of serious social stability with in the original frame work of our Constitution.
The Democrats have long understood and I think important elements of the Conservative movement (not the Republicans as of yet) now realize that we are fast approaching a 'there can be only one' point in history, where one side must finally confront and defeat the other.
Mean while I think the general population of the US is finally coming to the inevitable "there can not be only two" point in history.
There are way more issues than there are sides. Some of those issues the Democrats are more liberal, some of them Republicans are more liberal, hell some of them the Libertarians are more liberal on. Stop thinking of politics as a black and white game, all that type of thinking is doing is shrinking and isolating the once proud Republican movement. Learn to deal with nuance. Work to reform the party based on intellectual debate rather than 5 second sound bites of FUD and maybe we can see a healthy return of the Republican party.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Hahaha, oh I always love that fantasy world you live in. Fortunately for America, you are wrong, and we will do just fine. We will be out of this recession in a year and a half, and Obama will look like a genius. He will sweep the next presidential election in a landslide, and we will get Universal health care. This will do so much to restore American competitiveness that we will experience huge economic growth before he leaves office, ushering in even more socialism, as people realize it just plain works.
You, on the other hand, will be bitterly eating crow and whining about how it all sucks and will be falling apart any day now.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
> Me? I don't think they've either looked at their stand closely enough to realize
> what it sounds like to the other side, or would care if they did.
You are being far too kind to people who don't deserve it. It's pretty simple. A clear win in Iraq would have meant Republican control for a generation, a loss would have meant the opposite. The current basic tie was enough to put Obama in the White House. To a Democratic Socialist there isn't anything more important than gaining power and keeping it. The country can go to Hell as long as they Rule the descent, after all there isn't any place where Socialists have gained total control which didn't quickly turn into a Hell on Earth. The smarter ones understand that point and reason that THEY will be OK as the ones with the power so it's all good as a poor bitter people are easier to rule.
So just to be clear, I am calling people like Reid, Pelosi and Murtha traitors. They knowingly leant aid and comfort to sworn enemies during a time of actual war for the purpose of enhancing the power of themselves and their faction. Most of the Moveon.org crowd can be let off the treason hook be reason of just being Useful Idiots following wicked leaders. Obama is probably just as guilty but I'm not certain he possesses the capacity to understand the consequences of his actions since I doubt a narcissist like him can fully actualize another person as a person and not as just another mirror for His Glory to reflect off of.
Democrat delenda est
Proof that by today's definition, both Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior are Liberals?
Which leads to the question, what is a Liberal?
These are interesting times indeed.
Her lips were softer than a duck's bill, but her quacks
"socialism" doesn't mean what the bulk of americans (ie "you") think it means. Most of Europe, Canada and South America are "socialist". We say "socialism" and you hear "communist dictatorship" which is something completely, completely different.
Sort of like how "liberal" is slanderous to you guys... so weird.
Stop thinking in black & white, flush the cold-war era propaganda from your mind, and you'll find there are some excellent lessons to be learned from a system not driven wholy by greed.
Jeremy
Although Specter says he won't be an auto-60th vote, party leaders will be sure to point out that their backing for the Democratic primary next spring will come with an expectation of support on these votes. The absolute worst thing for this country is for EITHER party to have control of the White House and both branches of Congress with a filibuster-proof majority. Both parties have immensely idiotic ideas, and this just paves the way for them to become law virtually unchecked.
You're absolutely right! Socialism has proven to be such a resounding success that it's a wonder the USSR hasn't annexed the tottering USA by now! I suppose the only thing stopping them from such a blatant power grab is our warm relations with the powerful workers' states of East Germany, Romania, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia.
Yay! Opposite day is fun! You go next!
Yes they can. Private industry can collude with others to prevent you getting a job. They can buy all the land around yours and refuse you access. They can pollute your land and kill you, then if you've got anyone left alive to sue them, they can beat them with hundreds of lawyers.
In fact, it is the government that can't take your money, your freedom or your life without good reason. Private industry feels no compunction against doing so.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Two futures lie ahead of us, one of an emasculated politically cleansed America where the State (i.e. national government) reigns supreme over pretty much everything, assigns everyone their place and everyone knows resistence to be futile as we spiral down to Third World status and keep going towards failed state.
I view this as what the Bush regime gave us. Trillion dollar increases in the national debt that our grandkids will be lucky to see gone. Sheer incompetence that shows the Republicans couldn't rebuild New Orleans in the amount of time that it took to rebuild all of Europe after WWII.
Or how about a 'politically cleansed america' where if you do scientific research or have a charity that doesn't follow the narrow government sense or morals you lose your funding. Science books are removed from schools and replaced with religious dogma. Neighbours are allowed weapons sizeable to a small army and shoot trespassers with impunity, yet a small swear word on tv results in government ordered fines and content sensorship.
Right wing republicans want a dictatorship in the US, run by religious law - very much indistinguisable from the likes of the Taliban.
Its the Republicans that need to wake up and change their attitude or get the hell out of the country before they destroy it.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
So? You are missing the other 97 thieving liars in your list. I believe that most Senators (particularly after the first term) are thieving liars. The question of which one to vote for, is answered by the one that lies and steals while claiming to hold your banner.
Actually, you should learn what libertarianism is. It has a lot to say about defrauding others (that it's bad, mmkay?), and in fact makes a point of saying that informed, voluntary consent between two parties should be the basis for all interactions. Laws, courts, and police / military are all well regarded by libertarian thought as a way of ensuring that when someone defrauds or forces someone else into something, there is some legal recourse available to the victim.
What you're describing - no government, no regulations, "to the victor go the spoils" mentality - is known as individualist anarchism (or egoism), and is quite different from libertarianism in fact, in that it specifically states that force and even murder between individuals is an acceptable means to an end, if you can get away with it.
And here we reach your sick little secret: that you aren't even intelligent enough to be informed of the principles of the philosophy you are maligning, because it has the temerity to disagree with your preordained conclusions about how things should run.
I had several years where I didn't work and was free to do whatever I pleased. I volunteered with homeless advocacy groups and soup kitchens for 35 hours a week. It was some of the most fun I've had in my life.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
If you can't say what you need to, and very convincingly in under an hour, then you are either not smart enough to do the job or you are just gaming the system. Either one of those alternatives deserves some kind of a formal penalty. If the penalty is not delivered by Congress itself, then certainly something like a non-biased publicly rated report card on their performance and 'ability to negotiate a solution', then subsequently allow them to be voted out of office in the next election. I get rated every year based on my performance, why not them? If you are wasting time then you are not performing your function.
Not in so many words, no. Many Democrats have, however, called for us to pull out of Iraq under conditions that are equivalent (in my, and many other people's opinion) to admitting that we've lost.
How is coming to the realization that we lost the same thing as wanting to lose? Did Japan's surrender that ended WWII before his entire country was destroyed mean that Emperor Hirohito wanted to lose? Did the fact that that James Madison signed a peace treaty with the British that under conditions that are equivalent to admitting that we've lost mean that he wanted America to lose the War of 1812?
I wish as much as the most hardcore right winger that we were accepted with open arms in Iraq and that Iraqi citizens were willing to work with us to rebuild their country, but that isn't what happened. No one wanted to (or wants to today, for that matter) lose the war. What the Democrats wanted to do was stop sending our boys off to die overseas just to prove that invading Iraq was a good idea in the first place.
Technically does this really change the capacity for a filibuster, if you assume he will vote exactly the same as before, including votes to end a filibuster?
Obviously changing parties indicates his intention to vote this way, but I am not clear if this has any actual legal reason to change things.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it strikes me more of wanting the US to get exactly what it voted for, which the OP was presuming was a loss in said war.
er, oops, I just realized that Clinton pardoned his friends after the election was decided, it must of been one of all those other things that clinton did that pissed people off that made my old boss vote for bush.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
Arlan isn't going to suddenly start voting with the Democratic party (yes, he's crossed the lines occasionally). This is all about his own electability in the 2010 campaign. His numbers were looking atrocious in an increasingly hard-right nomination fight. The only chance he had was to become a Democrat and hope that he can take down an incumbent while riding the moderate fence.
This is a similar tactic...in spirit...to what Joe Lieberman did. Screw party identity, use the convention battles to your advantage. Old Arlan doesn't have ME fooled.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Sort of like how "liberal" is slanderous to you guys... so weird.
In America, the term "liberal" has been bastardized to really mean "Statist". I've been guilty of it myself in the past. So when I see and hear someone advocating more government control into my daily life, I call them for what they are... A Statist.
Life is not for the lazy.
No. Your insurance company tells your doctor what he can and can't decide. Among the options left, he decides. And if they won't pay him, he won't fix you. So, the insurance companies decide. Not you. Not your doctor.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
That's funny, you think Bush was a Conservative.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
This is the beginning of the new realignment. If the GOP continues to alienate Snowe and Collins, they'll lose them too. If the Democrats get larger, they could reach a critical mass which results in more fiscally conservative Republicans, who could do without the religious-right's agenda of social issues, leaving their party for the Democrats. The end result would be the splitting of the Democratic party into the fiscal conservatives and the advocates for social services, with the social issues marginalized.
Social issues might come back into the spotlight, at which point the religious groups could reattach themselves to either side, but until the economy starts booming again, banning gay marriage or overturning Roe vs. Wade will not be high priorities.
This is just silly. A clear win in Iraq in the first Desert Storm didn't lead to Republican control for a generation; it led to transitory high approval ratings right up until the economy tanked under Bush I. As for those socialist hellholes of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, I think I'd take them over the libertarian wonderland of Somalia, myself. Again, this is a crazy right-winger projecting his own opinions onto Democrats. Republicans actively want American to fail when Democrats are in power. Democrats warn that Republican policies will lead to a failure they do not want.
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
You need some remedial political science courses. Communism != socialism. USSR = Communist. Denmark, Sweden, England, pretty much the entire EU = socialist. For that matter, if you're being purist about it, USA = socialist too, considering Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as programs that would have no place in a purely capitalist setting.
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
New Orleans is squarely in Democrat hands, the Republicans haven't had anything to do with it. The fact that you don't know that just goes to show how good the media is at covering for them.
Really, though, I think jmorris was talking about CONSERVATIVES, which Republicans ain't. Which is why they lost so big in the last election cycle, their own "right wing" base won't support them.
Actually, Conservatives believe in not giving any charities government funding, regardless of belief.
As far as Scientific Funding.... Who was the first US President to dedicate Federal funds to embryonic stem cell research?
Actually that sounds pretty awesome. :)
Can you give an actual example of a Conservative Republican who wants that? I don't think so. Hell, I'd be surprised if you came up with an example of a Conservative Republican, period.
Ahh there's that tolerance everyone on the left said was missing during the Bush years. I feel so accepted for my differing viewpoints. Really.
Here's a news flash: At this rate, things are going to come to a head, one way or another. And only one side of this argument owns guns.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Oh, okay. I don't consent to you owning land. I am a social anarchist, so don't preach to me. In America, 'Libertarian' is synonymous with 'individualist anarchist.' I do not live in Europe, where 'libertarian' means 'anarchist,' okay? I have no problem with European libertarians (who are just anarchists like me.) I have problems with individualist anarchists. Even though they DO NOT state that murder is okay. No anarchists do, you twat.
You have no idea what you are talking about. So go give your anarchy lessons to someone who knows less than you, mmm'kay?
Explain to me how two people can legally make a contract that excludes everyone else in the world from using a resource, without their consent and without recompense, then we'll talk, mmmmmmm'kay?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Because (aside from the piracy issue) there's no strategic need for a stable Somalia. Instability in Iraq has a very real possibility of drawing Iran and Saudi Arabia into a much more catastrophic regional conflict.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
You know, you are right. I actually read Atlas Shrugged and agreed with most of what was in the novel and shed a few tears here and there as well.
But that speech was so long I skipped past it after reading, oh, what 10 paragraphs of it or so?
I plan on getting an audiobook version and listening to it, but I am not sitting down and reading that radio speech from beginning to the end.
Wow, you just keep digging that hole deeper.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
I'd just rather take my side on the free market. Unlike the government that gets corrupted, private industy cannot by force of law and threat of imprisonment, take my money, my freedom or my life.
But the free market can deny you health care based on an arcane technicality, regardless of your willingness to pay. You get damned with a "previously existing condition" and you're effectively imprisoned by that condition, condemned to die, even though they've taken your money.
The CB App. What's your 20?
You get someone who never forgets he's an ass.
You accuse libertarians of wanting to be slave owners, when it is the polar opposite. You have demonstrated an utter lack of insight or understanding of libertarianism or free market ideas. You are projecting. Anything other than a free market inherently requires that one person make decisions for another person against their will. This includes every mixed economy which has ever in fact existed.
We don't want to be slave owners, merely not be slaves of any sort, and unlike you we recognize the possibility of a system with neither slaves nor slave owners.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Rather than speculating, how about looking at reality? Many of the richest people in the US contribute to society in various ways. They don't all sit on their ass as you predict. Many keep working in executive positions when they could easily quit. Many work on pet projects. Many are angel investors.
Please stop projecting your laziness on the rest of us.
Developers: We can use your help.
It does seem like the state requiring people to register for parties and only vote in that primary is hurting the Republicans in this instance. If voters could be independent and choose a primary to vote in, I would think Specter could stay a Republican and plenty of moderates would vote for him in the primary over this other guy.
With the scheme as it is, Specter was forced to change to Democrat in order to win the election, and you could even say that he might be forced to do this to prevent a far more left Democrat from winning, thus shifting left actually is good for the right. Even if he does not change any views or votes, the change from R to D has symbolic impact (considering how much talk there is here about it).
So a question is, why are the parties interested in keeping the "register for your party and only vote in that primary" rule.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! That's a good one. Let me guess - you've never had a long term condition, injury or illness that required extensive use of your medical insurance? Believe me - if this ever happens to you, your perception of the issue will change pretty damn fast.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
Some judges in Pennsylvania tell me that you've both knocked your strawmen out of the park. Any power can and will be corrupted.
Why, yes, I tend to think having a good stable state that represents people's interests is a good thing. For counter examples, see this. So I guess I am a Statist.
That is all.
You do know that's not really an effective form of contraception.
James Carville said he wanted Bush to fail, but that was in general, to be fair, as the comment was made before the war.
In 2006 a national poll said 51% of Democrats wanted President Bush to fail... Again, "fail" in general, not specifically about the war.
Harry Reid announced the war was already lost and that we HAD failed, about a year ago.
I remember a good example of a DU poster, on the day that the capture of Saddam was announced, responding to the news with the comment "I'm in tears over here... How can we win if stuff like this keeps happening?"
Honestly I don't think any prominent Democrat would be STUPID enough to make such a PUBLIC statement, though it was their desire. There's probably plenty of examples of the random lunatic fringe Democrat members of the House buried in some news archives somewhere, but I really don't feel like digging them out just for you to say "Well, they're not a major figure any way!"
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Modern liberalism *is* statism - and there's no doubt we have two statist parties now, and no one providing any serious opposition.
And I thought when the headline said Specter was changing parties, that maybe he'd decided to become a Republican!
Let's face it, he's the classic poster-child RINO, who voted with "his party" only on exceedingly rare occasions.
Only when it became painfully obvious that he had NO chance of keeping his seat against a GOP challenger did Specter finally realize that the only possible way to stay in power was to change parties. This is a great case for term limits...
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
This is going to get me flamed to hell, but I don't care, my karma is good, so here goes. Hate to break the news to you, but inside every Iraqi is NOT an American waiting to get out,okay? You are NEVER going to "win" there,got that? They WANT to live under their crazy Sharia law, and you are NOT going to get them to behave like little Americans. All you are doing is wasting time and lives. Just ask the Russians, they can tell you all about it from their time in Afghanistan.
So go right ahead and keep believing you can "win" this thing. You can't. You can't win this anymore than we could win Vietnam, hell probably have even less of a chance here. We could win WW2 because Germans and Japanese were basically functional before they got Hitler and the militant generals of Japan. Here you are trying to take dozens of tribes, many of whom HATE each other, and are happy to strap bombs to themselves and their kids because it gets them a free pass to Allah, and make them behave like they were just another country in the EU. It will NEVER EVER work. But keep believing that it will, while Haliburton and the other contractors laugh their way to the bank with your money.
