Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Oh, and Boats- The Whigs said the same thing about the Republicans.
Major rant -- may get me booted
- Thread starter SteelyDan
- Start date
- Status
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
Steely Dan,
You call that a rant?
That might get you banned?
My friend, you were CIVIL. You've got to break the rules that you agreed to abide by when you joined to get banned.
Disagreeing with us moderators ain't one of them...go back and check.
Libertarian? Yeah, I usually vote that way. I've voted for two Republican pukes since 1976. I really don't see much difference between a Republican conservative and a Democratic liberal as they disagree over which areas of my life that the government should control and to what degree that control should entail. They are in total agreement that THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD CONTROL AREAS OF MY LIFE THAT DO NOT INTRUDE ON THE RIGHTS OF ANY INDIVIDUAL.
But, I'm not a Libertarian...I'm more radical than that. The best description I've heard of my position is that I'm a rational anarchist. In other words, I need no government as I do not murder, rob, plunder, rape, etc. due to the existence of laws and police. On the other hand, I recognize that there are people who NEED to be told what to do, how to do it, and when to do it by an authority figure of some nature. I consider that need to be pathological... but it is still a fact. Therefore, those laws that I find to be tolerable...I tolerate.
But, thinking that your polemic is sufficient to attain the status of banishment? Have you ever looked up paranoia in the dictionary?
Please explain to me exactly what relationship, if any, laughing at the idiocy of Republicans and Democrats has to do with "Blame America First?"
I stand more with both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists viewpoints of America than the johnnie come lately Republicans and Democrats. That makes me part of a "Blame America First" crowd? I don't blame America. I blame the folks responsible...the folks who have been in control of the government for 180 years...the Republicans and the Democrats. Not America.
You call that a rant?
That might get you banned? My friend, you were CIVIL. You've got to break the rules that you agreed to abide by when you joined to get banned.
Disagreeing with us moderators ain't one of them...go back and check.
Libertarian? Yeah, I usually vote that way. I've voted for two Republican pukes since 1976. I really don't see much difference between a Republican conservative and a Democratic liberal as they disagree over which areas of my life that the government should control and to what degree that control should entail. They are in total agreement that THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD CONTROL AREAS OF MY LIFE THAT DO NOT INTRUDE ON THE RIGHTS OF ANY INDIVIDUAL.
But, I'm not a Libertarian...I'm more radical than that. The best description I've heard of my position is that I'm a rational anarchist. In other words, I need no government as I do not murder, rob, plunder, rape, etc. due to the existence of laws and police. On the other hand, I recognize that there are people who NEED to be told what to do, how to do it, and when to do it by an authority figure of some nature. I consider that need to be pathological... but it is still a fact. Therefore, those laws that I find to be tolerable...I tolerate.
But, thinking that your polemic is sufficient to attain the status of banishment? Have you ever looked up paranoia in the dictionary?
Please explain to me exactly what relationship, if any, laughing at the idiocy of Republicans and Democrats has to do with "Blame America First?"
I stand more with both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists viewpoints of America than the johnnie come lately Republicans and Democrats. That makes me part of a "Blame America First" crowd? I don't blame America. I blame the folks responsible...the folks who have been in control of the government for 180 years...the Republicans and the Democrats. Not America.
jdmb03
Member
Well put, SteelyDan.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
I tend to take a view of life from the standpoint of engineer/mechanic/racer: If it works, it's probably good. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If something isn't working, why keep doing it?
Ergo, to wit and therefore, I can't have a lot of respect for many governmental social programs. Since I've noticed that my opinion doesn't matter to the Congressfolks, I commonly show my contempt when posting but feel it's pointless to offer alternatives--BTDT, made no difference.
To me, the drawback to the idea of Libertarianism as a nationally-powerful political party is that it requires people to think/live in terms of exercising a high degree of personal responsibility. Given the nature of our society, I'm dubious this could ever attract a voting majority beyond small, local areas. Note this view has nothing to do with my opinion of the philosophy...
All in all, it seems to me that moderators don't care one iota about somebody's views on any issue, so long as the comments are halfway-smart and reasonably courteous.
