In between we had periods of prosperity where there were checks and balances. Spare me the "we believe" rhetoric. The only difference is which pig is at the trough.
It just was not so obvious. Al Gore sold his vote on the first Gulf War for extra media coverage so he could get some more name recognition for a run at the '92 election.
"Libertarian," like most political labels, can encompass a wide range of ideals. Here in the US, the Libertarian Party is closest in philosophy to Classical Liberalism. Under libertarianism, slavery would be illegal because it violates the rights of the slave. The person is inviolable until he violates the rights of another, and prevention or punishment of rights violations is the only reasonable use of force. Drug prohibition is considered to violate the individual's right to decide what he does to his own person. Religious laws such as against adultery and homosexual activity violate freedom of association and of the person. In such a system, which is wholly supported by the US Constitution, the government's main domestic role is to ensure that nobody's rights are violated.
Basically, in the US political spectrum, libertarianism rejects the nanny state, religious right, world police, corporate subsidies and many other current activities of our government. The current economic meltdown wouldn't have occurred in a libertarian-leaning government because the banks wouldn't have been ordered and pressured to make all of those bad loans.
The problem with libertarianism is that it would require a complete reworking of the mentality that big government has gotten us into. Too many expect BigGov to make us safe, make our big decisions for us. Decisions made according to sound bites and 30-second commercials are safe. Libertarianism requires people to think and make informed choices.
Responsibility for your own actions. What a concept.
I hear this all the time. Did it ever occur to these politicians that not everyone is smart enough to go to college? The world needs ditch diggers, but saying that honest truth won't get one elected.
I've had some sympathies with the Greens in the past, but this year they are running that absolute whack-job race-baiter McKinney.
I have even more sympathies for the Libertarians, but this year they are running Bob Barr, a decidedly non-libertarian type who wanted to ban Wicca in the military. He belongs in the Constitution Party.
A federal government with limited powers, multiple state governments, county governments (3,000+ as of now), and city governments. Our current problem is that the governments at the top want to dictate what the governments below do. The system wasn't designed for that, but that's how it is now, with the resulting problems.
A clear example is the drug laws. The federal government tries to override the choice of states to legalize certain drugs. That wasn't a stated power of the fed, so the fed has no business dictating to the states.
You guys over in the EU, watch out. Our country was once a collection of sovereign states.
But you both have something in common in wanting to remove a right of the people.
I don't think the constitution does either
Look up "dangerous and unusual weapons."
What basis is there for the association you draw between democracy-guns and dictatorship-no guns?
Look through history. Removal of the means of defense often precedes the imposition of a dictatorship or genocide.
Soviet Union 1929 prior to rounding up dissidents.
Turkey 1911 prior to rounding up the Armenians.
Germany 1938 prior to rounding up the Jews.
China 1950s prior to the big cleansing.
Guatemala in the 60s prior to going after the Mayans.
Uganda in the 70s prior to going after the Christians and other rivals.
Cambodia in the 70s prior to rounding up the educated class.
I believe those cover at least 30 million deaths. But you think because things appear to be settled now there's no need for them anymore. As the saying goes, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
right to bare arms, as in the weapons of war. Nuclear weapons and tanks are not excluded.
There is a big difference between arms, what a foot soldier would normally carry, and ordnance.
Armed citizens are not part of the way the US is defended.
Armed citizens are the way the US is defended against a potentially oppressive government. The founding fathers were quite clear on the issue.
This constitutional right should be removed with an amendment.
Bush probably thinks we should remove the 4th and 5th Amendments too. The 2nd Amendment is the only one that protects against the loss of them all. To remove that is dangerous, as historically it is often a precursor to a dictatorship.
We didn't do it to the USSR, as I said we shipped them corn. The embargo is driven by a spiteful, although spiteful with damn good reason, Cuban exile lobby here.