Whether you pull out now or in 10 years you WILL pull out, the only questions are how many lives and how much money will be pissed down that rathole before we do. There is simply NO WAY to win this, your money and your planes and your bombs will NEVER EVER make these people quit slaughtering each other. All you are doing is giving them a common target to shoot at, because the only thing they agree on is they ALL hate us.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Like it or not, millions of people's political views are informed by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. The fact that they don't actually contribute to a meaningful dialogue is not an excuse to write them off if you're concerned (as everyone should be) about the current state of political rhetoric in our Republic.
It's important for everyone to understand how Rush frames issues and propagates talking points especially when you see a trend of politicians (the actual policymakers you refer to) apologizing to him on air for making perfectly fair criticisms of his format.
The important thing is to not go apoplectic when Rush says something stupid or inflammatory, but to try to understand what it is about his listeners and his rhetoric that cause so many people to see him as their voice.
WTF!? is up with Slashdot... aren't there enough political biased based sites out there for people to visit? Why can't we get back to discussing nerd stuff and cut the political slant shit!!
eyes out when reading about politics on slashdot. I mean, really. I haven't seen so many functionally illiterate people in one place since the April 15th fauxtests.
If you feel like I do, reply here.
I think you are too optimistic. He and other Repugs will still be thinking of ways to argue that everything sucks and we're all going to hell in a handbasket (the fact that Donald Rumsfeld was CEO of a handbasket manufacturer is, of course, a complete coincidence). No matter how much their neo-con ideology is shown to be complete garbage, they will still cling to it like a creationist clinging to the Piltdown Man.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
In fact, it is the government that can't take your money, your freedom or your life without good reason. Private industry feels no compunction against doing so.
This comment is laughable in light of what the government is doing RIGHT NOW to illegally take GM's assets.
People who made legitimate investments in GM are being cheated by the Gov't and the UAW (through raw Gov't corruption) in ways that would be clearly illegal if the company were in actual bankruptcy!
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
When you vote to do something that will cause you to lose a war, you're voting to lose a war. You're saying they voted to lose, but they didn't "want" to lose? How does that work? Are magic pixies involved somehow?
Well, not everybody thinks we've lost. Some of us understand that insurgencies take about seven to ten years to resolve themselves and look at more than casualty figures to decide what's going on. Please note that Liberal Pundits were predicting that we were about to run into a quagmire as the Iraqi army counterattacked just before that army collapsed and the same pundits are telling us we've lost right now. I won't say that they wanted us to lose, but if they did, they'd have acted (and be acting) in exactly the same way.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
I believe that you have inadvertently stated the essence of my argument. It's not that we want the US to lose, it's that an Iraqi conflict was never winnable. All I want is for the US to admit that we've lost and get out.
Based only on a cursory understanding of "winning" and "losing" and looking at the situation in Iraq, there is no outcome from Iraq where we can reasonably claim that we've won. In fact, we lost before we even landed in Iraq, simply because what we were told was the "win" criteria (the demolition of WMD's or Saddam's ouster) are now clearly seen to be red herrings.
A subsequent goal that might constitute a win (bringing a modern democracy to Iraq) is a goal that we cannot possibly deliver since it requires a cultural shift equivalent to the Enlightenment and the only tools we brought are Predator drones and troops with M16M4's.
He said "Right wing republicans" not "Conservative Republicans"! Believe it or not, there is a significant difference. As to examples of Right wing republicans would want a dictatorship in the US, run by religious law:
1. Pat Robertson
2. James Dobson
3. Newt Gingrich
4. Rush Limbaugh
5. All the Bushes
6. Jimmy Swaggart
And so on...
One thing your obviously feeble mind doesn't grasp is this: If you wanted to believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old, that evolution was a load of bullocks, and so on, liberal minded people in general would not have a problem with this. Live and let live. The problem is you stupid fucknuts trying to force *everyone else* to either believe or at least publicly profess (on pain of imprisonment or death) your particular view of things.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Like this really matters? democrat or republican, yawn, same thing wearing different colors with the same end game. They get the money and we get hosed. Does anyone truly believe there is a difference between the two? Both parties represent Big Government. I don't want to hear all the hot air saying otherwise. WE get taxed to no end to pay for whatever debacle they are funding. With money being siphoned off to cronies and friendly corporations. Specter turning Demcocrat is a non-issue. Fox news was covering it like it was some news worthy event. He is just another politician thats been playing the game for how many years? Pulling down six figures with a nice medical plan, plus a fat pension. Not to mention whatever monies he gets under the table from his corporate sponsers. It makes me laugh that these clowns come off like they are so respectable, so honourable. All I see is a lying sack of shit in a very nice suit. blech, its all bullshit.
Unitary Executive, not Unitarian! If Bush were a Unitarian executive, he would be far more open minded ^_^.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Yes, I realize that. But the person he was responding to was talking about Conservatives, not "right wing Republicans"...
Yes, I believe I was the one making that very point.
If you'd of said Pat Buchanan, you may have had a point. But Rush Limbaugh? Seriously? You're saying RUSH LIMBAUGH wants a theocracy? He gets CONSTANT heat from the religious right over how areligious his show is! Next you're going to tell me Bill O'Reilly is a Conservative!
Damn, we started up the Inquisition again? Why wasn't I invited!? I loved the Pit and the Pendulum!
Seriously, though... Lately the only "Agree with us or die!" point of view I've been seeing espoused vis a vis scientific belief has all been coming from the Global Warming camp...
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
And here we see the 'reality' the 'Reality Based' crowd lives in.
> ..believes in the erosion of civil liberties, consolidation of executive power,
> silencing those who dissent, torture,revoking habeous corpus, forced religion,
> racial profiling and exclusion, warmongering, etc...
So let me break down your pitiful rant and take it on a charge at a time.
Erosion of civil liberties? You mean the Patriot Act that Obama DIDN'T renounce once he was the one in the hot seat and would be responsible if something went FOOM!, is that what you are on about? The Patriot Act that DIDN'T actually do most of the things the crazies say it does?
Consolidation of executive power always happens during wartime. As someone who leans Libertarian I find it distasteful but can't see a way around the problem. The only solution is to push hard for a return to normal as soon as the Islamic threat is beat back. Of course this is the first war where the party out of power tried to convince itself we weren't actually at war so they could feel justified in continuing the usual politics of national destruction.
"Silencing those who dissent"? Are you insane or do you just believe if you repeat a lie enough it will become the Truth? Name one dissident who has been silenced. We suffered through eight long years of nothing but loud rancourous dissent that crossed the line to treason more than once. How many AMERICAN CITIZENS did BushHitler put in to gulags? You idiots like to preen and think you are brave patriots speaking truth (or at least truthiness) to power but you are wrong. Try it in a real dictatorship and you can earn some actual Karma. You know, places your type loves to proclaim your love of but never get around to relocating to. Say Cuba for one example, they have thousands locked up but I'm sure they could make room for you.
"torture,revoking habeous corpus"
I won't concede that waterboarding is torture, but even if it is we did it to three, yes three, very high value targets. This isn't like we were torturing POWs in WWII who were mostly just conscripts, these were high ranking officers. Furthermore they aren't protected by the Geneva Conventions so we would have been perfectly within the laws of war to have simply executed them. And I really don't think you even know what a phrase like habeous corpus even means if you think we have been violating it.
"forced religion" Oh really. Example please? Or are you just regurgitating dailykos propaganda?
"racial profiling and exclusion" If only. Or are you suggesting it makes sense to consider a little old black lady travelling with her children as equally a risk as three twenty something middle eastern men two of which are named after their morally challenged prophet? No we shouldn't get too carried away with the racial profiling, but as a practical matter. For example the recent revelations about KSM's plan for an attack on LA was planned to use Asian (but Muslim) probably to avert suspiscion.
"warmongering" You guys have pretty much turned that phrase into a null, much like overuse has made 'bigot' and 'fascist' pretty empty. Especially since you idiots don't even know 'fascist' means you. Go read Goldberg's _Liberal Fascism_, it might just get ya to start questioning some of your assumptions about a great many things.
Democrat delenda est
You can't even bring yourself to type the name 'Barack.' Why should anyone take you seriously?
At least he didn't "Coulter" it calling him B. Hussein Obama to try to imply that he was related to Saddam or something. Or how about BO? That's a lovely one. I suppose after calling the last one Dubya or BushCo we should all expect this.
The same reason we always meddle, self interests. Its not really complex or difficult to figure out, nor are you particularly impressive to point it out.
Thats not to say that helping others is a bad idea, it serves your self interest as well. I don't mind helping others, but its done knowing full well may eventually serve to help me. All people, religious or otherwise do things only to serve themselves. You don't feed the starving children because its the right thing to do, you feed the starving children because it gives you warm fuzzies or helps you justify some other bad shit you've done.
All animals do things for self interest or die out. Sometimes the things they do for self interest are wrong and they die out anyway. Most humans like to lie about it to themselves and others and pretend they are being selfless. They aren't, they are just liars or in denial. Religious people who 'help others' typically do so because they think it'll help them in Gods eyes, not because they are actually selfless, regardless of what they may tell others or have convinced themselves.
To pretend that anything any animal does isn't for self interest is just total ignorance or stupidity, take you pick.
Back to the point, we're concerned about places in the Middle East more than places like Somalia because RIGHT NOW and in the near future Oil and instability in the middle east is more important to those in power than the problems in Somalia.
Lie to yourself however you want, denial is a great thing, but it changes nothing. We're all animals and we all do things for the same reason, regardless of what we call it.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Absolute Power, Corrupts Absolutely.
In his estimation, the only thing that governed what you did was your desire to do it, and property was whatever you could take - through force, including murder, if necessary, since he was also a strong proponent of amoralism.
So next time you want to tell me that "no anarchists" call it okay, you might want to do your own research first. You may not agree with him, but he was most certainly an anarchist. So next time you want to spout off based on your uninformed opinions about what constitutes anarchy versus libertarianism, reconsider what a gobshite it makes you appear to be.
I think the basic issue goes even deeper: President Bush and the neo-cons never came up with an exit strategy or asked themselves what they thought "victory in Iraq" would mean. I do think, however, that we're now moving toward an Iraq with a reasonably-honest government that the majority can live with even if they don't completely approve of it, and that's probably about the best we can expect.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Er what? Last time I checked, the Dems weren't proposing anything that would put us any farther to the left than Europe, and Europe is hardly hell on earth. On the contrary, we are behind a decent amount of those awful socialist countries on the quality of life index. I'm also wondering where you're getting narcissistic behavior out of Obama... seems like another one of those ridiculous strawmen that Republicans have been trotting out recently.
The rest of your post is just delusional mental masturbation where you imagine your political opponents as evil or stupid. This is probably in contrast to the paragon of intelligence, even-handedness, and integrity that you represent.
Here's a news flash: liberals aren't all that different than conservatives in that they want people to live generally free and happy lives. They just disagree with you on certain principles and means of accomplishing that. Your error is that you take your position to be the obvious truth, despite the fact that its not, and then use that to denigrate your opponents.
Not that this post will change your mind, since you seem to put herculean effort into your close-mindedness.
According to the source article: "Specter as a Democrat would also fundamentally alter the 2010 calculus in Pennsylvania". Also, after 2010 the laws of physics will no longer apply in Pennsylvania.
The US lost the minute we invaded Iraq. We changed a largely secular Iraq into a Shiite ally of Iran. We started an illegal war with a country that was not a serious threat to us. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/ll and little to do with terrorism other than some payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers after they died. I think we invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein wouldn't stay bought and paid for after our efforts to put him into power in the first place and the aid we sent him over the years. It was supposed to be an object lesson to others in his position but in the end just exposed how weak the US is in the long run. Don't get me wrong, Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and I'm not sad to see him gone but US actions have probably killed as many Iraqis in 7 years as he did in 30.
The terrorist are winning as we turn our country into a fearful police state that tries to monitor everything and stifles dissent as unpatriotic.
As far as I can tell he's the leader of the Republican Party right now.
"Put another way, Rush Limbaugh explicitly has said he wants President Obama to fail. Not his policies. Not his programs. His entire presidency. No Democrat of any significance actually made any statement calling for the war to be lost."
I've heard Rush a few times...not my cup of tea.
But, really why do so many people on the Dem side give him so much attention? He is just a radio entertainer. He holds no office. Has not run for any that I know of. And he does not run anything in the Republican party.
Who cares what he says?
Now, if some elected official says this type thing...well, then you have an argument. Someone that IS involved in policy making, can and should be held responsible for their actions and votes.
The reason anyone sensible pays any attention to Rush is because so many right wingers pay attention to Rush. It gave him no end of joy to encourage people to vote for Hillary during the primaries to get both Hillary and Barack to spend their money on battling each other instead of spending their money to campaign against McCain.
He cites any dip in the temperature as absolute proof that global warming - or climate change in any fashion - is scientifically non-existent (and I'm not gonna argue one way or the other here).
He takes a spit-balling idea proposed by a third party, attributes it (incorrectly) directly to the Democratic party and tells us that the Dems want to socialize America.
And right wingers listen to him. He was recently called the de facto leader of the Republican party. Of course Dems are vigilant.
Arlen Specter always was my favorite Reaper senator. He doesn't put up with much shit from people from either party.
In theory, a switch in the US to Canadian-style health care systems should allow for lower government expenditures...
Really, and what example do you base things on where having the government take over reduces cost?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Michael Steele
So the target moves? Very well then. Communism, in the Soviet model, was a political ideology which sought to implement socialist economic policies via a strong central government & a planned economy. Socialism is an economic model which advocates for community or state ownership of industry. To say that communism in this sense is not socialism is, semantically, correct - in the same way that it's correct to state that not all "Republicans" are "Compassionate Conservatives."
To claim that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did not have socialist economic policies, or that "socialism lite" like what is in place in "Denmark, Sweden, England, pretty much the entire EU, [...] and the USA," is the only thing that may rightfully be called "socialism" is not correct.
But please, feel free to offer me your remedial poli-sci course, maybe I can pass it around to some of my friends as a little joke.
That is what you took away from Stirner? That's the lesson you learned? Now everything becomes clear.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Sorry, I do not 'dig' your 'hole.' Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you, I just don't swing that way.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You're free to explain my misinterpretation of his takes on egoism and amoralism any time - if I'm in fact wrong, I'd welcome the addition to my knowledge.
Alternately, you could continue trying to be smug and clever, and failing at both.
The choice is all yours, makes no difference to me.
Amen! Mod parent up!
I'm a social anarchist. Libertarians pervert anarchy, and hide their selfishness behind a guise of liberty. What you don't say is that you want the liberty to take away the liberty of those you deem inferior, through economic means. Either that, or you are utterly deluded as to the consequences of your proposals.
As Adam Smith said, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." Libertarians want to reduce government to nothing more than the security of property. All they care about is the defense of the 'superior' rich against the rightful rage of the 'inferior' poor.
It is just so precious that you quote Havelock Vetinari of all fictional characters. The despot of Ankh-Morpork, the Machiavelli of Discworld, and the man that all libertarians truly strive to be.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Who said anything about taking what is yours? But since you brought it up, who decided what was yours to begin with? By what right do you exclude others, whom you have no contract with, from using things that you yourself aren't currently using?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The GOP's advocacy of an extremist form of corporate capitalism has finally caught up with what is now all that's left of the GOP, right wing extremists.
The "socialism" those right wing extremists keep screaming about is defined by the rest of the world as a MIXED economy. A form of capitalism in which the appetite of corporations to prey on and swallow up small businesses is controlled by social controls established in the form anti-trust legislation, and the worst abuses of employees is controlled by government regulation.
As we have found out the hard way, the only people actually freed by freeing the markets of government intervention/regulation are the thieves who prey on idiots like you, Brian, to let them steal away their money. Con artists will always find marks like you, Brian. Suckers always allow their greed to get them in places con men like ENRON, WorldCom, and Bernie Madoff feed on.
There are no reasonable solutions to be found anywhere in dogmatic extremism.
Powerlineblog? Seriously? Next you'll be quoting Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh at me. Cry more, emo Republican.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You haven't met socialists of the northern european variety, it seems. Many of them are well adjusted, much like Canadians. I think it has something to do with the cold weather, perhaps, and the idea that everybody has to really work together to survive the cold winters. Socialism doesn't seem to work quite as well in the warmer climates, where you can basically live off the land (low hanging fruit, literally) and people get obsessed about property rights and who gets to control the tree or plant with the low hanging fruit.