, Art
Ergo, to wit and therefore, I can't have a lot of respect for many governmental social programs. Since I've noticed that my opinion doesn't matter to the Congressfolks, I commonly show my contempt when posting but feel it's pointless to offer alternatives--BTDT, made no difference.
To me, the drawback to the idea of Libertarianism as a nationally-powerful political party is that it requires people to think/live in terms of exercising a high degree of personal responsibility. Given the nature of our society, I'm dubious this could ever attract a voting majority beyond small, local areas. Note this view has nothing to do with my opinion of the philosophy...
All in all, it seems to me that moderators don't care one iota about somebody's views on any issue, so long as the comments are halfway-smart and reasonably courteous.
, Artlongeyes
member
Freedom of speech tends to be messy. Let's make the most of it.
Oh Justin--
The Republicans had an issue--slavery, and all of its attendant constitutional issues--that people were willing to kill and die over. The Libertarians have jack that motivates the masses, which of course is essential to gaining electoral viability.
A political party that can't even gain a signficant minority status in a small state is not exactly taking the scene by storm as the Republicans who supplanted the Whigs over a relatively short span did.
Nice try though, but the political party in the most danger of fracturing today isn't the Republican one. The Greens have way more troublemaking power on the Left than the Libertarians have on the Right.
The Republicans had an issue--slavery, and all of its attendant constitutional issues--that people were willing to kill and die over. The Libertarians have jack that motivates the masses, which of course is essential to gaining electoral viability.
A political party that can't even gain a signficant minority status in a small state is not exactly taking the scene by storm as the Republicans who supplanted the Whigs over a relatively short span did.
Nice try though, but the political party in the most danger of fracturing today isn't the Republican one. The Greens have way more troublemaking power on the Left than the Libertarians have on the Right.
Wildalaska
member
Im a mod on a very large Board and its thankless, the guys here do a good job.
The thing that bugs me too is the internet chest beating..."hang em, kill em, they are traitors and enemies, etc etc, ad nauseum, ad infinitum". Also the hypocrisy and generalizations:
a. The police are our enemies until they arrest someone we dont like.
2. Lawyers are scum leeches until they defend a gun case.
3. The constitution protects all sorts of rights until it speaks of one I dont like.
4. Fair trials and inncoent until proven guilty only apply to gun possesion crimes or dealer errors.
WildihavemorebutyagethtepointAlaska
The thing that bugs me too is the internet chest beating..."hang em, kill em, they are traitors and enemies, etc etc, ad nauseum, ad infinitum". Also the hypocrisy and generalizations:
a. The police are our enemies until they arrest someone we dont like.
2. Lawyers are scum leeches until they defend a gun case.
3. The constitution protects all sorts of rights until it speaks of one I dont like.
4. Fair trials and inncoent until proven guilty only apply to gun possesion crimes or dealer errors.
WildihavemorebutyagethtepointAlaska
rick newland
Member
I don't think that in my life time I will ever see the Libertarians make any major inroads. But if people would get out and vote a handful of them into office that would be a major wakeup call to the Reps and Dems that people are really getting sick of them.
Excellet post SteelyDan.
You feel that the board is straying from things you believe in, voice your opinions clearly, and politely.
You have opened up an interesting discussion, and I think that's what is great about THR. The way our divergent beliefs can be discussed openly. We all end up being better as a whole. It's a shame our legislators can't live by our example.
I took an online test awhile back that attempts to determine where your political affiliations should be based on how you answered certain viewpoint questions. It said I was a conservative, but with definite liberal tendencies.
Do I think the Libertarians are a viable political force?
Not yet, but they are getting there.
Do I think that because they are small they don't bring anything good to the table?
Certainly not. They have several good points on their side, and I like to learn from as many sources as possible. They are probably the party closest to the Constitution at this point, so I will continue to monitor their progress, and support their views where I agree with them. I will continue to do the same with the Republicans. However, I do agree with some of the posters who have said that the Republican pitch lately is vote for us because we won't ignore the Constitution "as much" as the others.
You feel that the board is straying from things you believe in, voice your opinions clearly, and politely.
