Level-headed Leadership by dreamtrove

Yes.

Ron Paul.
http://www.house.gov/paul/

He's a strict Constitutionalist, follows the original interpretation and meaning, believes in sound money and logical, common sense measures.

How this guy has managed to not "have an accident" I do not know, but he's a breath of fresh air in the current political climate.

For all the good that my local favorite, John Conyers has done, there's still some critical disagreements and i could not reccommend him for any position higher than he currently holds due to lack of experience and a certain partisanship that would only further divide our bruised and battered nation.

I don't completely agree 100% with Ron Paul either, but I am of the firm opinion he's the only candidate who could take the shattered remnants of this partisan warfare and weld them into a cohesive government that did something close to it's intended function.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 7, 2006 8:37 PM

Brian Schweitzer, the governer of Montana.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 2:24 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Mit Romney looks the best to me at this point.

But I take objection to some of your comments put forth here.

Quote:
Who does everyone think would be a good level-headed type to steer America back onto a sane course, away from this trend of serial war, megaspending, and free for all corporate mergers, govt-corporate entities, civil liberty stripping, (or as I like to call it, anti-freedom) ... and back to (or forward to) and america in which people can swing their arms, the state doesn't drain 'em dry, and geopolitical stability is actually a goal of our foreign policy.

serial war - Afghanistan is a no brainer. Anyone who doesn't understand why we went there, I can't talk to you. Iraq, is debatable. But I'll remind you of the 10+ yrs of a bogus cat & mouse games Saddam played w/ us and the U.N., while the Food for Oil scandal was happening. Also, it was official US policy that 'regime change' in Iraq take place, compliments of Bill Clinton.

megaspending - we spend too much. I agree. Next

free for all corp mergers - Let the free market play itself out. We busted up Ma Bell, for example, and after yrs of smaller businesses, they've naturally gone back to the way they were.

gov't - corp entities - not sure i'm on board w/ that either.

civil liberties stripping - I've noticed none of my civil liberties stripped.

stability in geo-politcs ? Like the US has control over any of that ? There's 2 things wrong here. We have an Islamic problem going on world wide which seeks to DEstablize geo-politics . Also, there's the false notion that 'stabilty' is the prerequisite for "peace" . Sometimes shackles must be thrown off. The absense of fighthing is NOT the same as a free and peaceful wrold. China or N.Korea can quietly suppress its citizens. It's stable, but at what cost ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 6:44 AM

MAVOURNEEN

Mike Rowe, the host of Dirty Jobs on Discovery Channel.

Wait. Hear me out. Husband and I were watching Dirty Jobs last night, and one of his crew had a "Mike Rowe for President" t-shirt on. I pointed it out and Husband said "I'd vote for him."

He's level headed.
He's not afraid of hard work.
He's not afraid to get dirty.
He's pretty middle of the road, not extreme on either end of the spectrum.
He's for the little guy, and doesn't seem to be too fond of "Big Business."

He's perfect.

"Have you ever been with a Warrior Woman?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 10:32 AM

Frem,

Did we have a disagreement about something? I don't remember. No disagreement about this. Great idea. I think we could really use someone with some economic savvy. Ron Paul for president gets my vote.

As for how he hasn't had an accident, I suspect he knows where the bodies are burried, and has a timed recording set to launch if he doesn't hit the reset button every so often.

Conyers is decent, I like him as well, but not the level head I think we need. I saw him lose his temper at a bunch of larouchees once (marvel at the concept) black larouchees (marvel at that concept too) but the scene showed certain divisive biases.

Soup,

I don't know enough about Schweitzer to make a judgment, I think he needs more of an introduction for the rest of us. People tend not to pay to much attention ot other people's governors except in the really populous states.

Auraptor,

Serial War was a term which started bouncing around in the Clinton days, and I see no reason to think that it's out of date. If you take the post-gulf war world, it's going to lay down pretty much like this: Kuwait, Clinton's first Iraq capaign, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Clinton's second Iraq campaign, Kosovo, ... [switch to Bush] lead into the the Iraq war bombing campaign, Afghanistan, Iraq, now lebanon, which isn't totally divorced from us, and a lot of talk about Iran and Syria, and some idle talk about Venezuela.