I digress a bit, but I'm actually rather serious. Socialism does work, particularly with small groups (just an extension of kin-group selection and altruism theory, if you want to look at it from an evolutionary biology perspective). Only problem is that it doesn't scale too well, and centralized economies to support socialism particularly don't work well (i.e. communism). But socialism on a small scale, and in harsh environments, works rather well.
Unfortunately, you don't seem to have had the opportunity to have met socialists from the northern countries or smaller community farm based environments.
That's almost never how it works. The minority doesn't provide a check over the majority. It just ensures that the majority is forced to put sufficient levels of pork into bills to get a few crossover votes.
Thankfully, the good thing is that the Democrats are rarely a single voting block. Unlike Republicans who are capable of voting in lockstep, Democrats often have far less uniformity.
Unfortunately that also just means that bills will be laden with pork in order to get those people on board.
The seniority system coupled with the inability to have single purpose bills in congress is the real problem. You need to be there for years before you are capable of bringing bills to the floor for a vote means that the bills that can be voted on will always be ones supported by the old guard.
I personally welcome any event which sidelines the extremists in congress. If Specter switching parties results in fewer Republican extremists with power then I'm all for it. The extremists in the Democratic party will never control the party completely. It's not that sort of party.
Cow Cube
Read some of President Washington's work and tell me how ANYTHING from the last 8 years even remotely comes close to the Framer's
vision!?!?
These would be the same Framers who owned slaves?
They couldn't give a crap about whether they EVER see another doctor again the rest of their lives.
They only care about their MONEY.
My, how compassionate and humanitarian of you.
Says a tard who gets sickened by the thought of universal health care. Hypocrite.
Just callin' it like I see it.
Both the Rs and Ds are corporate owned, no doubt. But if you think there are no substantive differences, you're an idiot.
Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
So, you're saying that places like Canada and Norway and Sweden are Hell on Earth? Interesting perspective. If that's so, sign me up! At least their hellholes have universal healthcare and respect civil rights.
"There are hundreds of regimes around the world doing worse. Some of them we even put in power. We do nothing there, why is Iraq different? THAT is the question. Why are we meddling there, and not in any place with real problems, like Somalia?"
Why should we?
Now you are starting to get it. We can't afford an expansive military policy any more. That is not a "liberal" thing, that is a practical thing. Foreign occupation requires TAXATION!!!! It's the thing you probably bitch about most with Obama, so why do you want to keep on getting taxed to pay for a war? Another hypocrite.
Just callin' it like I see it.
Socialistic Democracy works pretty damn well in Canada, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. That's what he's referring to. There are a lot of people in the US who would like to see the US be more like Canada.
What are you talking about? I don't remember him running on the platform of forcefully reforming nations all over the globe.
You might be surprised. Protestant Work Ethic. Spirit of Capitalism. All that. It's more common than you would suspect. I've certainly lived in numerous communities throughout the midwest where that was the norm. And for what it's worth, I *have* met lottery winners who continued to work after putting millions into the bank. That was a sad story, because the two people I'm thinking of lost their son to a motorcycle accident a few years after winning the lottery. They tried doing the not working thing for awhile, but eventually they just put it all in the bank, and went back to work like everybody else (but with a lot less stress). Here's a tip: money isn't everything, and it gets boring sitting around not having a job.
He is just a radio entertainer.
When Michael Steele, the head of the Republican party said that, he then had to issue an apology for speaking out against Rush.
"Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
So, it sounds like you did, in fact, have a job. You were just lucky enough to be able to work pro-bono, which is basically what volunteer work is.
You really have no idea what you're talking about, I'm afraid. Socialism is very different than centrally planned production economies, which is what communism is. Socialism in the context of what the grandparent was referring to referring to Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc. They're doing just fine. You're thinking of Communism, which is distinctly different.
I actually typed a whole response to this, but I realized when I was done that you're a strawman-building AC troll. John Galt thinks you're a lazy git - and on that, if little else, we agree.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Yeah, Rush is "popular" as radio talk show hosts go, but he couldn't win an election anywhere.
That challenge is DOA, declaring Iraq a failure again and again is just a mere grammatical difference from wanting the U.S. operation in Iraq to fail. At some point these same politicians need Iraq to fail to bail them out of the hole their remarks dug for them. Right Pee Wee?
The problem with the Libertarian ideal is that not all parties are able to be their own best advocates and enter into agreements as rational entities with liberties. For any number of reasons, ranging from genetics and upbringing to wealth and education, many people simply aren't able to enter into social contracts competently. Thus, rather than using the slave/slave owner metaphor, you wind up needing to use something more along the lines of the sheep/shepherd metaphor.
I don't think we really disagree much. Socialism may "work" when everybody is cool with it and wants it to. Just like religions "work" when everybody involved is a true believer and wants them to. But when you start involving people who are not entirely committed, then socialism, like religion, begins to break down rather rapidly as those who don't contribute--or actively work to undermine the system--drag down those who are productive.
But the fact that socialism works on a small scale among those who are truly committed to it isn't really surprising. Practically anything can be made to work on those terms. That's basically the premise behind any social activity, isn't it? From nudist colonies to the Society for Creative Anachronism, there are all sorts of things that work on a small level that don't scale very well. Pretty much any system whereby one person can cause direct harm to others by not participating is bound to collapse as it grows past a certain level.
Unlike the government that gets corrupted, private industy cannot by force of law and threat of imprisonment, take my money, my freedom or my life.
No, they just do it by force of force. The mob wants your land, they offer you something (amazingly enough, usually close to market, if not better). If you don't take the offer, they take it by force. Compare that to the government. If they want your land, they offer you something (market value, no more, no less, though sometimes there's issue in what's market value). If you don't sell, they take it by force. Whether one side has law on their side or not makes no difference. If you shrink government to the point where organized crime rules, then you have the same effect as a corrupt government. At least with a corrupt government, there is possibility of change.
Learn to love Alaska
Not news for nerds and completely irrelevant to any readers outside the US
I see I misjudged you. I took you for a fool, but I see now you are the greedy sort of socialist.
By what right do you entitle yourself to things that you decide I'm not using?
Maybe it's not as simple as "winning" or "losing"?
The primary objective seems to have been to get Saddam and his government out. We 'won' that part.
Unfortunately, nobody planned for what came after that. You could argye that we've been "losing" ever since, and might never "win" without resorting to genocide. (Similarly, admitting a loss isn't exactly the same thing as losing)
Look at the Israel/Palestine conflict. Nobody is ever going to walk away from that as the clearly-defined "winner"
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
I think Rush and the Republicans do a fine job of that on their own. There may be some amount of artful framing, such as acknowledging that Rush is a de facto leader (in that people who deviate from his narrative are demonized and later apologize to him), but the real liability in people like Rush doesn't need outside provocation.
Personalities like Rush are in fact fueling fracturing of the party by radicalization of the base with rhetoric about RINOs and how conservatism has never really been tried because the conservatives we've been electing weren't real conservatives or something.
Yes they can. Private industry can collude with others to prevent you getting a job. They can buy all the land around yours and refuse you access. They can pollute your land and kill you, then if you've got anyone left alive to sue them, they can beat them with hundreds of lawyers.
In fact, it is the government that can't take your money, your freedom or your life without good reason. Private industry feels no compunction against doing so.
Wow, are you kidding me?
#1 History has shown governments absolutely can take your life, your freedom, your money (hello TAXES!?!) without good reason. Regardless, your political viewpoint, if you disagree with how tax money is being spent your government is taking that money without good reason (in your view).
#2 It's funny that you mention that private industry can prevent you getting a job, can buy your land, etc etc. All of these things are possible through government/private corruption. If government actually got out of the way and did NOT intervene then market forces would prevent all of this. Think of it this way, if government politicians couldn't be bought off either monetarily or by votes why would a private company waste their time fooling with them?
The founding fathers were right, you need balance of powers... and right now that just simply doesn't exist.
-Prove that humans co2 emissions cause global warming, while i do agree that POLLUTION is a problem, (i.e. plastic waste, nuclear waste, smog etc...) I do not agree that CO2 emissions are single-handedly going to destroy the world.
Pollution affects the environment. Even if you don't believe global warming is caused by Humans, smog and nuclear waste are still bad.
-I make less than 30k/yr raising a son and my wife does not have a job. It is hard, but that is no right for the government to bury my son and my son's sons into higher taxes and big-government bureaucracy in the name of "fairness"
So lower social programs like education and environmental protection, and big business bureaucracy are OK but taxes and big government bureaucracy aren't?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Most smug handwaving post ever. Pass around to your friends as a little joke!
We will be out of this recession in a year and a half, and Obama will look like a genius.
The same was said about Roosevelt. Didn't turn out that way.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I think you are equating lack of participation in the Iraq War to losing it. People that wanted the US to pull out of Iraq didn't necessarily see that as losing it. Fighting the war and then not achieving the stated goals (removing Saddam, WMDs, winning hearts and minds) would be 'losing' in that context. Else you could say the US lost the race to socialism or failed to achieve a monarchy.
Don't forget, it was you free market, deregulate everything folks that put us in this position in the first place.
What's your next guess?
The Federal Reserve is not a free market institution. We were put in this position by a policy of holding interest rates below the rate of inflation throughout Greenspan and Bernanke's tenure. The result is just as Von Mises predicted: an inflationary bubble, followed by a crash.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Wow. Thank you.
-- Home is where you eat your heart out.
Can you give an actual example of a Conservative Republican who wants that? I don't think so. Hell, I'd be surprised if you came up with an example of a Conservative Republican, period.
Check my sig, you insensitive clod!
There is simply NO WAY to win this, your money and your planes and your bombs will NEVER EVER make these people quit slaughtering each other.
Why not? Saddam was able to do it.
They WANT to live under their crazy Sharia law, and you are NOT going to get them to behave like little Americans
Some do, most don't. That's why they helped kick Al Qaeda out during the Anbar Awakening. They didn't like the strictness and harshness of Al Qaeda. Also, a lot of places in Iraq are secular.
All you are doing is giving them a common target to shoot at, because the only thing they agree on is they ALL hate us.
This is false for so many reasons. They are people, they know the feeling a good shower, a good night sleep after a hard day's work. They understand loss, and they understand pain, and they, like anyone else, are trying to find their own happiness in the world. We in the United States have reason to believe a good functioning democracy can help with that goal, and if they work together as a country, they will go farther and be happier than if they fight violently in tribal struggles. Do we have selfish reasons to try to teach them this? Yes, they were annoying us. But the underlying principle is true, and as soon as they understand it, they better it will be for them.
There was a time Europe was also just a bunch of warring tribal warlords, and yet today they have become the countries of the European Union. There is no reason to believe Iraq will not make a similar transformation, and leave the dark ages.
Qxe4
The army - we police the world. When our Founding Fathers greatly cautioned having a standing army. They preferred we be an armed populace and a neutral nation. In fact, it would only cost us one year's military budget to arm the entire populace of able bodied Americans. This would make America safe from everything but strategic / mass weapons. So the only other investment we'd need be strategic, missile defense, radiological protections.
Police - I want a refund. I've had to dial 9-1-1 three times in my life. Zero response to any of my calls.
Fire Service - This is a good one, but frankly...we Americans pay more than enough local taxes to cover this one.
Schools - Poor performing schools that teach very little history or science. And focus most of their energy on instigating social woes. Let's not even get into higher education and all it's indoctrination. Nor the fact that in places like California an illegal alien can get aid to attend a state college but a resident cannot.
Healthcare (ideally) - Really, so that we can have 90 day waits for basic service? So we can bankrupt the nation? Or as pretty much all socialized medicine systems in the world do - apply cost/benefit systems so that elderly are not treated. Because their death is economically beneficial to the system.
Justice - We have a bulti-billion dollar legal system. It has very very little justice in it. Criminals, felons who are stopped with firearms are released - at least until they kill a Philly cop. Meanwhile, good decent folk constantly find themselves at the mercy of the court on minute technicalities. Such as the folks in Washington D.C. being ticketed for parking in their own driveways.
Social Services - You mean like the !@#$% I had renting one of my apartments. Who worked the system, neglected her child, didn't pay the $22/month of rent she owed me (the rest being paid by Section 8). Who got disability, child support, and welfare. And was a rude racist woman that bragged about taking advantage of the system.
Sorry, I grew up poor. As a child I thought the kids on welfare were rich. I wanted to be on welfare. In the 80's they always had the color TVs, cable, and ATARI's. Now they have 40" HDTVs, HD Cable, iPhones and Xbox 360's. Meanwhile, many of us who work have had to cut out cable and such luxuries.
How can helping my neighbour help me? - Well, the current administration is talking about greatly reducing the tax incentive for helping others. In fact, we had $10,000 in tax deductions but it doesn't wind up benefiting us.
***
What we do get from the government.... TRASH PICK-UP. I'll take a pass on the rest of government, thank you very much.
In fact, if you reduce the burden of government on the people. I believe most of the needs of society would be provided for, at least to those that will benefit. Sorry, a great many of the homeless are there because of their own doing. They repeatedly receive help and squander it.
I'd wager that 90% of the aid given is consumed by a small sliver of the populace, who are like leeches. Things such as welfare should be limited in time and scope. They also should help raise someone to the next level. Instead, most of our services are designed to encourage poor behavior. Get on welfare, start to work and they take away the help. Now you find yourself still just barely keeping your head above water, but working 40 hours to do so. It's easier to go back to not working and being at the same or better level.
It'd be much better to supplement work. You want welfare, get a job. Who cares what it is...it could be McDonalds or it could be unpaid volunteer position with a charity. Then give enough welfare aid to make a difference.
I'm not going to say that going into Iraq in the first place was the best idea, although I'm glad Saddam is gone, but leaving now is (IMO) the same as going to somebody's home, making a mess and then leaving without helping clean up after yourself. Much of the mess in Iraq can be laid at our doorstep, and I think we have a moral obligation to help Iraq put itself back together again.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Most of the other things the feds spend money on, however, are nowhere to be found in the constitution.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I suppose it isn't to everyone. It pretty much is to me...I like having as much as possible because it enables me to do what I want in life. I ONLY work, to enable myself to do and buy the things I like.
I really believe that the majority of people work because of that...and if they didn't have to, they'd not have a 'job'.
That's not to say, if you are wealthy enough not to work, you don't keep yourself occupied. Some may like to spend their time helping others. That's cool. But, it isn't a job...it isn't something you HAVE to do to earn a living. That is a job.
Me? Nope...I could find plenty to keep myself occupied without working another day in my life. I like to travel...hit tropical places, hang on a beach for weeks with rum drinks. I'd like to get on my bike and ride around the US during the nice months. I like taking chicks out to eat, going out, dancing, etc.
Nope I could go without working for the rest of my life if I had a $$ windfall.
I can't believe that "I" am the outlier in that scenario.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
That is not always true, and you're just repeating propaganda you've heard about "conservatives."
I may not be conservative myself but I know a few intelligent conservatives (not neo-cons!) who do not equate marxism, communism and socialism and can tell the difference. They simply oppose socialism on their understanding that it's "less efficient."
I honestly don't know what I believe anymore but you can't paint everyone the same.
Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
At the time, the vote was to lose. It was a vote to leave the country in chaos, no sustainable government in place, power vacuum, and a haven for terrorists.
The vote went to "win" instead. Now we'll be leaving a strong, democratic, anti-terrorist government in place. The country will be peaceful -- more than it has been in 30-40 years at least. No place is a utopia.
So yeah, it turned out pretty simple. As simple as "winning" or "losing"? Maybe not. But pretty close.
Yes and no. The entire point of a representative is to represent his constituents, not his base. If the majority of the registered voters in his state are now democrat, then why shouldn't he be in the party that the majority of his state identifies with? If he does a poor job of representing them he looses his job, as it should be.
Interesting polls lately state that only 21% of peopled polled would identify themselves as Republican. It appears that the only folks left in the party are the extreme right wing 'base'. They have driven out any of their moderates like Specter. Why can't he be a moderate democrat instead of a moderate republican? For moderates, it's all a shade of gray anyway.
Given the numbers above, I would have to agree with Specter. His party left him.
Err....if you depend on insurance for your healthcare. When did this become synonymous?
Saving for your healthcare can and really should be something you budget for, just like other life needs. I do that...with a health savings account...
My only gripe is, I can't put more money in it pre-tax.