They are shit holes, in shambles, unsanitary. These are the ones normal Cubans get to visit as opposed to the nice hospital for the party elites and foreigners with cash that you saw in Sicko. Trying to sneak photos of them out of the country can get you arrested, but some have succeeded. I like the guy taking his sick father to the hospital in a wheelbarrow because there were no ambulances. If I go to a pharmacy here I have to pay, but I can get my drugs. There you will see a sign saying there are no prescriptions available.
You forget this is a communist totalitarian state we're talking about. They never tell the truth, just like the Soviet Union was broadcasting about record wheat harvests that'll feed everybody while we were sending them the millions of tons of grain they needed to actually do it.
I guess you didn't have Asteroids on your 2600. Long play time, there have been records for the games of that era at over two days of straight play. How long does Gears of War take to finish?
So if I run an organization where felonies are constantly committed and I don't do anything remotely effective to stop it, I get a pass? Cool, I could make some mad cash with a *nudgenudgewinkwink* robbery ring and get away with it.
McCain was one of the last people I wanted to win the Republican primary, and Obama about the last on the Democratic primary. But in the end I have to settle on the rights issue and a willingness to follow the law.
On rights, Obama firmly does not believe in the 2nd Amendment despite his recent lip service. To me this isn't so much about guns themselves, but about the constitutional right to own them. It's about Obama saying he wants us to trust him to control how millions of guns are used, but he doesn't trust us with even one. We're the little people, he knows better than us.
It's about a consistent commitment to follow the law. On abortion he said states shouldn't be able to trump rights. But on gun rights he said states should be able to do exactly that. Remember, he was for the DC gun ban before he was for Heller. For him our constitutional rights are irrelevant, only what he wants to do matters. I saw a LOT of that in Bush, and I don't want it again.
The fact that I would benefit from his wealth redistribution plan doesn't factor in. My rights can't be purchased, at least not from me.
Ayers associates with a lot of people in a professional capacity. It's about a view into what Obama really believes. Ayers launched Obama's political career in his living room. That means that Ayers, a self-described "small 'c' communist," sees in Obama the potential to achieve his own goals.
If around the same time Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition had decided to take someone under his wing and launch his political career, it would be logical to conclude that the person is likely to be a right-wing Christian, or at least sympathetic to their cause.
And if you want it to be different in a way that doesn't have a constitutional basis, we have a method for that.
It's called an amendment.
I'll bet you are against Bush's warrantless wiretapping. Hey, relax, this is just a different government. We can ignore the clear intent and text these days.
I didn't think anyone was trying to minimize his known relationships with Ayers and Khalidi except for Democratic Party loyalists. Hmmm, I have an upcoming political career. I just might want to stay away from known terrorists and sympathisers. Maybe I shouldn't take money from them, let them do fundraisers for me, let them help me start that political career.
I notice no comment on the rights-grabbing and lying.
And the Democrat (yes, Democrat) who brought the suit is a tin foil hat nut job.
But the arguments against this suit amount to saying that nobody, and no entity, in the country has standing. Kind of strange that a constitutional requirement can't be enforced.
Still, Obama's stubbornness in keeping the records sealed doesn't lend itself well to his trustworthiness and claims to desire openness. I bet the simple fact is that it will show the birth certificate Obama released as being a forgery, and that will hurt his credibility.
It wouldn't make strategic sense for Republicans to support any attempt at massive, non-partisan voter turnout.
Apparently not the Democrats either. ACORN is the biggest voter turnout organization as far as I know, and it is about as partisan to the Democratic Party as it gets.
Besides, as the last article says, neither of you can win without the support of independents like me (I've never been party-registered in my life). We are who you have to cater to, but this time your candidate, well, sucks. I've never been much of a McCain supporter, but I'll rally behind him to keep a constitutional rights-trashing, inconsistent, lying friend of terrorists out of office.
I didn't vote for Bush in 2004 because of his poor constitutional rights record, and didn't vote for Gore in 2000 for the same reason, so I'm sure not voting for Obama.
Slashdot Mirror
Bush through most of his term, disaster.
Clinton at the beginning of his term, disaster.