These conflicts are categorically different from the strategic strikes of the reagan years, each conflict seems to escalate, and it's collectively become a policy that a fair number of people before me have termed 'serial war.'

Quote:
free for all corp mergers - Let the free market play itself out. We busted up Ma Bell, for example, and after yrs of smaller businesses, they've naturally gone back to the way they were.

This is not natural force in action, it's a pro-merger policy in action. Breaking up ma bell resulted in instant competition which was generally viewed as a success. Merger mania was another big Clinton thing, and now it's a Bush thing, it's one of the things which makes me say Bush is Clinton. In old school republicanism there was a concept called anti-trust which helped keep competition alive. Capitalism is a system which attempts to immitate natural evolution, but it's important to remember that it *is* an artificial construct, there's nothing natural about money, interest, shares, stock options, dividend, etc., these are all things we've put into place to try to push the evolution into a regular flow. Some things like patents, copyrights, etc., are even more drastic, and made need reforming, because they may be steering us off course. But's it's tricky business setting your society up so that it works well with an open and free market. If you're not too careful, you could end up with a monoplistic soviet-style company state.

Quote:
civil liberties stripping - I've noticed none of my civil liberties stripped.

I admit it's not as bad as the panick mongers say, but it's an issue. certainly there are points at which the Bush admin has violated all ten amendments of the bill of rights.

Quote:
govt./corp entities

Any coporation which essentially has one customer, which is the federal govt., is basically no longer a true part of the private sector. It is no longer surviving by open competition, or even controlled competition given the state of bidding these days. The problem here is that the merger of corporation and govt. as you have with Halliburton taking over the job of the quartermaster's corps (another clintonism) is that you have a corporation lodged in a position where the govt. can't function without it, and the govt. is such a large customer, that the company can no longer function without the govt.

It's important to remember Mussolini's words from which we got the term 'corporatism,' or 'corporativismo' which went something like this: Fascism is more appropriately called 'corporatism' as it is the perfect merger of corporation and state.

the problem is that everything starts to functiont through some form of top-down command structure, which starts to resemble socialism or fascism, instead of an independent system like the one we have, or had up until quite recently.

stability in geo-politcs is something I think. IMHO, we should have as a goal. We've been creating chaos Bush's way for some time now, and things are not getting better, they're getting worse. We need to calm things down. Oppression happens, and you deal with each issue slowly, one at a time. At the moment, Bush et al are not reducing oppression, but it seems to be increasing under mullahs everywhere, and this talk of more wars with Iran and Syria is really pushing dangerously near the edge. I think before we go over a cliff on the leap of faith that this is the right approach, we need to pull back, re-examine the position, and decide the best way to go forward.

Mavourneen,

Not to knock the idea of a Mike Rowe for president, but he's a front man, he's been a front man for all sorts of stuff. I don't object to the idea of a campaign with a charismatic frontman, but it needs some backing that I know where it's coming from. If I don't know this, the backing might be Bush/Clinton.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 11:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Soup,

I don't know enough about Schweitzer to make a judgment, I think he needs more of an introduction for the rest of us. People tend not to pay to much attention ot other people's governors except in the really populous states.

Aw man. That sounds like work

. Okay. I'll put some stuff together later today.

Schweitzer doesn't have enough experience to run in 2008. But he could be a viable candidate in 2012 or 2016.

A short teaser on my rationale... I don't think a Republican can heal the rift. Not when the Republican party has been working hard over the past five years to widen divides in this country. But I also don't think a blue-state Democratic candidate has a chance in hell of being elected. Especially if they are from an urban area. The electoral system gives too much advantage to rural areas and there is tremendous distrust of any big city politician. I also don't think that members of Congress can gain wide bi-partisan support. It's the nature of Congress for successful minority party politicians to have to engage in compromise. So it's very easy to portray any member of Congress from the minority party as a flip-flopper because of previous compromises. And the last piece of the puzzle is that the candidate has to have had some success at a high enough level in government. So that leads me to look for a successful Democratic governer of a rural red state.