Insurance, yes, it is a racket, and does need to be fixed. But it shouldn't be for everyday health needs...just for catastrophic needs. Everyday stuff, should be paid by YOU.
It isn't hard. I do agree, tho...that insurance should be fixed so it cannot exclude some people.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Spot on. This false Liberal/Conservative duality is the one and only thing responsible for running this country into the crapper. They're two faces of the same stupid and corrupt coin--the efforts of lobbyists most often accurately reflect this. I think the power of the Internet is spreading this view point, but the hurdle will be at the poles.
Even though the idea of parties were distasteful to some of the founding fathers, perhaps it's time for a Constitutionalists party.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Nope, not in my experience with my own care, nor was this a factor with any Dr.s I've worked with.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
"Here's a news flash: At this rate, things are going to come to a head, one way or another. And only one side of this argument owns guns."
That's where you are quite mistaken. Those on the other side also have guns and are quite good marksmen. It's America, and Progressives pack heat too.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
That seems like a fairly good read of the situation, really. Rush is an entertainer, not a politician or someone who has to deal with political realities - and he's happily cooperated with Democrats to make himself a primary voice of the Republican party for his own benefit. Witness the series of Republican elected officials who have tried to distance themselves from him, then had to go crawling back to apologize within three days.
Also, the adjectival term is 'Democratic.' If you want to be taken seriously and not as a grammar-challenged Foxbot, it helps to use the grown-up words and not their petulant preschool deliberate "hey look I'm a Republican" error.
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
There is a huge difference between wanting your country out of a war & wanting your country to *lose* a war.
At the risk of sounding like I'm supporting anyone that wants to lose a war, I'd point out that since Japan and Germany lost WW2, they haven't started or really be involved in any other major conflicts.
Compare that with the USA, that have never suffered a defeat like that... maybe losing a war is what the USA needs to stop mixing it up with everyone else all over the globe.
(disclaimer: yep, I know it took the Germans a couple of goes before they gave up :)
If this is what you think, then you are probably extremist left-wing yourself. Their platform is more related to the Libertarian platform than any right-wing Republican faction.
Let's try it again slower for you. They voted for the side that recognized that there was no such thing as 'winning' in the current situation rather than the magic-pixie side that had been saying for six years running "You just have to clap harder and then we'll win!" without actually defining what 'winning' would be. 'Losing' the war would be easy: becoming overstretched to the point of being militarily incapable of continuing to field forces in the area. 'Winning' requires more than just staying there for another hundred years.
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
As Washington warned, they will start serving themselves rather than the people. A politician will serve the party above the people who elected him. That means the parties run the country, not the representatives, not the people who elected them.
I would be praising him if he had left over ideological differences, if we knew he was tired of being told how to vote and wanted to serve the people, not the party. But it's obvious he only did this to keep his job.
I don't know how many of you have been paying attention for how long, but on the whole politicians are filthy bastards. Left or Right. You can't trust a word that comes out of their mouths. They'll f*ck over anything resembling a principled position if they think it'll give them 2 more points at the poles.
They're incompetent. Their only demonstrated competency is getting elected. They ruin everything they touch.
Left or Right. Doesn't matter. If a national politician is making the government do something, it'll be corrupt and expensive. The campaign promises they tell you are all bullsh*t.
They're not gonna save you. They're not gonna fix your life. The worthless promises they made to you they made to 300 million people. I have a hard time believing anyone can look at national politicians, in general, and not see a pile of incompetent filth.
There is only one conclusion to be drawn, when you understand this:
The Federal Government must be minimized.
(this is often true for local and state politicians as well, but they're much more vulnerable in the polls, or it's much easier to escape their grasp.)
There isn't a person here who won't go on a five minute rant about the fed's incompetence on some pet topic of theirs. Many folks will then turn around and say how they want MORE government in area X.
Are you insane? Can you not see that the same defective processes and incentives that create the absurd behavior in the parts of the government you hate, would be present in the expanded parts of the government that you advocate? Do you somehow think the politicians on subcommittee X and bureaucrats at Agency PDQ would be cut of finer cloth?
What I advocate is how we started: The federal system. You can and should have anything you want as a government in your local states, Constitution and Amendments notwithstanding. If you can convince a majority of your fellow state citizens to vote for it, go for it.
And if you think your state is run by a bunch of idiots, and you can't get enough people to vote your way to change it, then you can leave to a state that suits you better. Or you can decide that your disagreements with your fellow citizens are tolerable, given whatever cost you associate with moving.
You have choice in the proper federal system. You are a free agent.
On the other hand, an over-reaching Federal Government gives you one big idea, right or wrong. You're stuck with it. The details of your life are dictated by a power-mad bunch in Washington that you have essentially no influence over.
There are a very, very few functions that can essentially be done by the Federal Government only. It should serve only those functions. If there is any other way to get a function done besides the federal government, it should be done by those alternates. Town Governments. State Governments. Private Charity. Churches.
I don't care which, really. Because you have a choice, and I have a choice, when the role of the federal government is limited. When there is no limit, YOU ARE STUCK with whatever bright idea those 535-ish chuckle heads in Washington come up with.
Oh, and if your bright idea X has been tried on the state level and failed, it wasn't because you lacked the power and money to properly implement your idea. It's because it was a bad idea. More money and power will only amplify the failure and trap us all.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Specter will be 80 years old come the 2010 election. At that point he'll be 18 years past SS retirement age. He is completely ineffective as a Senator. He's been nothing but a puppet for years since his mind fell apart long ago. He should have retired long ago and given younger blood a chance to represent the state. He damn well should have retired this week instead of switching parties. This musical chairs act should tip off the entire state that he's merely power hungry and cares nothing about doing the work of his constituents. I'd vote against him because of the party switch, were I a Pennsylvanian.
80 years old and switching parties merely to hang onto his job. He's got plenty of money. It's all about maintaining his "power". He needs to go. I hope the folks of the state come to their senses and boot this old fart out in 2010 regardless of party affiliation.
Find any Democrat of any national significance who has actually made a statement about wanting a collapse, please.
Which proves nothing other than the fact that said Democrats are smart enough to know that saying what they actually are thinking (and planning...and implementing as we speak) would be counterproductive to their ultimate goals, that being converting the U.S. into a socialist worker's paradise.
The pity is, while we, the most capitalistic and wealthy nation on the planet, are rushing headlong towards something resembling socialism (which has never brought any country that ever tried it to anything remotely resembling the wealth an stature the U.S. has enjoyed for nearly a century), the former socialist and communist nations are rushing headlong towards something resembling capitalism. The end result will be a diminution of U.S. economic, political, and military power throughout the globe, a power vacuum that will be filled by other nations far less savory than ours. Perhaps that's why the countries who stand the most to gain from our downfall are the ones cheering the loudest for our newest, youngest, most inexperienced, most liberal President.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I don't see it as a 'job,' per se. I certainly didn't see it as that then. I chose to live on very little means, couch surfing, sleeping at my union office, in my van, wherever I could. I did it for selfish reasons, because helping others and working in a community of like minded individuals made me feel good. Which is my point. Most people are like me, they are just afraid of being taken advantage of.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Liberals did not want the USA to lose, we believed the USA was likely to, and for that reason pursuing it was a bad policy.
Funny how Obama voted against the surge, then refused to acknowledge the success of it. Now he's redeploying troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. What makes him able to redeploy said troops? The success of the surge...you know, the one he voted against. The one Reid said had "failed." The one Pelosi and Murtha condemned. It would be damned hilarious if it wasn't so serious.
Whether you want to acknowledged it or not, there is a real difference between the liberal fear (circa 2000) that George Bush would pursue policies that would prove disastrous to the United States, and the current behavior of the Right, cheering for Democrats to fail so they can regain power.
You're right, there's a huge difference. Liberal ranting circa 2000 made it quite clear that America would fail anything it tried, so long as Bush was the one trying it. After all, Bush Stole The Election(tm)! He must be opposed! If the Democrats tried similar policies, however, they would, of course, wildly succeed. Really quite objective when you think about it. Not. Of course, you're forgetting that practically every Democrat in Congress at the time -- including our current Secretary of State -- voted in favor of giving Bush war powers. What did they think Bush was going to do, waggle his finger at Saddam and say "you've been a bad boy"?
As for the "current behavior of the right," the only thing we're hoping for is that Obama and the Democrats go ahead and overreach (which Democrats always do) sooner rather than later. Then we can make sure Phenomena Obamana is a one-term aberration before we cross so far into the socialist worker's paradise that it takes decades and a revolution to get us back out again. But with trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, Obama has proven he can do an enormous amount of damage in a very short period of time. Don't think so? Just wait. You'll be paying for it shortly in the form of higher taxes, higher inflation, higher interest rates, and stagnant economic growth. And your kids will be paying for it. And if Obama sticks around for another four years, their kids will likely be paying for it as well, assuming we're not all owned lock stock and barrel by the Chinese by then. You'll get your "Universal Health Care", and it will be the best lowest-common-denominator care you can find, on par with the likes of third-world nations like Mexico, home of the swine flu. Liberal ideology has never squared all that well with reality, but that doesn't keep you from trying anyway, does it?
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I'm asking an honest philosophical question. I am not a socialist, I'm an anarchist. Well, more of a anarcho-syndicalist.
The right I have is that you and I don't have a personal agreement not to touch each other's stuff, and I don't know what you are claiming is yours. I mean, realistically, you and I do live in civilization, and so we have an unspoken agreement.
We also need to categorize 'stuff' a little more carefully. Your personal possessions, I would never touch and in fact, I would help you defend them from someone who tried to take them. Your house, same way.
Your lands, well, there's where it starts to get fuzzy. A factory? Mineral rights? Intellectual 'property?' Now that's getting pretty abstract. And harder to defend, requiring more of my time and effort? What do I get out of you having the right to own a factory and the output of it's workers?
Where do these rights derive from? I'm honestly curious what your answer will be.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Liar. Anyone who can read a graph knows that the New Deal worked perfectly. The only hiccups in the graphs coincide with the Republicans pitching a fit and getting him to back off from his plans.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I read Atlas Shrugged twice, but I still haven't read that speech. I think the book is an entertaining read because it is such a patently ridiculous and long winded straw man, but this chapter is just unbearable.
I had several years where I didn't work and was free to do whatever I pleased. I volunteered with homeless advocacy groups and soup kitchens for 35 hours a week. It was some of the most fun I've had in my life.
Now try doing it 40 hours a week, every week, for the rest of your life. Suddenly your little "project" isn't so appealing anymore.
I give to charity, but I do it of my own free will to the charities I deem worthy of my time and money. If you feel differently, fine, that's your right. But don't come knocking on my door telling me how I need to be altruistic according to your standard, or Obama's standard, or anyone else's.
I probably pay more in taxes than you make in a year. When you get to the point where you're paying as much into the system as I am -- and getting as little out of it as I do -- then you can lecture me. Until then, shut the hell up and enjoy your free ride at my expense.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
"socialism" doesn't mean what the bulk of americans (ie "you") think it means. Most of Europe, Canada and South America are "socialist".
Oh, you mean those bastions of freedom, economic liberty, and developers of science like Europe (see France's unemployment riots, Germany's massive debts, the UK's slide from Empire to Third Rate Nation), Canada (whose citizens, fed up with "universal" healthcare, head south of the border to get critical medical care whenever they can), and South America (home to dictators, thugs, corruption, drugs, and crushing poverty). Yep! SOCIALISM! Gimme more of that!
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I got no free ride at your expense, twit. I had fifteen thousand dollars in savings, from freelance computer work, and it lasted me two years. That was nearly two decades ago. Now I'm a senior level network administrator.
Pay your taxes and whine some more on your blog, righty.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
No, the core underpinning of liberal values is "weakness makes right". I'm against the Iraq War as much as anyone, but I'm against it because invading other peoples' countries is wrong.
My God how hard can you troll? It appears everyone's taking you seriously.
Hahaha, oh I always love that fantasy world you live in. Fortunately for America, you are wrong, and we will do just fine. We will be out of this recession in a year and a half, and Obama will look like a genius. He will sweep the next presidential election in a landslide, and we will get Universal health care. This will do so much to restore American competitiveness that we will experience huge economic growth before he leaves office, ushering in even more socialism, as people realize it just plain works.
OK, now I can't tell which of you is trolling harder.
COME ON PEOPLE. There is not going to be some kind of dramatic, miraculous movement in any direction. God will not reach out of the heavens and give a sign indicating which way the United States of America should go -- largely because Americans ain't the Chosen People ;-). Stuff will be worked out to stop the recession/depression, and people will adopt it. Whoever invented it will see a fruitful political career, and their enemies will fall from power steadily. Life will go right back to normal. That is how reality works. Maybe we'll get universal health care, maybe we won't. It depends on who does what when in which context.
Learn some subtlety and nuance, ya partisan hacks!
Bush ran on "no nation-building," then proceeded to do exactly the opposite.
It's called public services and infrastructure. They work most efficiently when run by the government, as proven by statistical evidence from some dozen First-World nations. Deal with it.
Money? I don't believe they ask me whether the reason is good before taking it. Land? Muddy at this point but if my land were to stand in the way of a government supported project I would hedge my bets. Life? The government generally needs to have a reason to execute you, but they can "pollute your land and kill you" just as well as private industry.
I live in PA and I also voted democratic in the last election. Having said that and without getting into the whole republican vs democrat debate ...
This guy has been a republican for 30 years and now he suddenly decides 'nevermind, im a democrat'
He could have waited till the end of his term to switch parties, that would at least be fair for the people that re-elected him in the first place..
it sounds like he just wants to get re-elected and he suddenly realized that there is no way he'd hold his seat as a republican, and an even
smaller chance he'd hold it as an independant.
how can we trust a politician to stand by his word, when he cant even stand by his party ...
whether or not your republican or democrat, make a stand and stand by it.
I wouldn't vote for him again out of principal
in any case, i also believe that it would serve our country well, if the senate and house also had a 2 term limit. it's nice to have new ideas
every now and then....
just my $0.02
programmer (noun): A multi-cellular organism that converts caffeine into code (see also 'geek')
"Neighbours are allowed weapons sizeable to a small army and shoot trespassers with impunity
Actually that sounds pretty awesome. :)"
Democrats, Republicans. Whatever. What I'm interested in is civilization and civilized behavior, which apparently you aren't. You do have a point about tolerance, which Obama at least seems to have a good deal of. On the other hand, it would be hard to imagine a more whiny bunch than the Republicans right now. They lose the election by a large margin and all of the sudden they're talking about seceding from the union. Give me a break.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
He's not going to make any money if he keeps giving away copies of Atlas Shrugged like that.
I know, it should be underlined, but I can't for the life of me make the underline tag work. I'm not very good at HTML
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in the mud. After a while, you realize the engineer enjoys it.
Who was the first US President to dedicate Federal funds to embryonic stem cell research?
That would be George W. Bush... the very first president to be in office when embryonic stem cell research became something you could fund. Clinton's administration started looking into whether funding human embryonic stem cell research was feasible (ethically, legally), in 1998. It took a couple of years before the issues were worked out... but by then, Bush was president. Of course, the funding he approved was limited to existing stem cell lines, which was of minimal utility.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
The 'demonizing' would seem to be a natural by-product of a little thing like him supporting the other party's candidate for president, don't you think? Not to mention spending the preceding six years loudly refusing to investigate the failures of the Bush administration, voting to confirm Bush's hard-rightist judicial appointments like Alito and Roberts, and opposing large sections of the Democratic platform. And yet somehow they still 'demonized' him all the way into getting to keep his committee chairmanship after all that once Democrats took the majority. So harsh!
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
You seem to need some remedial English classes to help you with comprehension and grammar. Declaring 'this entire boondoggle is a failure from the start' in and of itself precludes even the possibility of wanting or needing the boondoggle in question to fail, because it already has. At that point, it's a debate between the people who want to minimize the damage caused by the failure and the people who keep insisting that the magical pixies really can fix everything and somehow retroactively 'win' if everyone just claps harder. If you're having trouble understanding - well, really, I'm not surprised.