You have opened up an interesting discussion, and I think that's what is great about THR. The way our divergent beliefs can be discussed openly. We all end up being better as a whole. It's a shame our legislators can't live by our example.
I took an online test awhile back that attempts to determine where your political affiliations should be based on how you answered certain viewpoint questions. It said I was a conservative, but with definite liberal tendencies.
Do I think the Libertarians are a viable political force?
Not yet, but they are getting there.
Do I think that because they are small they don't bring anything good to the table?
Certainly not. They have several good points on their side, and I like to learn from as many sources as possible. They are probably the party closest to the Constitution at this point, so I will continue to monitor their progress, and support their views where I agree with them. I will continue to do the same with the Republicans. However, I do agree with some of the posters who have said that the Republican pitch lately is vote for us because we won't ignore the Constitution "as much" as the others.
rock jock
Member
Steely,
I'm with you 100%. The problem as I see it is that some folks want to transform America into something that it is not and was never meant to be. They will often cite the founding fathers when it suits their purpose, but move beyond original intent on so many other issues. It is duplicitous to propose a political framework substantially different from what the FF intended, i.e., pure libertarianism, and then criticize Republicans and Democrats for doing the same with socialism. Of course, the "true believers" will quickly assail you for being a sheep if you don't buy into their definition of freedom or the proper role of government.
I'm with you 100%. The problem as I see it is that some folks want to transform America into something that it is not and was never meant to be. They will often cite the founding fathers when it suits their purpose, but move beyond original intent on so many other issues. It is duplicitous to propose a political framework substantially different from what the FF intended, i.e., pure libertarianism, and then criticize Republicans and Democrats for doing the same with socialism. Of course, the "true believers" will quickly assail you for being a sheep if you don't buy into their definition of freedom or the proper role of government.
spartacus2002
Member
I think most of the political conversation on this board would become completely civil again if we distinguished between criticizing our country (culture, values, people) and criticizing our government (actions, forms, and institutions) when we make our observations on a given subject.
It is too easy to be misunderstood if one says "America has done this..." because nobody knows what the heck you mean by America. Americans? Congress? Business? State Dept?
Don't confuse loving your country and loving your government.
Don't confuse frustration with government with hatred of country.
It is too easy to be misunderstood if one says "America has done this..." because nobody knows what the heck you mean by America. Americans? Congress? Business? State Dept?
Don't confuse loving your country and loving your government.
Don't confuse frustration with government with hatred of country.
[blockquote](thumper) Letting Slick Willy in your house is a great way to get screwed...true on many levels.[/blockquote]
And as it turns out, voting Bush into office is a great way to get screwed too. I really don't see your point. Vote Dem: get screwed. Vote Rep: get screwed. See a pattern? At least we're overdue for an electoral realignment... hopefully the Libertarian party will take over in place of the Republican party... one can always hope.
[blockquote](nukemjim) Bottom Line Libertartians are the ONLY national political party that is Truly pro-gun. Voting for them makes sense to me if only to let the other politicans know what we want.
[/blockquote]
Wrong. Libertarians themselves are not necessarily pro-gun. That's the problem I have with some of them. Regardless of how they'd vote, If they don't see the utility of firearms I don't want them in office. That kept me from voting for the TX Lib. Party candidate for U.S. Senate last November.
And as it turns out, voting Bush into office is a great way to get screwed too. I really don't see your point. Vote Dem: get screwed. Vote Rep: get screwed. See a pattern? At least we're overdue for an electoral realignment... hopefully the Libertarian party will take over in place of the Republican party... one can always hope.
[blockquote](nukemjim) Bottom Line Libertartians are the ONLY national political party that is Truly pro-gun. Voting for them makes sense to me if only to let the other politicans know what we want.
[/blockquote]
Wrong. Libertarians themselves are not necessarily pro-gun. That's the problem I have with some of them. Regardless of how they'd vote, If they don't see the utility of firearms I don't want them in office. That kept me from voting for the TX Lib. Party candidate for U.S. Senate last November.
Seeker
Member
You say that like it is a bad thing.