Carter, HUGE disaster.
In between we had periods of prosperity where there were checks and balances. Spare me the "we believe" rhetoric. The only difference is which pig is at the trough.
Exactly how much senator work has Obama done in the last two years?
It just was not so obvious. Al Gore sold his vote on the first Gulf War for extra media coverage so he could get some more name recognition for a run at the '92 election.
"Libertarian," like most political labels, can encompass a wide range of ideals. Here in the US, the Libertarian Party is closest in philosophy to Classical Liberalism. Under libertarianism, slavery would be illegal because it violates the rights of the slave. The person is inviolable until he violates the rights of another, and prevention or punishment of rights violations is the only reasonable use of force. Drug prohibition is considered to violate the individual's right to decide what he does to his own person. Religious laws such as against adultery and homosexual activity violate freedom of association and of the person. In such a system, which is wholly supported by the US Constitution, the government's main domestic role is to ensure that nobody's rights are violated.
Basically, in the US political spectrum, libertarianism rejects the nanny state, religious right, world police, corporate subsidies and many other current activities of our government. The current economic meltdown wouldn't have occurred in a libertarian-leaning government because the banks wouldn't have been ordered and pressured to make all of those bad loans.
The problem with libertarianism is that it would require a complete reworking of the mentality that big government has gotten us into. Too many expect BigGov to make us safe, make our big decisions for us. Decisions made according to sound bites and 30-second commercials are safe. Libertarianism requires people to think and make informed choices.
Responsibility for your own actions. What a concept.
I hear this all the time. Did it ever occur to these politicians that not everyone is smart enough to go to college? The world needs ditch diggers, but saying that honest truth won't get one elected.
A basic Libertarian platform: Protection of individual rights, from others and from the government.
I've had some sympathies with the Greens in the past, but this year they are running that absolute whack-job race-baiter McKinney.
I have even more sympathies for the Libertarians, but this year they are running Bob Barr, a decidedly non-libertarian type who wanted to ban Wicca in the military. He belongs in the Constitution Party.
A federal government with limited powers, multiple state governments, county governments (3,000+ as of now), and city governments. Our current problem is that the governments at the top want to dictate what the governments below do. The system wasn't designed for that, but that's how it is now, with the resulting problems.
A clear example is the drug laws. The federal government tries to override the choice of states to legalize certain drugs. That wasn't a stated power of the fed, so the fed has no business dictating to the states.
You guys over in the EU, watch out. Our country was once a collection of sovereign states.
But you both have something in common in wanting to remove a right of the people.
Look up "dangerous and unusual weapons."
Look through history. Removal of the means of defense often precedes the imposition of a dictatorship or genocide.
I believe those cover at least 30 million deaths. But you think because things appear to be settled now there's no need for them anymore. As the saying goes, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
There is a big difference between arms, what a foot soldier would normally carry, and ordnance.
Armed citizens are the way the US is defended against a potentially oppressive government. The founding fathers were quite clear on the issue.
Bush probably thinks we should remove the 4th and 5th Amendments too. The 2nd Amendment is the only one that protects against the loss of them all. To remove that is dangerous, as historically it is often a precursor to a dictatorship.
We can question, we can challenge, we can bring the truth to light. People can sue for information they're trying to hide, and succeed.
Try questioning in Cuba. I don't think Castro will be so beloved to you after that.
In Cuba you will land in jail for doing so.
We didn't do it to the USSR, as I said we shipped them corn. The embargo is driven by a spiteful, although spiteful with damn good reason, Cuban exile lobby here.
Under the German state health care you never get a bill, never see what is being charged to your doctor.
Here I get a statement from my insurance company stating what I paid, what they paid and whatever discount the doctor gave to the insurance company.
They are shit holes, in shambles, unsanitary. These are the ones normal Cubans get to visit as opposed to the nice hospital for the party elites and foreigners with cash that you saw in Sicko. Trying to sneak photos of them out of the country can get you arrested, but some have succeeded. I like the guy taking his sick father to the hospital in a wheelbarrow because there were no ambulances. If I go to a pharmacy here I have to pay, but I can get my drugs. There you will see a sign saying there are no prescriptions available.