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
> Europe is hardly hell on earth
Looked at their tax rates lately? More importantly have you looked at their birth rate? Europe is dead, twenty or thirty years from now there won't be enough of them left to hold back the barbarian hordes they are growing in their slums. It's math and it's ugly. If they faced up to the problem NOW and started giving massive subsidies to encourage breeding they might could save themselves but it isn't a sure thing. If they also deported every non-citizen in those slums the odds might come up to even. And with every day of inaction the odds get just a little longer. Not that it matters since the typical European has lost the will to even try to defend himself or his civilization. And that's just defending on the field of ideas, actual physical action is something only the street gangs know about. In Paris it is a good night if the roving bands of barbarians only burn a dozen cars, it only becomes a story when the number goes up to the hundreds.
But even now most of Europe is low economic growth and slowing, increasing political cleansing and loss of liberty and with the current downturn their welfare states are coming apart at the seams. As Lady Thatcher is claimed to have said, "Eventually you run out of other people's money to spend." And sooner than most people think we too will run out of other people's money to loot. Probably when China decides to stop buying our debt instruments.
Democrat delenda est
Old Saddam kept order by gassing everyone that disagreed with him. I can't really see Americans dropping mustard gas, which is pretty much the ONLY way you are going to "win" there.
Saddam gassed people to keep them from revolting, because if they wanted to change something, they had to revolt. The democratic way is to give people a way to change things without violence. Of course, if they don't accept the non-violent way, America has shown it is not afraid to kill them: see Fallujah
It is about OIL, it has ALWAYS been about OIL
Come back when you understand what the Iraq war is actually about.
The petro dollar is pretty much the only damned thing we have left in the country.
Demonstrating once again your naivete. The United States produces more than any other country, and has a strong industrial base. The only reason you could say that "the petro dollar is the only thing we have left" is if you don't actually understand how the US economy works.
Let us look at the facts, okay? ..... FACT- Iraq is made up of THREE completely separate groups that frankly can't agree on shit. These are of course the Sunni, The Shia, and the Kurds.
Let's look at the real facts. The power structures in Iraq are divided along tribal lines, not along religious lines. In fact, most of Iraq is secular. The fact that you think the Sunni/Shia division is most important shows that you've gotten your information only in passing, not from a deep investigation of the matter. In essence you know nothing about Iraqi politics.
"Inside every gook.......while we make deals with China(true evil) is not only BS, it is kinda insulting,okay?
Oh nice, fortify your position of ignorance with racism. Smooth. Not only have you demonstrated your ignorance on politics and foreign affairs, you've also shown you lack the ability to understand other people at all. Racist. I can't believe it. What kind of idiot are you? Wake up and enter reality already.
And the hawks will blame the dems for not letting them "win" when the simple fact is you can NEVER win.
They won't. Obama is continuing the war. You seem to have not noticed.
In conclusion get some sense in your brain before opening your mouth and you will be a lot more intelligent. May sound harsh, but seriously, if you don't get over that racism, there's a special circle in hell for you. In this life too (more importantly).
Qxe4
In my paperback copy, it was 120 pages. I read the first 10.
Hello little man. I will destroy you!
Well, you don't have to worry about contraception when you're in a rack. You only have to worry when you're in a genitalia.
Iraq has been a mess for a long time. If it wasn't a mess before the 1980's, the war with Iran sure made it into one.
I think the most likely outcome for Iraq is in a year's time, we have succeeded enough that we can leave and let the Iraqis take it from there. And Iraq will function for a few years, but slowly degrade until it is once again a mess. Why? Because the place is an environmental disaster and cannot provide for itself. Maybe they can hold off the chaos for a few years, if they have the will and wit to use oil revenue wisely. I'm not at all sure they have that kind of discipline and restraint. But even if they do, all it will take is the next collapse in the oil markets, and then Iraqis will be fighting one another over food. There won't be enough to go around. A classic thing done time and time again by societies facing massive unrest is war. War diverts the people's attention, gets the excess population killed off, and if they win, may bring in plunder. The quicker the West cuts its need for oil, in order to deal with Global Warming, the harder it will be for Iraq.
It is these sorts of realities and problems that the naive Bush government seemed to utterly overlook. They had no vision of what was really wrong with Iraq and how to proceed to fix those problems once the war was won. They saw only an odious dictator oppressing a country that wanted peace and freedom. So it seemed to them that the Iraqi nation would instantly right itself if only the grip of the dictator was broken for them. The trouble was, that if the Iraqis were as enlightened as that, they themselves would have long since sent Saddam packing, without need for outside help.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
yea single issues like:
"...including illegal immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership ..." and "Disgruntled Military Veterans"
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Same here. And, I agree that I have little hope for Iraq's future, but for a different reason than you. AIUI, Iraq is a hodgepodge of different tribes, cultures and religious sects slapped together by Britain after WWI out of the wreckage of the Ottoman Empire. About the only thing keeping it hanging together is the fact that most of them know that if it falls apart, the pieces will be snapped up by their neighbors, and they don't want that. It's rather like the parochial sectionalism in the US before the Civil War when people identified themselves more by their home state than by their country, but without whatever glue kept the country together in those days. Still, if it does hang together for a few years after we're gone, we won't be blamed (too much) for the breakup, and that's about the best we can hope for.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Oh yeah. The FEMA had nothing to do with Katrina aftermath. Wait. You're right! FEMA had nothing to with the aftermath! (And that was the problem.) Heckuva job Brownie.
The same one that simultaneously forbid additional stem cells lines, thus leaving only lines of dubious value.
I don't have a problem with having a strong military.
Way to canopy foreign occupation under "defense". I think I'll canopy universal health care under the "life" part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and we'll be even.
Just callin' it like I see it.
While I applaud Mr Specter's apparent inclination toward good judgment, this seems to be the latest in what has become a disturbing trend. As the last of the sensible say "to Hell with the republican party," this leaves the most extreme to run half of our country's major political parties. While I've heard talk about a possible third party emerging out of this political turmoil, in 2012 we will most likely be faced with the decision between a republican or a democrat. The recent exodus of moderates from the republican party leaves only the profoundly stupid and the religious zealots (though these two categories are far from being mutually exclusive) to chose 50% of our realistic presidential candidates. This shouldn't sit well with anyone. I say that a push must be made to register reasonable people in the republican party in hopes of moderating what is currently a juggernaut of poor judgment.
For twelve years, you have been asking: Who is John Galt?
Where's the equivalent of the RIAA for books? I want to report a violation. Can't have any parasites or thieves steal an honest womans hard work like that.
In fact, it is the government that can't take your money, your freedom or your life without good reason.
Drug asset forfeiture, GITMO, disproportionate racial representation on death row.
I don't know how anyone could say that statement with a straight face after thirty years of the war on drugs and the last eight of George Bush. Neither industry nor government can be trusted. Unchecked industry will become government. Unchecked government will become fascist.
Something about a tree of liberty and the blood of patriots...
We should only do things that protect and spin things in the interests of our country.
Are you saying that the killings in Iraq are a PR move?
I can't believe that---there are so many things wrong with that. So if not that, could you please explain what it means?
capitalism (ie freedom)...
The worst kind of slavery is the one you choose for yourself.
That would be the most hilarious example of unintentional irony ever - if only it wasn't so tragic.
Sorry to butt in, but this argument always confused me.
Where do these rights derive from? I'm honestly curious what your answer will be.
You've got the answer right here:
Your personal possessions, I would never touch and in fact, I would help you defend them from someone who tried to take them.
And all other kinds of ownership are based off that same intuitive sense of ownership.
Your lands, well, there's where it starts to get fuzzy.
Well, you have no problem with me owning apples that I've picked, even if I'm not hungry right now and someone else is. So wouldn't the same logic apply to an apple tree I've planted? Other than the fact that I can't carry the apple tree with me, and the tree is planted rather than picked, it's pretty much the same situation - because of my actions I possess something, and have the right to keep it.
A factory?
Just an extension of the same logic of the apple tree - the people who built it preformed the actions necessary to create it, so they have a special relation with it - ownership. Of course, in modern times the sale of the finished factory to someone else is prearranged, so the actual builders end up with money rather than the factory, but the concept is the same.
Mineral rights? Intellectual 'property?'
These are a bit different, and have more to do with governments trying to encourage certain activities - we want people to invest in things (prospect or create) and fully exploit things (be able to let others in without losing control of it). Just like recognizing other people's right to own factories is good for you even if you never own a factory, because you can buy things made in factories (like the computer that you're on), recognizing these more abstract rights means that more minerals and creative works are available to you. (Even though in the case of IP the current system seems to be counterproductive, the concept itself isn't so crazy.)
Really? As part of the global warming camp, I didn't realize we got the go-ahead to start killing people.
This should make my job a lore more enjoyable.
Yes, unfortunately we had to listen to eight years of such infantilisms from one side, like "Bushitler" and comparing him to a chimp and making him out to be the dumbest man that ever walked the earth, so now we'll prolly get to hear eight years of lame teleprompter references et al. from the juvenile and inane on the other side. Great.
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
Anyone who can read a graph knows that the New Deal worked perfectly.
Ok, you got me. Before you wrote this I wasn't sure if you were serious or not. Well trolled, sir.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Bullshit. I've seen a lot of people who thought America was losing, saw the amount of damage its presence was causing Iraq, and wanted to pull out and cut losses all round. I haven't seen anyone this side of a straw man who actually wanted Iraq to be a clusterfuck and hundreds of thousands to die just to discredit Bush. This guy, on the other hand, wants a complete economic collapse - which, at the end of the day, would probably have a similar death toll - just to discredit Obama.
To know recursion, you must first know recursion.
You can't take a single sound byte of Rush and be able to interpret his meaning from it, but that's what people like to do. They'll take a single statement, ignore the rest of his monologue which either leads up to or follows up on that statement and blow it out of context. Rush's transcripts are available on his website WITHOUT a membership. Go look them up.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
But they didn't have the votes they needed to lose. So now we've won instead.
"Winning" requires we leave a stable, peaceful country behind. That's what will happen. It mostly already has happened. And it happened because the people who wanted to quit and give up (and lose) failed in their efforts.
So we can't work on one problem until we can solve them all?
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
All that screaming and crying i heard last night is my neighbor's wife's problem. Not mine.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
First the ignorance and bigoted nonsense expressed in 99% of the posts here is saddening.
The loss of a filibuster isn't going to result in run-away 1-sided legislation. The reason is the President, who has to run for re-election needs swing votes next election and will not want to come off as a party tool this year.
If Republicans were to try and use a filibuster and the democrats locked them out that would be, in several states, political suicide losing far too many moderates. They'd lose their super majority quickly if they tried to "crush the enemy" which is nonsense. Democrats and Republican represenatives get along just fine, they have differing political ideologies is all. It's considerably more civil then the news makes it out to be.
Either way my question is this: Who, in their right mind, feels confortable giving a legislature, regardless of which party, that kind of power when they have an over all approval rating lower then 20%?
Out of 100 people 80 don't like the democrats or republicans in the legislature. Who finds this super majority a good idea? The 20% that do approve of their job?
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
An Iraqi problem caused by the US. Nice.
Anyone who can read a graph knows that the New Deal worked perfectly
Oh, and for the benefit of anyone who thought you might have been serious, here are the words of Henry Morgenthau (Roosevelt's treasury secretary) testifying before the House Ways and Means committee in May 1939, on the failure of the New Deal programs:
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
As long as you keep seeing these artificial constructs of "countries" and "borders", you'll keep missing the real point - even what happens in Somalia effects everyone else. There is no impenetrable barrier around Somalia separating them from the rest of the world - we're all connected. Hopefully one day people will realise there is no "them" and "us", only "us". If a country can help, it is honour-, and duty-bound to help.
The average age of Senators in the 109th. Congress is 60.4 years, the oldest in history I believe also we need to put term limits on the senate and house. these people have been ruling the country for more then there fair share of time. we need to get some younger people in office who have been living in real society rather then the ones who have living in the world called Washington D.C. .... our founding fathers didn't have degrees in politics and neither should the 110th congress they should be problems solvers from various jobs around the country. We need people who will listen the the voices the nation the "people" and not the ones looking to get some extra pork on the side. WE THE PEOPLE RULE THIS LAND NOT THE GOVERMENT AND WE NEED TO REMIND WASHINGTON THAT.
If the US pulled out of Iraq... who or what would be killing Iraqis? Other Iraqis? Sounds like an Iraqi problem, not a US problem.
No, not necessarily, most of the "insurgents" in Iraq have not been Iraqis, but muslims from other nations (mostly Arabs, but some non-Arabs from other muslim countries).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Amazingly, FEMA was FASTER with their response to Katrina in New Orleans than their response to Homestead, FL after Andrew... New Orleans just got more coverage for some reason... (Insert Conspiracy Theory Here)
It's not FEMA's job to respond to disasters. It's the job of State and Local officials. FEMA is there to provide logistical support. Everyone dropped the ball on Katrina, but the real criminals here were Blanco and Nagin. I was there, working in the government at the time, so I know what I'm talking about.
They weren't forbidden, Federal funding was just not offered for them. You were free to get private funding and research them all you want. The sticking point was people didn't want their dollars going to CREATING new embryos.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Straw man argument....I never mentioned I was in favor of foreign occupation. That's not something the US does really. We didn't take over Japan or Europe after the wars, we rebuilt them and left. Same thing will happen in Iraq. We're not annexing any part of the middle east, not by a long shot.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Yes they can. Private industry can collude with others to prevent you getting a job.
You don't have a right to a job.
They can buy all the land around yours and refuse you access.
No, they couldn't. I would take them to court and win.
They can pollute your land
No, they couldn't. I would take them to court and win.
they can beat them with hundreds of lawyers.
So your argument against the free market is that the government is corrupt - ie, that the courts are non-objective and have made it extremely difficult for the little man to win without handing over his life savings. Yours is a bad argument.
In fact, it is the government that can't take your money, your freedom or your life without good reason.
Yes, instead of taking it from me, they take it from my future progeny.
Unless you go broke first. Or die (if they've polluted your stuff sufficiently). They have way, way more time and funds than you do.
So your argument against the free market is that the government is corrupt - ie, that the courts are non-objective and have made it extremely difficult for the little man to win without handing over his life savings. Yours is a bad argument.
Government has nothing to with this. The court could be as objective as you want it to be - the corporation has more money and more time than you do, and has very good chances at dragging the case out long enough for you to run out of funds or lifetime. And you can bet that that's exactly what they're going to do if they're not sure of winning the case anyway.
I do have a problem with you owning apples and keeping them from a hungry person when you are not. Look, if possessing something because of your actions entitles you to that thing, then taking something from you is an action, and I'm entitled to what I take.
Unlike personal property, real property takes a State to defend. As Adam Smith said, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all. "
And that explains the problems I have with libertarians.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
A less subtle explanation: Libertarians and Creationists being nutcases is a matter of opinion and although most people on this site have similar political, technological and religious views categorizing groups like you did completely counters the point you're trying to make. Capiche?
how is babby formed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gdp20-40.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Manufacturing_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg
I wish there were a page somewhere on 'how to read a graph' I could point you at, because you will no doubt misread these as well, but at least saner minds will realize I am right.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Morgenthau was an orthodox economist who opposed Keynesian economics and disapproved of some elements of Roosevelt's New Deal. 1939 was right after the little dip caused by cutting back on the New Deal. Morgenthau was just defending his own lack of faith in it.
Please try to make your arguments harder to debunk, you are boring me to tears.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Morgenthau was a man who not only was able to see the obvious failure of the new deal, he had enough integrity to speak up about it.
The history is clear; the USA remained in the depression until 1946, when federal spending was cut by 2/3, wartime economic regulations were lifted, and millions of men were released from military service and war production work.
Oh, and lest I forget to mention it, "Keynesian economics" is an oxymoron. Economists study why people do what they do in the market. Keynes merely invented absurd rationalizations for power-grabbing. He was no more an economist than Lysenko was a biologist.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
What you're missing is the simple fact that not all employment is productive. The Soviets ostensibly had full employment, but their economy was still a basket case.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Socialism is a "light" form of centrally planned production economies such as you find under Communist rule. Please explain to me how the government of Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc. taxing its citizens (first centralizing a large chunk of wealth), and then spending that money on equal health care for all citizens does not fit the mold of a "centrally planned" economic policy?
You really can't read graphs, can you? How sad. You are a deluded human being, who's world view obviously trumps reality. Doesn't fit the world view? Can't be true!