I'll type more later on why Schweitzer is successful.

Oh, and a final note, I think the rehabilitation of this country has to come from the west. As far as possible from DC, at any rate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 12:16 PM

Quote:
Did we have a disagreement about something? I don't remember.

Aw, I'm crushed, you don't remember me savagely ripping into you...

Actually we agree on some things, disagree on some, and agree TO disagree on a lot of em, cause some of these religion threads I won't touch with a ten foot pole.

But really, if everyone agreed with everyone else all the time, we'd be an ant colony - only through the friction of differing ideas and ideals can progress be made for humanity in general, so long as that friction doesn't cast us into chewing each others throats out.

Diversity is both our greatest strength, and greatest weakness, as a species.

Soup ?
Seriously, check out Ron Pauls' history, and consider your suggestion as a possible Veep ?
It's a thought, I dunno enough about your guy to say whether it'd be workable or not, but just an idle thought.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 1:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Soup ?
Seriously, check out Ron Pauls' history, and consider your suggestion as a possible Veep ?
It's a thought, I dunno enough about your guy to say whether it'd be workable or not, but just an idle thought.

From looking at info on Ron Paul's site, I like his stance on civil liberties. Where I disagree with him, and this is a point where I disagree with libertarians in general, is on economic matters. I'm a big government kind of guy, I want the federal government to handle the big problems and look out for the little person. So I'm not too interested in shrinking the size of the government, I just want to make sure we have a big government that runs efficiently. Conversely, I don't want to see government grow all willy-nilly like, either.

I might consider voting for him for President based on his unwavering principles. It would be interesting to have veto power in the hands of a truly-principled believer in small government. It would force Congress to cut out a lot of the pork that greases things now. I just want to make sure that we don't eliminate positive social programs in the interest of shrinking the government.

It would be a tough call for me. I really think we need a President who firmly believes in protecting our civil liberties. And Ron Paul looks like he would do a great job in that regard. Is that enough to override my disagreement with him on fiscal matters? I'm not sure.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 2:28 PM

Okay. Here’s some background info on Schweitzer. He’s a Democrat who was elected to office in the same election that saw Bush beat Kerry by 20 points in Montana. He has one of the highest approval ratings among governors. He brought together environmentalists and hunters through his stand for conservationism. He wants to make America more energy independent.

He got almost everything he had on his wish list during his first year in office.

Quote:
excerpted from http://www.billingsgazette.com/newdex.php?display=rednews/2005/04/21/b
uild/state/64-gov-leg.inc
# Promote the production of ethanol in Montana by mandating its use in fuel.

# Require groceries to put up signs telling people the country of origin of most meat sold in stores, even as Congress had passed a similar requirement but postponed it and is considering making it voluntary.

# Reinvest money in state's colleges of technology, the two-year schools.

# Put $80 million into Montana's K-12 school funding over the next two years, which Schweitzer called one of the largest increases in state history.

# Set a balanced budget that will have a projected surplus or general fund balance of about $80 million as of mid-2007, without raising taxes and that honors the spirit of the budget spending cap.

# Eliminate the property tax on business equipment for some 13,000 businesses by raising the exemption from the tax to $20,000 in business equipment, up from the current $5,000.

# Crack down on methamphetamine use in Montana through a series of measures that Schweitzer said amount to the strongest package in the nation, apart from Oklahoma's.

# Help improve access for hunting and fishing by making permanent the Habitat Montana, block management and the fishing access enhancement programs.

# Reinstate the Made in Montana program, which the administration of Republican Gov. Judy Martz had discontinued, to promote items produced and grown in Montana.

Schweitzer listed two disappointments:

One was a failure of his ethics bill to prohibit legislators, state elected officials and their top staff from becoming lobbyists until two years after they leave office.

…

His second disappointment was the defeat of his proposal to create a Corps of Discovery, funded by $400,000 of state money, to create a bipartisan committee of business executives and lawmakers to ferret out an estimated $60 million in waste and unnecessary duplication in state government.