You forget this is a communist totalitarian state we're talking about. They never tell the truth, just like the Soviet Union was broadcasting about record wheat harvests that'll feed everybody while we were sending them the millions of tons of grain they needed to actually do it.
Not about fat, but about smoking or drinking or some such -- stop or you don't get the care you need.
I guess you didn't have Asteroids on your 2600. Long play time, there have been records for the games of that era at over two days of straight play. How long does Gears of War take to finish?
Can I count on Democrats to defend my new enterprise? I might even get up into Obama's idea of what "rich" is and get taxed more.
Of course the way his number keeps dropping, I might get taxed more at my current salary anyway.
So if I run an organization where felonies are constantly committed and I don't do anything remotely effective to stop it, I get a pass? Cool, I could make some mad cash with a *nudgenudgewinkwink* robbery ring and get away with it.
McCain was one of the last people I wanted to win the Republican primary, and Obama about the last on the Democratic primary. But in the end I have to settle on the rights issue and a willingness to follow the law.
On rights, Obama firmly does not believe in the 2nd Amendment despite his recent lip service. To me this isn't so much about guns themselves, but about the constitutional right to own them. It's about Obama saying he wants us to trust him to control how millions of guns are used, but he doesn't trust us with even one. We're the little people, he knows better than us.
It's about a consistent commitment to follow the law. On abortion he said states shouldn't be able to trump rights. But on gun rights he said states should be able to do exactly that. Remember, he was for the DC gun ban before he was for Heller. For him our constitutional rights are irrelevant, only what he wants to do matters. I saw a LOT of that in Bush, and I don't want it again.
The fact that I would benefit from his wealth redistribution plan doesn't factor in. My rights can't be purchased, at least not from me.
Ayers associates with a lot of people in a professional capacity. It's about a view into what Obama really believes. Ayers launched Obama's political career in his living room. That means that Ayers, a self-described "small 'c' communist," sees in Obama the potential to achieve his own goals.
If around the same time Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition had decided to take someone under his wing and launch his political career, it would be logical to conclude that the person is likely to be a right-wing Christian, or at least sympathetic to their cause.
And if you want it to be different in a way that doesn't have a constitutional basis, we have a method for that.
It's called an amendment.
I'll bet you are against Bush's warrantless wiretapping. Hey, relax, this is just a different government. We can ignore the clear intent and text these days.
I didn't think anyone was trying to minimize his known relationships with Ayers and Khalidi except for Democratic Party loyalists. Hmmm, I have an upcoming political career. I just might want to stay away from known terrorists and sympathisers. Maybe I shouldn't take money from them, let them do fundraisers for me, let them help me start that political career.
I notice no comment on the rights-grabbing and lying.
And the Democrat (yes, Democrat) who brought the suit is a tin foil hat nut job.
But the arguments against this suit amount to saying that nobody, and no entity, in the country has standing. Kind of strange that a constitutional requirement can't be enforced.
Still, Obama's stubbornness in keeping the records sealed doesn't lend itself well to his trustworthiness and claims to desire openness. I bet the simple fact is that it will show the birth certificate Obama released as being a forgery, and that will hurt his credibility.
Apparently not the Democrats either. ACORN is the biggest voter turnout organization as far as I know, and it is about as partisan to the Democratic Party as it gets.
Besides, as the last article says, neither of you can win without the support of independents like me (I've never been party-registered in my life). We are who you have to cater to, but this time your candidate, well, sucks. I've never been much of a McCain supporter, but I'll rally behind him to keep a constitutional rights-trashing, inconsistent, lying friend of terrorists out of office.
I didn't vote for Bush in 2004 because of his poor constitutional rights record, and didn't vote for Gore in 2000 for the same reason, so I'm sure not voting for Obama.