I'll try again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gdp20-40.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Manufacturing_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg
Please explain to me how we were in the depression until 1946, using actual numerical data.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
in response to the parent: yes, all the animal do things in self interest, but when the animals evolve a society is for the development and safety of the entire race first and themselves later.
someone described it much better but do not remember who or where
there are various degree of evolution of a social animal (man for example)
- some think only of themselves
- some are capable of self sacrifice for the sake of his child and family
- some are capable of self sacrifice for the sake of the tribe or village
- some for the city
- some for the nation
- some for the survival of his "race" or religion
- some maybe for the sake of all of humanity (or human race)
I suppose the parent do not consider anything above the nation as worthy but fortunately some do.
because we are all on a single small planet with finite space and resources, a single environment (and maybe a failing environment control system).
it could be true that bothering to better the welfare of foreign nation has no immediate reward for you or your nation (or even worst be damaging),
but that foreign nation is still on this world, his people problem will always be problems of the entire planet directly or indirectly (world economy destabilization, mass emigration, pandemic virus creation...) and your child or nephew may pay the price if not you.
Unlike the government that gets corrupted, private industy cannot by force of law and threat of imprisonment, take my money, my freedom or my life.
[sarcasm]
Yeah, private industry can merely prevent you from earning income, which limits your ability to enjoy your political freedom and ultimately ends your life early for lack of food. That's clearly not in the same ballpark at all as what government can do.
[/sarcasm]
All of these things are possible through government/private corruption. If government actually got out of the way and did NOT intervene then market forces would prevent all of this.
Last time government "got out of the way", the free market did all of those things, so much so that people were willing to die to keep a strike going. Why would government getting out of the way today not lead right back to the same situation?
Ok, here's the cheat sheet:
Social state: has limited government interference with the market, has programs like public schools/health insurance/pension/welfare/unemployment assistance. Examples: basically any first-world industrialized country, to some degree.
Socialist state: State owns the means for production, does central planning, whatnot. Examples: USSR and their satellite states (historical), Cuba, North Korea, etc.
Communism: "Everyone" owns/shares the means for production. Hypothetical situation that should evolve from a socialist state. Examples: None. Any state attempting to get there usually gets stuck in the socialist stage, because government doesn't want to give up all the stuff it grabbed before.
Go and read Murray Rothbard's America's Great Depression. Of course, you should probably arrange for some counseling after you do, you'll probably find it quite a shock to discover that Roosevelt's propaganda was bullshit.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Force of law means nothing if there's no government to back it up. And if government is inevitably corrupt, then private industry should be easily able to circumvent, ignore or abolish the laws that bar them from messing with whomever they don't like.
Come back when you understand what the Iraq war is actually about.
Which is WHAT exactly? I am not talking about the reasons we are still there... why did we go there? I have NEVER heard a valid reason. People love to rag on countries who wouldn't back us up, like France, calling them cowards. I remember when we invaded Iraq, because I travelled to Paris on vacation 3 days later. I was very conscious of the situation. France simply stated "show us proof of why you are invading" and we COULDN'T DO IT. The only "proof" we had was doctored and fake.
We NEVER EVER gave a valid reason for invading a soverign nation and overthrowing their government. Since that time, there's been a lot fo back-pedaling and bullshit talk about liberating Iraq... none of it is true. There was no terrorist link, there was no compelling reason to liberate them (things hadn't changed all that much there for 20 years).
So please, PLEASE explain what the Iraq war is all about. In a sentence or two why we went there. Explain why we've spent billions upon billions of dollars and lives in Iraq. It always turns into a debate about "what SHOULD we do" or "what have we gained vs lost", but I have yet to hear any kind of reasoning WHY we went there.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Keep up the transparent lies. Rothbard is a whackaloon, and everyone knows it. Might as well quote a study by Santa Claus, it would be just as credible. I gave you cold, hard numbers, you give me a book by a noted nutcase. The New Deal worked, and every sane American citizen knows that, despite all the right's attempts to silence the truth.
You can't win here because the facts are just not on your side. So sorry.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Please explain to me how we were in the depression until 1946, using actual numerical data.
War production isn't wealth. If you have any older relatives who lived through the depression and the war, ask them when they were able to quit living hand-to-mouth.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
If the US pulled out of Iraq... who or what would be killing Iraqis? Other Iraqis? Sounds like an Iraqi problem, not a US problem.
Until the conflict spreads, that is. Even if you don't care about the lives of innocent civilians that have been caught up in a war created by the US, you will not be able to shrug that off. If the US just leaves, we will see the Kurds trying to form their own state - including a largish chunk of our ally, Turkey; so they will be involved in that war. Iran will of course get involved, soon most of the Middle East will join and that close US ally, Israel, will want to show off its unofficial nuclear weapons etc etc. Remember how WWI got started? If the whole Middle East goes up in flames, so does a major part of our oil supply. Now try to shrug that one off.
Can you give an actual example of a Conservative Republican who wants that?
Oh please. The list is a lot shorter if you ask me which conservative republicans don't want it.
Here's a news flash: At this rate, things are going to come to a head, one way or another. And only one side of this argument owns guns.
From my viewpoint you cannot believe in self defense with a gun and truly believe in God - the two are completely mutually exclusive.
Islam, Christianity and Judaism all have the same roots, and in those roots are the ten commandments. "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty easy to understand, even for a Republican. There are no caveats 'thou shalt not kill except for trespassers, and the rule does not apply to paranoid idiots who think their government is about to collapse.' It is absolute.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
I gave you cold, hard numbers, you give me a book by a noted nutcase.
You showed numbers covering a period during which the new deal was in effect. What you left out was the data showing the actual recovery, which took place after the war. Sure, there was some improvement year-over-year during the Roosevelt administration, but the baseline was the aftermath of the greatest crash we'd ever seen. So, this is like strapping a couple hundred pounds to a climber, and claiming that if he makes any progress up the path at all, that the weight is what makes his progress possible.
We'd had crashes from time to time before the first great depression, but back when government had far less power to derail the recovery, they got sorted out relatively quickly. It took the New Deal to turn the crash of 1929 into the disaster it became.
The New Deal worked, and every sane American citizen knows that,
Every north Korean knows that Kim Jong-Il is the source of all blessings on earth, too. Wishing doesn't make it so.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
What is property, exactly? Is there some intrinsic quality to objects that makes them "mine" or "yours"? Of course not. Property is only defined by relationships between people. We agree that this object is yours and this object is mine. When we disagree about that, we ask a court to settle our disagreement for us (at least, that's what we do in a civilized society).
So your distinction between my personal possessions, my house, my land, my factory, my minerals, and my intellectual property is completely arbitrary. On what basis do you say that certain things are mine and certain other things are not? It's pretty self serving of you to state that just because things are harder for me to defend against you taking them I should have no right to them.
You ask what you get out of me owning a factory and its output. The fact of the matter is that you do benefit from my owning a factory. Society as a whole benefits as I contribute to the economy, pay employees to work in my factory, sell items to people willing to buy them, purchase raw materials to produce my products, and so on. The better question is why you think you're entitled to any part of my factory? Or more directly, why does it matter whether you get anything at all out of my owning a factory? Why am I obligated to benefit you, especially when you're perfectly capable of benefiting yourself through your own labor and initiative? Or is it that you simply feel that I shouldn't be particularly entitled to the fruits of my own labor, in which case what reason do I have to create things I won't be able to enjoy the benefits from? If you think I shouldn't own the factory, then nobody will own the factory. And how does that benefit anyone?
Property rights are simply an extension of the natural state of being. Before there were property rights, you could only keep what you could defend. The development of property rights and governments to enforce disputes regarding these rights freed people from the burden of having to constantly defend their possessions for fear of having them taken. You seem to want to go back to how things were previously. Fine, but don't get upset if you get killed while trying to take something you think you're entitled to from somebody who doesn't. No matter how you feel about my moral paucity, I'm not willing to go back to anarchy. I would be perfectly happy if you just left me alone and stopped trying to take my things that I have earned so that I can enjoy or give to others as I see fit. So please stop trying to push your religious beliefs on me.
Wrong again. Look at the graphs for other, less serious recessions. During the great depression, the economy recovered to the same level it was at, pre-recession, in less than three years. Look at how steep the slope is as we climbed out of the hole that capitalism dug for us. Look at 1937, when Republicans got FDR to renege on New Deal promises. The facts are plain as day, and only fanatical ideologues such as yourself would deny them.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You can do as much semantic gymnastics as you like, but a program where the government takes responsibility for providing for the welfare of its citizens like that (health care, education, welfare, etc.) is a socialist agenda. It doesn't mean that the state has (or necessarily will) devolve into some sort of communist / fascist dictatorship (in the North Korean / Cuban sense), but you cannot claim that what you're defining as "social states" is in fact the blending of socialist policies into those societies.
I'm well aware that Marx (and Engels, if I recall) posited that socialism was the intermediate step between capitalism and communism, and that no "communist" state in the full sense they meant it (classless, owner-less, free society) has existed.
Rothbard is a whackaloon, and everyone knows it.
Goodness, what a detailed and unassailable critique of a great historian and economist's work. How can I possibly argue against such masterful rhetoric?
Oh, I remember now: I defy you to actually read what the man wrote, and refute it if you can. Go ahead, try to cite a factual error.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
No, what the report did was take extremist groups like the Christian Identity movement or abortion clinic bombers (who aren't really "right wing" in any classical sense of the word) and slyly associate them with legitimate conservative movements.
Think you are paying too much in taxes? You could be a terrorist sympathizer.
Think the Federal government has usurped the legitimate power of the states? You just might be a right wing terrorist.
A war veteran? Your skills are going to be coveted by those "terrorists", so you bear close watching lest you become a political convert to the Republican party.
I view this as what the Bush regime gave us. Trillion dollar increases in the national debt that our grandkids will be lucky to see gone.
Well good thing you helped elect someone that is spending money at twice the rate Bush did. Way to usher in an era of fiscal responsibility.
Great historian and economist? He's a nutcase who starts from the conclusion he wants to reach and reasons backwards until he finds evidence to support them. Nobody is buying what you're peddling, try selling it somewhere with a stupider population than Slashdot. Rothbard's work has been debunked over and over again, I'm not wasting my time with busy-work that has already been done, just for your amusement. It's like debunking flat-earthers or young earth creationists. It's too damn easy, but they never listen anyhow.
You'll notice that Nutbard doeasn't even talk about FDR. Why is that? Because FDR's policies worked, unlike Hoover's, and that would disprove Nutbard's whole hypothesis. Just look at the graphs, you see this downward spiral, right until FDR takes office, then Wham! the economy takes off like a rocket until idiot Republicans convince FDR to back off from his plans, then we get a tiny slump, then FDR goes back to his way of doing things, and whooosh! the economy takes off again.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
more likely is iranians, syrians, jordanians and palestinians killing iraqis
"socialism" doesn't mean what the bulk of americans (ie "you") think it means. Most of Europe, Canada and South America are "socialist". We say "socialism" and you hear "communist dictatorship" which is something completely, completely different.
Not really. A communist is just a socialist in a hurry.
European socialism is only "working" insofar as they are able to spend the surplus that their capitalist ancestors accumulated, which is rapidly running out. What you see in Europe now is the bill is getting too large for the natives to pay, so you guys are having to import workers to pay for your 6-8 weeks of vacation, retirement at 50, and "free" healthcare. We'll see how good that works out in the long run. It reminds me though of the Roman Britons inviting in the Saxons to help defend Britain against the Picts.
The other side contains a few people who "think the founding fathers were onto something," and a whole lot of people who couldn't tell you want the 10th amendment is and really just want an authoritarian government with an official religion that "keeps us safe" by any means necessary.
Your prognosticating is comical. FDR who was more interventionist than anyone but (maybe) Bernie Sanders in power today was president for 14 years, and was followed by another very progressive president and we didn't end up in the third world. In fact, we had the single longest uninterrupted economic expansion since the civil war. If the GOP can muster a populist uprising (with their 20% self identified republicans), it'll be to impose their moral values, not their fiscal ones.
Only in the paranoid we're-all-victims-really Fox world did the report say anything of the sort. Try actually reading the thing and see what it says. It very clearly indicates that it is examining the collection of right-wing extremist groups (and do try to find a single leftist among the abortion clinic bombers to make them not right-wing) and identifying characteristics of those groups, not identifying every person with those characteristics as a member of the extremist groups.
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
Yes. Those are some of the single-issue groups out there. Just because they have picked issues and gone crazily overdedicated to them to the point of terrorist activity does not mean that everyone who has concerns about those issues is being indicted. When the left-wing version of this report came out earlier this year, it identified environmentalist extremist groups like Earth First, and yet somehow people who like having a clean environment managed to not misinterpret the report to be accusing them of terrorist.
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
I'm not doing semantic gymnastics, you are arbitrarily redefining terms.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
A government providing for the welfar of its citizens is following a social agenda. A government that aims to own most of the means of production and distribution of goods and services is following a socialist agenda.
It doesn't mean that the state has (or necessarily will) devolve into some sort of communist / fascist dictatorship (in the North Korean / Cuban sense), but you cannot claim that what you're defining as "social states" is in fact the blending of socialist policies into those societies.
None of the states I would consider "social states" are following or even considering a policy where the government owns most of the means of production. In fact, sufficient economic freedom is essential for their social policies, since that's the only way to actually fund these policies.
Senator Specter is an excellent example of why we need term limits in D.C. This guy has been in the Senate for nearly 30 years. Since before Reagan was in Office. To keep is plush job, he looked at the poll numbers (they all do), and decided he needed to jump ship because he would lose the primary to his challenger.
He's almost 80. Why not retire and let the field be leveled for new people? Does he really think he's THAT important? Is he going to be THAT effective when he's 84/85?
I'm just fed up with all this. All of them. People who have been in the same position since before I was born (Joe Biden, I'm talking to YOU). I think they should be REQUIRED to leave office after 2 Senate terms (12 years).
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
Rothbard's work has been debunked over and over again,
No, it's just been sneered at as you are doing here. Murray was right, you are wrong, and the present collapse of our economy at the end of yet another central-bank fiat money bubble is only the latest proof. We were regulated into this mess, and more regulation, more debt, and more inflation will not help. The house is on fire, dousing it with gasoline is not a solution.
There are economic laws that can't be wished away. You can pretend all you want that Roosevelt helped us out of the great depression, but the facts are that it continued right through his administration and didn't end until his policies were abandoned.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
And US "Capitalism" lately has been only working by selling off the surplus wealth our ancestors accumulated after WWII up to about 1970's. After that we started cashing out and borrowing to sustain our growth (and I'm not talking about government debt but private debt here). We shipped many of the manufacturing jobs that actually made things of value overseas and elevated the status of shuffling financial papers building a pyramid of over leverage that is collapsing as we speak. We went from the largest exporter in the world to the largest importer in a matter of a decade or two. Now the bills are coming due and it's time for us to take our medicine.
None of what you say has any weight whatsoever because, even with Iraq having a functional republic, the Left is still calling Iraq a failure. They politically can't afford not to. YOU politically can't afford not to, even here in Slashdotland. Take a hike.
Actually, most democratic socialists tend to be doing just fine for themselves. They end up paying their way and more into the system. They also don't think of it as the government 'taking' it but instead think of it as either giving, or doing their part for their fellow countryment.
You, sir, are probably the greedy one. You were probably never taught the virtue of sharing in kindergarden.
Bullish Machine Tzar
Given that the first reply say "sounds like an Iraqi problem", it doesn't sound like a debunked point to me.
Liberals wanted out of Iraq and they didn't care about the consequences to Iraq or the region. That indifference to possible consequences is bad. Not the same as wishing things would go to hell. But I don't view it as much better.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
The US hasn't really practiced "capitalism" since the Great Depression. To a great extent, our economy has been a bureaucratically controlled command economy where success has come in novel industries where government corruption hasn't (or hadn't) yet kneecapped business like aerospace and IT.
Privately held debt is almost completely driven by government monetary policy, btw, since they are the ones that largely determine the available and cost of debt (or more accurately, they set the floor).
What you are seeing isn't the collapse of capitalism, it's the power grabbing phase of a bureaucratic kleptocracy centered around Goldman Sachs alumns who are well entrenched in the halls of power, both in the former Bush administration and now in the Obama administration. A true capitalist system would've allowed the banks and to fail. Obama isn't saving the capitalist system (and Bush didn't either), they are stabbing it in the back in order to save / enrich their bankster buddies and advisers who are the guilty parties in the first place.