He has been described as a, “populist, pro-choice Democrat.” Salon did a long interview with him last year that is a good read (although, note the long part). It can be found here: http://dir.salon.com/story/news/lotp/2005/04/19/montana_governor/index
.html

Here are some quotes:

On gun control.
“I understand that the Democrats in the big cities, on the East and the West coasts, have a grave concern about gun control. Frankly, as it turns out, so do Republicans. [California Gov.] Schwarzenegger supports gun control, I think. [New York Gov.] Pataki certainly does, [former New York Mayor] Giuliani does, most of these East Coast Republicans do. So I can appreciate that they've got a problem in their inner cities. But that's not what we have out here in the flyover zone. We have guns because we like them. We have guns because in some ways it just kind of defines who we are. We like having guns around. It's not necessarily that you're out shooting -- it's knowing that you could if you wanted to.”

On religion.
“I went to high school in a monastery. I understand Catholicism. But I don't have a need to carry my religion on my sleeve. It's something I have in my heart. … If the question is, Is it important in the flyover areas, the Midwest and the West, to understand something about God, I think it is. I think people are likely to be more God-fearing. Are they in church on Sunday necessarily? No. They might be fishing. People have different ways of getting close to their maker. In Montana, lots of time that means getting out.”

On the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“As you know, I lived in the Middle East, and I learned to speak Arabic. I had misgivings from the very beginning. We were told that this incursion was going to make the world a safer place. But that didn't square with me because I knew, in the Middle East, the days of the Crusades are like they happened just a few years ago. Any incursion of the West into Islamic cultures is going to be met with resistance. So now we say that, really, the reason we [ went] there was to create democracies, and democracies will spring up [throughout the region].

But here's the problem. Our closet allies in the Middle East would be? Saudi Arabia, with a functional king; Kuwait, with a functional king; Jordan, with a functional king; Egypt, with a -- I don't know -- president for life. Israel, it does have a democratic republic. But what do you think our allies are saying when we're standing there saying, "We are going to let democracy rise up"? Well, that's pretty threatening to them. So I don't know what the endgame is here.

You know, I've had people say to me, "But when you're attacked, you've got respond." I agree. I think we should have gone to Afghanistan and turned over every single rock until we got Osama bin Laden. And I would personally put his head on a stick; I would do that.”

That’s kind of a rough flavor. I don’t agree with him on everything. Not by a long shot. But then I don’t think someone who shared my views has a chance of getting elected. The country is not yet ready for a truly progressive candidate. Maybe never will be. But I would vote for this man for President in a heartbeat.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 3:03 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

My brother would be happy to see Barack Obama in the White House come 2008.

http://obama.senate.gov

---
http://richlabonte.net/tvvote

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 5:38 PM

Soup,

I think a bipartisan ticket could heal the rift. Probably not in 08, but by 2112, everyone over on the left will be so sick of hillary...

A lot of candidates aren't ready for the job of prez, but they should run anyway, get a feel for what is expected of a presidential candidate. A lot of governors become persident and suddenly find out "hey, I don't know jack about the underlying forces which struggle for social influence in eritrea, and oops, suddenly, it's my job to sort out the real expert opinions from the total hogwash ones, and then decide a course of action. Sometimes, as in our present employee's case, he sit there and makes funny expressions while waiting for someone to tell him the answer.

I think a blue state republican has a chance. So far, I think lou dobbs can win, and the suggestion of ron paul was an excellent one, so I've got two texas republicans. I also think hagel would be a great president, even though I disagree with him on two issues (the war, here's far more anti- than me, and the environment, he's not as conservationist as me) But still, better than mccain, who is better than condi, who's better than whoever the republicans are probably really going to put up (President Rove?)

How can you disagree with Ron Paul on economics? Argh. This is the best part. I think there are few people in washington, if anyone, who understand the economic problems of this country than Ron Paul. That's why I thought it was such a kick ass suggestion. This country is in serious economic trouble. We're rapidly spinning in the direction of becoming a de facto third world country, with a small educated elite running things and a great unemployed unwashed. And it's our current bogus fiscal policy which is doing it.