The country was founded on libertarian principles, have you read Common Sense
Republicrat, Demican = six of one half a dozen of another. Both are enemys of Freedom.
I've never voted Demincan and the last time I voted Republicrat I voted for RR and later wished I hadn't.
Someone in a previous post said they are a single issue voter, guess that keeps life simple, I presume that single issue is the 2nd Amendment. If that is the case why aren't you voting Libertarian? What have the Republicrats done to reduce legislation limilting firearms rights
edited to fix link -- pax
which is beyond my abilities, apparently... sorry.
Thanks pax, I tried to make it work for about 15 minutes then lost internet connection. I tried to do it by using the http:// button...but no joy.- seeker
Last edited:
alan
Member
If you were banned from this site based on what you said in the original post, which I very much doubt would happen, then this site isn't worth bothering about or with.
Tamara
Senior Member
Boats,
When your rebuttals have been reduced to reductio ad absurdum, straw man, excluded middle, and ad hominem, it might be time to, you know, check the strength of your argument.
So your average voter is more concerned about the WWF than the BoR. Your point?
When your rebuttals have been reduced to reductio ad absurdum, straw man, excluded middle, and ad hominem, it might be time to, you know, check the strength of your argument.
So your average voter is more concerned about the WWF than the BoR. Your point?
JohnBT
Member
SteelyDan - I hear you. I see it too.
___________
I haven't worked for or voted for a Libertarian candidate since the late 70s. The overall problem seems to be the great difficulty in organizing people who at heart are individualists and don't like organizations.
We're all going to have to band together to defeat Senator Cllinton when she gets around to running for President.
John
___________
I haven't worked for or voted for a Libertarian candidate since the late 70s. The overall problem seems to be the great difficulty in organizing people who at heart are individualists and don't like organizations.
We're all going to have to band together to defeat Senator Cllinton when she gets around to running for President.
John
brookstexas
member
Democrat or Republican, it's the same!
The Assault Weapon Ban came from the Bush Sr. administration and after he was out Clinton signed it into law.
WHO is our friend?
Bush Jr and John Ashcroft have dismantled the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments via the Patriot and subsequent additions.
Don't believe it? Have YOU read them?
Bush Jr said he was against the Sunsetting of the AWB.
Puuuuuhleeeese, don't tell me how clever he was as he knew Congress would kill it etc. I don't want a clever/tricky Prez, I already had Clinton!
Voting Libertarian this time because the above two choices aren't my friends....
BT
want to learn what's really going on? www.infowars.com
The Assault Weapon Ban came from the Bush Sr. administration and after he was out Clinton signed it into law.
WHO is our friend?
Bush Jr and John Ashcroft have dismantled the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments via the Patriot and subsequent additions.
Don't believe it? Have YOU read them?
Bush Jr said he was against the Sunsetting of the AWB.
Puuuuuhleeeese, don't tell me how clever he was as he knew Congress would kill it etc. I don't want a clever/tricky Prez, I already had Clinton!
Voting Libertarian this time because the above two choices aren't my friends....
BT
want to learn what's really going on? www.infowars.com
Thumper
Member
Really? Who ya votin' for? (Hint: If you have to look it up, it's a pretty good indicator that he/she's not going to win.)
Either way, Feinstein, Schumer, Kerry, Hillary, et al appreciate your support.
Ed Brunner
Member
Art Eatman has the right idea. Let me give you my take on Libertarians vs. Republicans. The Libertarians are idealists the Republicans are realists. And yes, I agree it's not that simple, but you get the picture. Deep down I am Libertarian. I'm just not willing to trust this country to Democrats while we develop the party.
sm
member
my observations...
In my short time in this world a couple of thoughts. If one wants to know if a politician is lying--check to see if their mouth is open. Sometimes the only difference in parties is they way they spell the party name. Many politicians either forgot all the stumping for votes, or just plain lied from the get-go to get into office. All politicians have a Master's in "rationaliztion"--and working on Doctorate.