You haven't given me anything to debunk. "Here, read this book and debunk it" only indicates that YOU can not represent Nutbard's arguments correctly.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Well good thing you helped elect someone that is spending money at twice the rate Bush did. Way to usher in an era of fiscal responsibility.
Well thats what you sometimes have to do when it gets so royally f'ed up by the previous administration sheer incompetence.
Also I'd much rather my money being spent locally on constructive issues than spent trying to blow the crap out of someone half a world away in a situation REPUBLICANS CREATED (Regan era) and we should never have been involved in in the first place!
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Arguably, if the Middle East is similarly volatile then war will erupt there, regardless.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Quite so. If she's unhappy about her situation then she is obliged to go to the police. You are not the police, and neither is the United States.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
They also don't think of it as the government 'taking' it but instead think of it as either giving, or doing their part for their fellow countryment.
But it is the government taking. That's exactly what it is, and calling it anything else is a lie. The government demands you give them what you have, and if you don't they send men with guns to throw you in prison. The fact that it's supposedly for a good cause--though it rarely actually is--is irrelevant.
Charity is good when it is voluntary. Helping the less fortunate is good when it is voluntary. When it is not, it is theft, plain and simple. And expecting to receive things you haven't earned is greedy, plain and simple.
But if wanting to be the final arbiter over what is done with the fruits of my own labor is "greedy" to you, then that is what I am proud to be.
Also I'd much rather my money being spent locally on constructive issues
Like bailing out the already rich bankers? Because that's where the bulk of the tax money is going. Oh yeah, and bailing out the UAW.
than spent trying to blow the crap out of someone half a world away in a situation REPUBLICANS CREATED (Regan era) and we should never have been involved in in the first place!
Presumably you mean Iraq. Reagan didn't put Hussein in power. That happened during Carter's watch. The US did provide some logistical and financial aid to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, but that was because Carter kneecapped the Shah of Iran and allowed Khomenei to seize power and turn Iran from an ally into a very hostile country and the US sought to counter-balance Iran's power. Unfortunately, not everyone you have to do business with is a savory character. By your logic and reasoning, we can credit North Korea's nuclear weapons program with the Clinton administration...after all, pictures of Madeleine Albright dancing with the mad dictator and all.
Presumably you mean Iraq.
No I don't mean Iraq at all. No one but Bush thought that removing Hussein was a good idea, every other country in the world knew the WMD thing was bullshit. And if Hussein was repressing a couple of nutbar religious groups, well if you haven't noticed, sometimes its a good thing to repress certain groups of fanatical crazies.
No, I'm talking about Regan's interference in Afghanistan, training and arming the local religious crazies against the Russians, who were trying to repress (wait for it), the people who now form the Taliban! Good gob there!
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Well, if you ask me, there was no valid reason to invade Iraq.
It wasn't about weapons of mass destruction, if you remember we never started talking about those until we tried to justify it to the United Nations. When the administration was trying to justify it to the US public it was about terrorism. Before that, Bush talked about the axis of evil, part of which was Iraq. I think he actually believed Iraq was evil and was trying to clean up. There are reports that he had a revulsion towards Saddam and considered him truly evil.
Beyond that, the PNAC has been urging the US to do something in Iraq for a while. Here is a letter they sent Clinton. If you notice, some of the singers eventually ended up in the Bush administration, but not without reason, they have a lot of experience in foreign affairs. They were the advisers who essentially shaped foreign policy of the Bush administration.
The PNAC has the worldview that it is up to the US to keep the world safe (echoing the ideology of "making the world safe for democracy"), and what is good for America is good for the world. By invading Iraq, they intended to stabilize the region by removing one of the hostile actors, sending a message to the other hostile states that they better start behaving, and finally clean things up by showing what can happen in a democracy, and because a democratic, healthy nation is less likely to support terrorists. They chose Iraq because there was probable cause and because it was significantly easier than invading Iran.
Some of these goals have been reached. Syria has become a lot less hostile, and they've pulled out of Lebanon allowing the Lebanese to start building their nation on their own, however they can. Syria has also had peace talks with Israel, although the final result is far off. It may have actually protected America, since Al Qaeda did put a lot of effort into Iraq. Eventually Iraq can become a prosperous democratic nation, although it will not be as easy as PNAC seemed to think. If you are interested in PNAC thought, you should go to their website, they are rather public about their ideas.
Personally, while I think the ideals of stabilizing the region, making the world safe for democracy, and helping to bring Iraq out of the middle ages are all good goals, there were better ways to do it. An invasion is a blunt, bloody tool that is more of a regression into the middle ages than a push into the future.
Qxe4
All that is needed for evil to triumph....
By that reasoning we should have given no support to England or China in WW2, then we might have avoided Pearl Harbor. For another year or so until eventually they got around to us.
Isolationism doesn't work. Problems there can become problems here, and they usually get worse over time. Stopping Hitler at the Sudetenland would have saved untold millions.
Neutrality, like pacifism is morally bankrupt. It merely forces someone else to fight for you. Sure, you're hands are clean, but your conscience isn't, you're as guilty as the the guy who killed your neighbor. It also fails to protect you when the enemy turns their sights on you. They won't care that you minded your own business.
Without police, and the national equivalents, there is chaos or tyranny. If we weren't the global police, someone else would be. Who would we rather see in that role? Russia? China?
Let's see who's still cavalier about "foreign entanglements" when Obama has to step up.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
No I don't mean Iraq at all. No one but Bush thought that removing Hussein was a good idea, every other country in the world knew the WMD thing was bullshit. And if Hussein was repressing a couple of nutbar religious groups, well if you haven't noticed, sometimes its a good thing to repress certain groups of fanatical crazies.
You need to brush up on your facts. Pretty much every intelligence agency the US interacts with believed that Iraq was in the process of reconstituting their WMD program. We're talking the UK, France, Germany, the Czech Republic here.
No, I'm talking about Regan's interference in Afghanistan, training and arming the local religious crazies against the Russians, who were trying to repress (wait for it), the people who now form the Taliban! Good gob there!
Again, you need to brush up on your facts and command of history. The Taliban did not come into existence until 1994, well after the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan, and they did not start interacting with OBL until 1996...when the Clinton administration conspired with Sudan to kick him out of Sudan instead of taking custody of him (which Sudan offered to us).
The folks that Reagan supported were the same folks that went on to form the Northern Alliance...you know, the guys that are still our current erstwhile allies in Afghanistan.
Anyway, I suppose never let facts get in the way of a good left-wing yarn.
Personally, while I think the ideals of stabilizing the region, making the world safe for democracy, and helping to bring Iraq out of the middle ages are all good goals, there were better ways to do it.
Those are admirable goals... but I don't believe they had anything to do with why we are there. They sound good AFTER the fact, and if those were in fact the goals they would have been established BEFORE we went there. You don't get to establish your goals after you've already done something. The Bush administration gave a bullshit reason (immediate threat to us) and when they were called on it they just kind of kept repeating it... then all of a sudden it was part of the war on terror. If you have valid reasons for doing something, you don't need to make up something that sounds MORE valid.
I honestly believe it was a personal vendetta by GW to get Saddam. There's no real proof of that, but we don't have any other valid reason and I think it makes sense. People like to complain about Obama's stimulus package and how it is bankrupting the country, but take a glance at the ongoing cost of the Iraq war... and it isn't just money, lives have been and are being lost.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
You can believe whatever you like, but you are wrong. The evidence is there, people were talking about this before the fact. A lot of people took instability in the region as a serious threat to American safety. You must not have been paying attention, and so you missed the real reasons.
Qxe4
Then you shouldn't have trouble coming up with an example of one who does.
Conservative beliefs do not require a belief in God.
The actual commandment is "Do not murder," not "Thou shalt not kill." Read your old Testament; the Israelites were pretty big on killing people in the context of war, self defense, and capital punishment.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
What you're calling "social states" are known as "Social Democratic states." And if you know anything about the history of social democracy, you'd also know that it emerged from an ideological split in the socialist movement primarily related to how socialism could best be implemented.
In a nutshell: on one side, you had orthodox communists who felt that political upheaval & violent struggle were preconditions for the implementation of socialism (and eventually, communism) and that without those preconditions, socialism could not take root. On the other side, you had people like Eduard Bernstein, who felt, (again in a nutshell) that the system could be reformed from within in an evolutionary manner via cross-class cooperation, and that implementation of socialism need not wait for the implosion of capitalism & political upheaval that Karl Marx predicted was inevitable.
It helps to understand the historical underpinnings before you start quoting Merriam-Webster. These philosophies did not emerge fully formed from nothing.
But all that aside: let's look at the notion of universal, government provided healthcare. How is the government controlling all access to & administration of the goods & services related to healthcare NOT a socialist policy, as defined by the dictionary quote you provided? Please feel free to explain the reasoning that leads you to think that government control of goods and services is not, in actuality, government control of goods and services?
You need to brush up on your facts. Pretty much every intelligence agency the US interacts with believed that Iraq was in the process of reconstituting their WMD program. We're talking the UK, France, Germany, the Czech Republic here
No. The US threatened these countries with economic sanctions if they did not comply. Do you not remember Bush's famous 'if you are not with us, you are against us' speech? Do you not remember when France stood up and said the WMDs were not real, the American backlash and the ridiculous change from 'French Fries' to Freedom Fries'? Do you not remember Colin Powell quitting the Bush administration saying the weapons stockpiling was a lie? Do you not remember the UN stating that the UNILATERAL decision by the US to invade Iraq was illegal, after the UN had decided the US had no justification in invading? Do you not remember Hans Blix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix the UN weapons inspector stating there were no WMDs in Iraq?
The WMD thing was a huge lie: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4086361.stm
Again, you need to brush up on your facts and command of history. The Taliban did not come into existence until 1994
Are you saying that Osama bin Laden was not trained by the US as an anti-communist guerrilla against the Soviets? Because that's an easily verifiable fact. I didn't say they WERE the Taliban, I said they now FORM the Taliban.
It's amazing the revisionist history the right wing nutbars can spew. Do you really believe what you write or are you just writing it because you want to believe it happened that way?
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
It seems absurd to believe that people killing each other in a domestic conflict in one country are suddenly going to turn around and attack another country on the other side of the planet for no reason. And before people whine about the WTC attacks, ask yourself why people go so pissed off at you that they decided to kill your fellow countrymen (Hint: it's not your freedom they take umbrage with).
If a powerful nation with a history of military and political adventurism (I'm sure you can name a few) started amassing forces, then perhaps preemptive military 'intervention' is called for. A tin-pot nation that's so caught up killing its own people is hardly going to be a credible threat to anyone but themselves anytime soon.
Oh, and to address your other point, no - there need not be any world police (terrible movies aside). Civilisation has lurched forward for the past several thousand years without a self-appointed transnational sheriff.
The closest it ever got to anyone filling that role were the various powerful states that used force to keep unruly protectorates in line (which is technically domestic action). The Romans kept order and they did it largely by ignoring the domestic squabbles of their thralls, but they weren't afraid to crucify and slaughter people on occasion.
The difference between the Romans and the United States is that the Romans acknowledged that they were building an empire and had a duty to civilise the peoples they subjugated.
If the US wants to assume the mantle of global enforcer and keep Iraq from tearing itself to pieces then they should step up to the plate and conquer them properly - none of this pussyfooting around raping the oilwells and then buggering off home when it all gets too much. Declare them a state, give them welfare benefits, paved roads and an aqueduct.
Honest imperialism or GTFO.
Disclaimer: Non-americans may not be viewing the world through a tiny polarised lense.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
You may not be jcr, but your posts are similarly content-free. Give me something to debunk, I've provided documented facts, so the ball is in your court.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
But it is the government taking. That's exactly what it is, and calling it anything else is a lie. The government demands you give them what you have, and if you don't they send men with guns to throw you in prison. The fact that it's supposedly for a good cause--though it rarely actually is--is irrelevant.
I won't argue whether it gets used properly, many improvements need to be done there. However, I have to argue against this 'the government' way of thinking. It's to vague and blobby. What it is is our society(unless you don't beleive the of/by/for the people stuff) deciding that it's best for the 'haves' to help the 'have nots'(or the haves that have something important to contribute to society).
Whether you like it or not, it is a collective decision. If you don't like it, either you can try and change it(public service, protest, spreading the word, vote) or go find a nice anarchist island out there. But good luck with that, I'm not aware of any countries that don't tax and provide services.
My apologies for using the 'if you don't like it get out' argument. I'd much rather see people stay to try and change things. However, the only way to not be a part of the society is to remove yourself from it.
Bullish Machine Tzar
Then you shouldn't have trouble coming up with an example of one who does.
Someone else already did a pretty good job of replying to that.
Conservative beliefs do not require a belief in God.
No but they often go hand in hand, or at least the conservatives like to pretend that if you are not conservative then obviously you do not believe in God.
Conservative beliefs do not require a belief in God.
Only if you believe the revisionist protestant publications, or the newer Jewish ones. The oldest translated texts all agree that it is 'kill', but yes this is a contentious point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Killing_or_murder
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Are you saying that Osama bin Laden was not trained by the US as an anti-communist guerrilla against the Soviets? Because that's an easily verifiable fact.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's a bald faced lie by the left. Since you are so handy with Wikipedia, you might want to look up OBL's entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_laden#Mujahideen_in_Afghanistan
Hint, no connection with the US and OBL. Thanks for playing moron. It's sad people like you get to vote and cancel out people who actually bother to be informed.
No. The US threatened these countries with economic sanctions if they did not comply.
Comply with what?
Anyway, just another bullshit lie from a left-wing drone.
Comply with what?
Comply with the US desire to invade. Comply as in shut up and play along. Comply as in if you publicly question the US intentions the US will economically ruin you. For those of us outside the US the message was clear.
Anyway, just another bullshit lie from a left-wing drone.
No its not bullshit because I am not an American.
Seeing the difference in media portrayal from US and non-US television stations was a real eye-opener. If all I saw was US TV up to the invasion of Iraq, I would have probably felt it was justified, an the US was preventing an all out attack by a crazy dictator on US soil. But it was all a farce. Completely fabricated.
It's amazing how much power the Republican right had over the media at that time (and still has over Fox today). It was complete propaganda.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's a bald faced lie by the left.
And this is a lie? http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092801a.htm
Come on - it's a well known fact that the US was supporting the war against the soviets in Afghanistan. There was even a comedy with that as a theme called Spies Like US, or maybe you dont believe in movies either.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Straw man argument....I never mentioned I was in favor of foreign occupation.
Straw man straw man. You responded to "expansive military" with "in favor of a strong defense". Get your story straight.
Just callin' it like I see it.
But let's not mince words here. It is the people deciding to take my property by force and give it to somebody else. Just because it is supposedly a collective decision doesn't make it any more right. I don't like it, and I am trying to change it.
Would a collective decision to take money from the poor and give it to the rich be acceptable to you? If not, doing it the other way should be no less acceptable, because it is no less theft. Whether or not socialism can be made to work (and I am of the opinion that it fundamentally cannot on any but the smallest scale), it is based on violating the basic rights of human beings to control their own lives, for better or worse.
There's another term for "collective decisions" that are imposed upon the unwilling: Mob rule.
They pay attention to him so much because he's loud, and a lot of people, especially the extreme right, listen to him. If he didn't garner so much attention from people who are actually conservative, or possibly even dominate as much of national radio as he does, then it probably wouldn't be an issue, but he does on both counts, so he gets attention. ... Well, that, and he's easy to mock.
I'd get bored after the first month or so, as would many other people.... certainly if not after a month, then not long after.
There are people who are lazy to pull that life style off long-term, but they're the exception rather than the rule. Most of us need something to do with our hands - whether it be a hobby, or a job we get paid for.
I guess I don't see your point. What is the difference? expansive military == strong defense, no?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You read far too much into a quote. I liked the quote, the idea behind it is partially correct, but that doesn't necessarily mean I want to be like him. I'm suspicious of attempts to bring people together for a common cause, because it so often devolves into attempts to control those who don't want to join that cause. Voluntary association is great, involuntary not so much. This brings up the pragmatic reason I'm a libertarian and not an anarchist. People will band together for mutual protection, and those bands will inevitably engage in coercion. It's an unavoidable flaw of human beings. The most I can do is try to limit it as much as I can.