Here's a sobering thought:

As a percentage of GDP, the US govt. is four times the size of that of 'communist' China. The % of the population employed in the public sector, though it was hard to find good data, seems to be about the same.

On Schweitzer, I don't get where the balanced budget is coming from with those spending increases and no tax hikes.

Some of that's good, others is just bad. Ethanol is an appalling idea. I'd rather drill for oil, which has a negligible environmental impact. imagine if the energy companies thought it was worthwhile to clear cut land to plant corn for ethanol. 90% of speicies would be irradicated from the earth in just a few decades. Plus, ethanol is no less co2 producing than oil, in spite of the "clean-ness" of it.

Real alternative energies should have no relation to fossil fuels and zero environmental impact. Nuclear has practically zero impact, solar has absolutely zero impact, as does wind, in spite of the what the bird looneys say (birds commit suicide against virtually every manmade structure. Should we ban windows?)

YinYang,

A lot of people make this suggestion, and I hope you forgive my nitpicking of it.

I don't think Obama is anywhere near ready. He's a freshman senator, which always spells disaster fro a political campaign, and he's way to wet behind the ears. If you watch him in the senate, when his party leaders say 'jump!' he says 'how high?' This is the sort of candidate who ends up being a stooge for an extremist agenda, or at the very least, getting in way over his head. Let Obama season for a few terms in the senate until he can stand on his own two feet. The great thing about having a president like McCain, or to take a democrat, Pat Leahy, would be that if you have President Leahy, you know you have president Leahy, and not some puppeteer pulling his strings.

For a black democratic candidate I actually prefer the suggestion of Conyers someone made earlier.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 5:58 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

No problem, dreamtrove. It wasn't my idea, anyway.

---
http://richlabonte.net/tvvote

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 9, 2006 5:26 AM

SERGEANTX

I'd love to see a sensible libertarian like Ron Paul with a real shot at the White House.

The task ahead of the Libertarian Party is convincing liberals to give it a chance. In my estimation they've always had a better shot attracting open minded liberals than the right wing people they usually snuggle up to. Their general reluctance to do any real outreach to liberals is why I got fed up with the party.

I honestly don't think it's such a hard sell. All we really need to do is convince liberals that small government doesn't equate to a mean-spirited, social darwinist society. It's all too easy for Libertarians to respond to liberal concerns with glib 'ideologically sound' answers. For example, liberals ask, 'What will happen to the poor and the underpriveleged if the government isn't there to take care of them?' and Libertarians will often dismiss them by pointing out that it's not the proper role of government. Amongst ourselves we see all kinds of ways that society could take up these causes in ways that are more effective and humane than the government could ever hope to be, but we fail to get that message across.

The ideas of Libertarians seem particular scary to liberals because we want to eliminate their traditional tool of social 'good' and offer nothing in the way of a replacement. It's hard work, but Libertarians need to focus on painting a clear picture of how things can work without government intervention at every turn. It may seem obvious to us, but it's not to most liberals.

The other thing Libertarians seem alergic to is the notion of compromise. They'll never get anyone prominent elected with a platform that's just a stark reflection of their core ideology. I know they're proud of those ideals and they should be, but they need to recognize that other types of people have other priorities and those priorities need to be addressed.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 9, 2006 6:57 AM

Sgt X.

I'm afraid the democrats have run such a sleaze campaign against the libertarians that the party may never recover liberal support. I talked to a lot of lefties about the idea of joint support of a libertarian candidate as a centrist move, and most of them seem to literally think that the libertarian party was the party of child molestors.

I suspect if liberal support is needed, a moderate canidate would need some new neutral position. But listening to the ranting and alliance hugging, I'm beginning to doubt much of a union is possible. It might be a better idea to ignore the democratic liberal base entirely and go after groups currently not voting.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 9, 2006 8:33 AM

dreamtrove,

Re: ethanol. If that was the extent of Schweitzer's energy independence plan I would agree with you. This was just step one. There's also wind power (Montana has a lot of space and a lot of wind), building a Fischer-Tropsch plant (Montana has a lot of coal and the Fischer-Tropsch method starts to make sense once oil prices get higher than $30 a barrel or so) and other strategies. There is no one silver bullet for replacing oil. It's going to take a number of different methods in conjunction with improving efficiency. The important thing is to start getting the infrastructure in place now.