I think the problem with gummit is gummit itself. Gummit has in part been able to do this because of complacency of the populace. Kinda like a drug dealer, free dope for votes, get 'em hooked, brains turns to mush, and instead of being personally responsible for themselves, the populace is now dependent on more "dope". Addicts= Subjects.
THR and Mods : Thankless job they do. It is of my opinion when heated topics arise, the mods provide links to references, encourage the members to do the same. This way everyone is able to debate the subect matter, and not the individual. THR is (IMO) advocating personal responsibility. Don't take it for granted, look it up and be informed, debate and get us all to think.
Best weapon we have against those whom wish to do harm, is to be informed. Sheeple just follow the leader blindly...and take another hit...
In my short time in this world a couple of thoughts. If one wants to know if a politician is lying--check to see if their mouth is open. Sometimes the only difference in parties is they way they spell the party name. Many politicians either forgot all the stumping for votes, or just plain lied from the get-go to get into office. All politicians have a Master's in "rationaliztion"--and working on Doctorate.
I think the problem with gummit is gummit itself. Gummit has in part been able to do this because of complacency of the populace. Kinda like a drug dealer, free dope for votes, get 'em hooked, brains turns to mush, and instead of being personally responsible for themselves, the populace is now dependent on more "dope". Addicts= Subjects.
THR and Mods : Thankless job they do. It is of my opinion when heated topics arise, the mods provide links to references, encourage the members to do the same. This way everyone is able to debate the subect matter, and not the individual. THR is (IMO) advocating personal responsibility. Don't take it for granted, look it up and be informed, debate and get us all to think.
Best weapon we have against those whom wish to do harm, is to be informed. Sheeple just follow the leader blindly...and take another hit...
oldfart
Member
SteelyDan;
Back around the beginning of the 20th century, many of the problems we now see were already known. In 1900 there were a lot of possible ways to fix things. By 1920 there were even more signs of the coming Socialism and fewer answers. After WW2 things really started sliding downhill and taking the answers with them.
Here we are beginning the 21st century and it looks like Kreutschev (sp?) was right-- we're nearly as Socialist as was the USSR and we're down to only two or three possible avenues to salvation.
We all hope we will be able to lift ourselves out of this morass by our own bootstraps, somehow voting a better sort of politician into office who will 'fix' things for us. A second, only slightly better chance is afforded by the Free State Project which hopes to change one state at a time, eventually changing the whole country.
In actuallity, our only real chance is to take the same road our founders did. I don't know when we'll turn down that dark lane but I know the time will come when people will realize their lives are so brutalized, so empty, so futile they have nothing to lose except a few years of brutal, empty futility. Then-- and only then-- will things change.
So, for now all we can do is bitch about the way things are done. Right now we still have the faint hope offered by those first two possibilities and the fear of losing what little we still enjoy. Were I twenty years old I might be able_to look forward realistically to a time when I could pick up my rifle and make a difference. But I'm pushing seventy and when the time comes (and it will) I'll be barely a memory to my grandchildren.
Complaining may not be as satisfying as actually doing something, but right now it's all we have. Make the most of it.
Back around the beginning of the 20th century, many of the problems we now see were already known. In 1900 there were a lot of possible ways to fix things. By 1920 there were even more signs of the coming Socialism and fewer answers. After WW2 things really started sliding downhill and taking the answers with them.
Here we are beginning the 21st century and it looks like Kreutschev (sp?) was right-- we're nearly as Socialist as was the USSR and we're down to only two or three possible avenues to salvation.
We all hope we will be able to lift ourselves out of this morass by our own bootstraps, somehow voting a better sort of politician into office who will 'fix' things for us. A second, only slightly better chance is afforded by the Free State Project which hopes to change one state at a time, eventually changing the whole country.
In actuallity, our only real chance is to take the same road our founders did. I don't know when we'll turn down that dark lane but I know the time will come when people will realize their lives are so brutalized, so empty, so futile they have nothing to lose except a few years of brutal, empty futility. Then-- and only then-- will things change.
So, for now all we can do is bitch about the way things are done. Right now we still have the faint hope offered by those first two possibilities and the fear of losing what little we still enjoy. Were I twenty years old I might be able_to look forward realistically to a time when I could pick up my rifle and make a difference. But I'm pushing seventy and when the time comes (and it will) I'll be barely a memory to my grandchildren.