As for your other comments, I have no such desire to take the liberty of others. Nor am I utterly deluded about the consequence. At a guess, you don't recognize the distinction between failure to help and actively causing harm, or the difference between persuasion and coercion. If I'm for instance a farmer, you are starving, and I offer you food for helping work the farm, then we are both better off from the transaction. Offering that deal is not compulsion, you are free to leave it and find some other way to live, but you don't have a right to point a gun at my head to force me to give it to you. Neither of us has the right to compel the labor of the other. Most left wing philosophies (talking point versions at least) I've encountered do not recognize the difference between not giving you the food you need, and taking away the food you already had. They don't recognize a difference between employing someone and enslaving them. This is why I emphasized the word 'take' above. It's often used to describe 'not giving' when examined carefully. I recognize that in a pure free market, there are individuals who will suffer and other who prosper. That doesn't mean the prosperous are at fault for their suffering.
You do have a point about some people who call themselves libertarian. As with any label, some people who claim it are flying false colors. The worst offenders in exploitation invariably believe in some sort of right to compel the behavior of others. Most often the belief that because they have money, and you have food, you have to allow them to buy your food. This is not the case, and even though I may be allied with said individuals in some specific cases, I recognize that they aren't free marketers no matter how much they profess otherwise. I failed to point this out initially, but when exactly have we actually tried laissez faire? It's amazing what some people call a free market while allowing people to hide their liability for their actions via a government created limited liability corporation, eminent domain, using violence to break up peaceful union protests, copyrights, patents, zoning laws, registration costs, and various and other government sponsored preferences.
The brief summary of my beliefs is that there is no right to live, only a right not to be killed, and said right exists only as a quid pro quo. I've considered making that my signature instead, but preferred a fictional quote.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
There is no right to exclude others from using a natural resource. You may have a contract with someone saying you and only you can use that resource, but I am not a party to that contract. If you attempt to force me to honor a contract I am not a party to, YOU are using coercion on me. I am NOT using coercion by failing to honor a contract I never made.
That is the basic reason I am an anarchist and not a libertarian. Libertarians believe in strong individual rights to real property and other natural resources. This amounts to a defense of the haves from the have-nots, without the consent of the have-nots. It is coercive.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
No, no one has as of yet. They listed some Pastor types (who are obviously not examples of Conservative Republican politicians) and "all the Bushes," and then claimed Rush Limbaugh is for a theocracy, which is hilariously untrue.
They may be found together, but one does not imply the other. And there are plenty more people that BELIEVE in God than there are people who OBEY him. :)
The Vulgate bible is not 'the oldest translated texts.' You'd need to go back to the original Hebrew sources, which DO use the Hebrew word for 'unjust killing.' And to call things like the NIV Bible 'revisionist' is kinda funny, considering they were done to correct the REAL revisions found in editions like the King James Version by going back to the original Greek for New Testament stuff instead of translating from the Vulgate (which itself was a translation of the Greek).
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Oops, see below for reply.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Oh, yes, that was the original rationale! All the 'Saddam has WMDs and we need to stop him before he nukes us' talk was just a synonym for 'we should out of the goodness of our hearts help the Iraqis set up a democratic form of government.' No, establishing a at-least-temporarily stable local government before leaving is a treaty obligation after invading another country. The Republican war in Iraq was a failure from the start; just because the mess is being cleaned up does not make the original goals successful. Go take some remedial poli-sci courses while you're taking that remedial English, too.
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
So that's the latest definition of winning? Great. Let everyone know the next time it changes, and what counts as 'stable' these days, not to mention 'peaceful.' And as nice as it would have been to have a US-friendly nation in the middle east, that seems to be off the board, but fortunately that's not part of 'winning.' The occupation was an abject failure, and the only progress that has come about happened when Iraqis could see that the occupation was going to wind down, hence did not need them to resist it. The remnant internal violence is a degree of magnitude less.
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
The Vulgate bible is not 'the oldest translated texts.' You'd need to go back to the original Hebrew sources, which DO use the Hebrew word for 'unjust killing.' And to call things like the NIV Bible 'revisionist' is kinda funny, considering they were done to correct the REAL revisions found in editions like the King James Version by going back to the original Greek for New Testament stuff instead of translating from the Vulgate (which itself was a translation of the Greek).
The Ten Commandments is in the book of Moses in the old testament. The Vulgate bible used the original Hebrew writings for the translations and was the first to have done so, instead of using the Greek translations as others had done. So since that was written in the fifth century and directly from the Hebrew, I would believe that over any more modern translations.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
During the great depression, the economy recovered to the same level it was at, pre-recession, in less than three years.
Wow, that's a far bolder claim that Roosevelt's own propagandists ever made. Probably because it's absolute bullshit.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
You probably also think that having good stable communities is a good thing. So by the same (lack of) logic, you must be a communist.
I do have a problem with you owning apples and keeping them from a hungry person when you are not.
I have a problem with it as well, but I have to balance the short-term good of feeding one person with the long-term good of making sure that those who find or grow the apples have an incentive to keep doing that. This limits me to only taking things in a generally agreed upon way (taxes), or to persuading people to give the hungry person an apple (charity).
Look, if possessing something because of your actions entitles you to that thing, then taking something from you is an action, and I'm entitled to what I take.
Except that the defining characteristic of 'ownership' is that other people can't take or use it without permission.
Unlike personal property, real property takes a State to defend.
Nice rhetoric, but even nomads have rules about ownership, and people to settle disputes. There's nothing special about owning sections of dirt that requires that a tribal government become something new.
As Adam Smith said, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."
Well, yeah. When it comes to property, the job of the government is to protect the ones that own it from the ones that don't.
And that explains the problems I have with libertarians.
Your problem seems to extend to all but a very few political groups, and pretty much anything like what I'd call 'civilization'.
I guess I don't see your point. What is the difference? expansive military == strong defense, no?
No. Expansive military == expanding to foreign soil. We've hit a semantic stumbling block. This type of expansion is not encouraged by the constitution in any way I know of. A strong military is strongest when protecting home borders. It weakens with wanton invasion, as we have done in the middle east. Unchecked militaristic expansion (to foreign soil) and standing armies (on foreign soil) is weakening to a military. This is not ideology. It's a fact of history. True Republicans/Conservatives/Constructionists do not like expansive military policies for this reason--so I call "conservatives" out on it as much as I can.
Problem is, we do not have any true Republicans in national government save a few who have been systematically discredited by *socially* conservative ideologues and their media outlets.
Just callin' it like I see it.
And why would an ancient translation of a Hebrew text by a non-native speaker be considered more accurate than a modern translation?
The original Hebrew text plainly uses the word for 'murder,' which is different than the word for 'kill.' And the Israelites do plenty of killing throughout the Old Testament with nary an ill word from God about it. There's even a list of capital crimes in the Old Testament. You can't just dismiss those facts.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
And why would an ancient translation of a Hebrew text by a non-native speaker be considered more accurate than a modern translation?
Because the modern translations were done by protestants, mainly American Evangelicals that have an agenda. There are other instances where the modern translation deliberately changed allegorical references to literal ones with the argument that it would be easier to understand. This changes the meaning.
The original Hebrew text plainly uses the word for 'murder,' which is different than the word for 'kill.'
Ok, and many scholars point out that 'thou shalt not steal' actually means 'thou shalt not kidnap', since the Hebew word used for seal was exclusively used for people, not objects. Does that mean it's ok to take another's possessions if we feel like it?
And the Israelites do plenty of killing throughout the Old Testament with nary an ill word from God about it.
Well I hope you don't think that is the only time that the bible is inconsistent within itself. That's what happens when it is a compilation of dozens of authors over thousands or years, continuously written and rewritten.
Besides, when you write about the history of your own people, you tend to make sure you portray your motives as just.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
It's not a 'claim' since I backed it up with graphs PROVING it. That would be what we call a 'fact.'
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Mod up. All that Republican talk about Democrats or the media about "if we pull out, we lose" or "they want us to lose"... The worst that can possibly happen is just not that bad, so they use a hot-button word to hype it up.
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
It's not a 'claim' since I backed it up with graphs PROVING it.
Your graphs proved nothing of the kind. If the Great Depression was over in three years, then we wouldn't even call it the great depression.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
You say the graphs don't prove anything. Using the numbers from the graph, which are accurate, prove your hypothesis. Or just shut up, it's been a week, dude. Either way, I really don't care anymore.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You say the graphs don't prove anything.
No, I say that they don't prove what you claim they do. What they show is a very minor improvement in some measures in the midst of the more than decade-long debacle that Hoover and Roosevelt inflicted on the country.
What they also show is your astounding emotional attachment to a preposterous position. Try to work it out in therapy.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Mine is the mainstream view, no matter how you and fringe idiots from mises try to rewrite history. Don't try the 'emotional attachment' bullshit with me, you are the one who can't let it go and you know it. Just drop it already.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Mine is the mainstream view,
Wow, what a compelling endorsement.
Yours is the view that is taught by advocates of big government, who of course are loathe to admit their failures. The sad thing is how many people they succeed in deceiving.
Ask yourself why all of the previous depressions were over so quickly, back before the federal government had seized enough power to interfere with the recovery the way that Hoover and Roosevelt did.
The New Deal was an abject failure, and your own failure is your refusal to admit it.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Don't try the 'emotional attachment' bullshit with me, you are the one who can't let it go
As it happens, I did let it go. There was a time when I bought the party line just as you do, and reacted angrily when I was told that that the hero of world war two wasn't all he was cracked up to be. That was before I started reading history on my own, when all I knew was the story fed to me in school by government employees.
I'm curious: how much of an FDR fan are you? Do you even admit that it's wrong to lock up thousands of innocent people for their race?
Just drop it already.
Gosh, don't you just hate it when people don't comply with your demands?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
You keep asserting that without any proof. Nutbard's book doesn't even talk about the New Deal. Find me some damn evidence or admit you have none. I gave evidence. You don't refute it, you just make baseless claims. You gave me an irrelevant book by a dubious author, refuted and rejected by the mainstream, about the failures BEFORE the New Deal. You put on airs of the radical rebellious free thinker, but like many libertarians, it is just a thin mask hiding a sociopath whose entire political philosophy boils down to "You aren't the boss of me, I'll do what I want!"
There are thoughtful libertarians. I've met some, and had enjoyable discussions with them. You aren't one of them. You are a closed minded selfish simpleton who can't even elucidate his philosophy, but merely points to irrelevant books by other, more intellectually capable wingnuts.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"Just drop it already" is a request. Again you demonstrate your strangely rigid personal boundaries. I'm trying to help you stop making a fool of yourself.
FDR was wrong to imprison Japanese Americans, and demonstrably unfair and biased by doing so while not locking up German Americans.
I'm a red diaper baby, to me, the schools seemed like right wing conservative hellholes full of aggrandizement of American imperialism and denial of any wrongdoing or immorality on our part.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
the schools seemed like right wing conservative hellholes
Looks like you perceived half of the problem. The schools aren't right-wing or left-wing, they're pro-government, and they teach kids what the state wants us to believe. They promote big government across the board, whether it's cheerleading for wars or for government interference in the economy.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Nutbard's
See, that's why I decided not to take you seriously.
a sociopath whose entire political philosophy boils down to "You aren't the boss of me, I'll do what I want!"
There's nothing more selfish or sociopathic than seeking power over others. There's nothing more pathetic than being part of the cheering section for the power-grabbers.
You are a closed minded selfish simpleton
I'm playing you like a fiddle, sunshine. If you were half as smart as you think you are, you'd have figured that out a long time ago.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Oh don't even TRY the "I'm playing you" game with ME buster, I practically invented that one.
I am now bored with any pretense of trying to play you, or diss you, or strawman your arguments. I am genuinely curious about your continued interest. Let's take it to a journal entry.
And let the record show, "you win." Through sheer bullheadedness, but eh? A win's a win, right?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Oh don't even TRY the "I'm playing you" game with ME buster
I got you to claim that the great depression was over in three years. Admit it.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Ahahaha, oh that is rich. Man, you are always good for a laugh.
Oh. My. GOD! jcr tricked me into admitting the truth! The depression was over in three years. Look up the definition, you twit. I'm measuring from the time that growth stopped to the time it started again. Three years. Growth started again as soon as FDR started fixing things. It would have started sooner had Hoover done anything useful. Funny how Nutbard only focuses on the Hoover years, and claims it was because he tried to regulate things. But he didn't, he let the free market take it's course, and everything turned to shit. As soon as FDR was elected and started doing socialism, things got better.
Really, though, if you are interested in discussing this further, let's take it to my journal. I made one just for you, don't you feel special?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The depression was over in three years
Tell it to anyone who lived through it, sport. They'll laugh at you like I do.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The after effects took longer to clean up, but the depression stopped as soon as that idiot Hoover got the boot. Growth restarted after FDR began implementing his policies. The restart of growth signals the end of the depression.
It took another three years of FDR's policies before the economy had reached the pre-depression peak, but of course, right then was when the Republicans demanded FDR stop his socialist policies, and we slid into a short recession around 1937. But FDR stopped listening to the idiots, and growth restarted in less than a year.
The proof is in the numerical data, which you refuse to even acknowledge. Face facts, you've lost every round of this debate and you just keeping looking more and more foolish. Your ad hominems only amuse me, your straw men don't work, you have no facts or figures to support your claims, and you keep repeating yourself, as if saying the same debunked crap will work differently the umpteenth time you try it. You've lost, badly, and your continued feeble attempts at a come back only make you look obsessed.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
the depression stopped as soon as that idiot Hoover got the boot.
Nope. That idiot FDR continued Hoover's idiotic interventionist policies, just as Obama is doing now.
The proof is in the numerical data, which you refuse to even acknowledge
Your graphs chop off the data you don't want to acknowledge, which is that the recovery took place in 1946.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
You keep asserting things with no proof. It's not like you are going to convince me, and NO ONE ELSE is reading this. Get it? It's just you and me here now.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Dance, pinkbot, dance.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
You're the only one dancing. You really can't stand to not get 'the last word.' That happened a while ago, like I said, you are talking to yourself. Nobody here but you and me.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
What are you hoping to accomplish here? As for me, well, first I was amused. Then annoyed. Then amazed. Then amused again, and now I'm just curious how long your obsession is going to last.
You do know you are espousing a VERY minority position, right? A small minority of Americans believe what you believe. Most Americans ADORE FDR and believe he did the right thing. YEah, 'propaganda.' Hahaha, good excuse. Keep on spinning, you loon.
Me, I think FDR didn't do enough. He had the fat-cat capitalists over a barrel, he could have nationalized everything. But FDR was a centrist, not a left winger like me. Obama is a centrist, too, not a socialist, so never fear, he won't change the 'free' market system.
I know you why you want to get rid of government. You think you are better than other people, and it is your right, as a superior being, to profit from those less gifted than you. You want to get rid of anything standing in the way of you dominating others and telling them what to do. You hate freedom, and you know that the government protects the freedoms of the powerless, and you HATE that, don't you?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
To pretend that anything any animal does isn't for self interest is just total ignorance or stupidity, take you pick.
If a man jumps off a building, am I pretending that it isn't in his self-interest?
Mine is Good
Well, if you ask me, there was no valid reason to invade Iraq.
I agree with this, but my reason is even more simple:
The source of the 9/11 attacks was Totalitarian Islam (TI). Iraq had very little to do with TI, Saddam's regime was largely secular. Was Saddam's regime stifling and oppressive? Yes, but it was rather far removed from the real source of the 9/11 attacks: TI
Mine is Good
If I was your neighbor, could I take whatever I wanted from you?
Mine is Good
Oh yeah? I can put my entry into the simplest reason category. Here is my reason for not invading Iraq:
War is for the weak. The strong have no need for it. That's it.
I agree with your post as well.
Qxe4
Considering the well being of "not you", at the expense of "you", is the hallmark of collectivism, which is the basis for Socialism, Fascism, and Communism.
OTOH, being concerned with "you" (YOUR life, YOUR liberty, YOUR pursuit of happiness), is the hallmark of Capitalism, and was an end-product of the Enlightenment.
Mine is Good
In a free society, you have individual rights. You are legally protected from harm by others.
Mine is Good
Unfortunately for Libertarians, they come in many stripes and you can't really even define them.
Some are anarchists, some are minarchists. There really is no ethical underpinning that I am aware of
However if you want to read the best and most influential defense of individualism and Capitalism, you should check out the works of Ayn Rand.
Mine is Good