Complaining may not be as satisfying as actually doing something, but right now it's all we have. Make the most of it.
Thumper
Member
Pax, clever, but you know it's not true.
Seriously...when, in a realistic best case scenario, do you think Libs could advance enough to be relevant on the national stage?
Sir Galahad
member
As a former extremist (except I was an actual card-carrying, organizer one---I didn't just play one on the internet), I will say that the votes of those who profess anarchism of various stripes (boy, my former IWW comrades would get a kick out of seeing the term "anarcho-capitalist") do not matter because there are so few of them. In fact, most of them are probably right here on this board, so count them, and you have about 75% of the folks who profess that belief. History also shows the people who claim to have "THE Answer" will usually be far worse than the system they seek to replace. Lenin and Hitler both claimed to have "THE Answer". Mao had "THE Answer". (And about here is where I'll be branded the freedom-hating schwein and running-dog lackey of The Man.) Well, I've heard ALLLLLLLLL of this same stuff before, except from the Left. In fact, if you took some of the things I've read here, changed the words, and put it into the IWW newspaper, they'd never know the difference. The "talk" is almost like a political Mad Lib: "The federal government is taking away our right to own (add noun) and (add adjective)! Everyone who disagrees is a slave of the (noun)! Liberate yourselves from the federal tyranny! When we become a (add noun), everyone will be free and happy and all will sing the praises of (add noun) to the entire world!" The Far Right and Far Left meet in the middle in the rear. Yep, "I" have "THE Answer"! Not you!! Not him!! But "I"!!! You are a slave and a fool if you don't believe it!
In the absence of real problems, people will always invent their own. Feel free to add my name to the list of those slated for the re-education camps after The Revolution. Please be sure I get a top bunk, please.
In the absence of real problems, people will always invent their own. Feel free to add my name to the list of those slated for the re-education camps after The Revolution. Please be sure I get a top bunk, please.
Glock Glockler
Member
Really? Who ya votin' for? (Hint: If you have to look it up, it's a pretty good indicator that he/she's not going to win.)
Either way, Feinstein, Schumer, Kerry, Hillary, et al appreciate your support.
Who cares if they don't win? Just because a candidate doesn't win doesn't mean that they cannot affect political change (that's the point of voting, yes?). Politicians want to stay in office and are only interested in whatever will keep them there, so I am sending them a loud message that I will not support them unless they are willing to scale back govt, not just increase it at a marginally slower rate. I am also emboldening others who might want to vote libertarian but don't want to "throw away their vote".
Also, if more people voted for them, they will win, so what's the problem?
Also, it is important to note that I am in no way obligated to vote for any Republican, so how is that a support for Democrats? You only support them when you vote for them, so if I vote libertarian, even though they're not going to win, right, it's no different than voting for Bugs Bunny or not voting at all. So why is it that we're supporting Democrats any more than those that are just too lazy to vote in the first place.
Maybe the problem isn't Libertarians that won't vote Republican, maybe it's Republicans that won't vote Libertarian.
Either way, Feinstein, Schumer, Kerry, Hillary, et al appreciate your support.
Who cares if they don't win? Just because a candidate doesn't win doesn't mean that they cannot affect political change (that's the point of voting, yes?). Politicians want to stay in office and are only interested in whatever will keep them there, so I am sending them a loud message that I will not support them unless they are willing to scale back govt, not just increase it at a marginally slower rate. I am also emboldening others who might want to vote libertarian but don't want to "throw away their vote".
Also, if more people voted for them, they will win, so what's the problem?
Also, it is important to note that I am in no way obligated to vote for any Republican, so how is that a support for Democrats? You only support them when you vote for them, so if I vote libertarian, even though they're not going to win, right, it's no different than voting for Bugs Bunny or not voting at all. So why is it that we're supporting Democrats any more than those that are just too lazy to vote in the first place.
Maybe the problem isn't Libertarians that won't vote Republican, maybe it's Republicans that won't vote Libertarian.
- Status