On a more global note, is the goal of this thread for the rest of us to come up with candidates that you then pass judgement on? Or is it that we all come up with different candidates and make a case for them?

SergeantX,

I'm concerned with the issue of scalability, when it comes to a more Libertarian type government. I'm not sure how it could work in the high population dense regions that are necessary to support our level of industrialized society. In reading some of your reponses over the years I've said to myself, "I can see how that could work. In a rural area. I can see how that would be an improvement. I can't see how that would work in Los Angeles. Or Seattle. Or San Jose." (And I'm going to be really lame here because I can't remember any specifics and I'm too lazy to look

). I could almost envision a hybrid system but I just can't make the leap to a complete system. It's probably due to my lack of familiarity. Am I off base here? Is there a debate in the Libertarian party about different strategies for rural and urban?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 9, 2006 8:41 AM

Sorry Soup,

Wasn't attacking the candidate, just the ethanol idea. I think that a lot of people think that this would be an ecological improvement over what we have, which it wouldn't. I feel the need to mouth off about it and a few hundred other issues, every once in a while. I'm all for the wind farm idea.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 9, 2006 11:26 AM

He's a Libertarian ? weeeeird.

Lemme clarify... I've been rooting for Ron for a long time, and he was a Republican at the time, a long-time Republican at that.

Anarchist that I am, you couldn't find a more 'liberal' dude on some fronts, and yet when liberal=liberty, Ron is your man, cause he's all about the Gov gettin it's grubby lil hands OUT of our personal lives.

So.. I've always seen him as a Republican, but one who embraces core principles worth a damn instead of spouting meaningless trash like "Clean Air Act" or "Healthy Forests" which mean exactly the opposite - Ron lives his principles, and that convinces me where no amount of campaigning or rhetoric would do it.

As for the Libertarian Party... first off, they're in it deep because of the chicanery during their previous nomination process - how can you turn and REJECT the will of the people you promised to represent ?

And slam it in their faces, to boot ?

And as for this bit, specifically ?

Quote:
most of them seem to literally think that the libertarian party was the party of child molestors.

You can blame ME, personally, for a little bit of that - and if they did not want to be associated with child predators and molesters, they damn well should NOT have taken money from organizations (So-and-so "fund" or such-and-such "foundation") that are KNOWN financial fronts for NAMBLA, the FSC and worse organisations.

They had a cashflow problem, and made certain adjustments to their platform to draw (or in exchange for) money from those sources, and some folk who knew what those sources WERE took severe issue with that and made noise about it.

I am not one BIT sorry for my part in that, if they are going to take molester money in exchange for weakening protective laws that are in the molesters way, the Libertarian party can go straight to hell and may it be a short trip.

Don't believe me ? do your OWN homework.

So that particular association was fully justified at the time, and truthfully, there's been little change, so in essence, they ARE exactly that.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul as a libertarian, cause he wouldn't have any part of that whatever - but it does mean I have zero respect for their party until that association is terminated, and with the SIZE of the cashflow we're talking about, I highly doubt it will be.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 9, 2006 11:59 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
... I could almost envision a hybrid system but I just can't make the leap to a complete system. It's probably due to my lack of familiarity. Am I off base here? Is there a debate in the Libertarian party about different strategies for rural and urban?

That's exactly my frustration with the party. They tend to not even entertain compromises like this. The party tends to attraction hardheaded ideologues that make such compromise exceedingly rare. If they could ever embrace that kind of openmindedness, they might actually get somewhere.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 9, 2006 12:05 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
He's a Libertarian ? weeeeird.

Lemme clarify... I've been rooting for Ron for a long time, and he was a Republican at the time, a long-time Republican at that.

Ahh...I tend to think of him as a Libertarian because he was their presidential candidate in '88. But you're right, since '96 (and before '88 I believe) he's been a Republican, although nothing like what most people imagine as a Republican. I think he quickly grew tired of the Quixotic nature of Libertarian zeal.

Can we call him a small 'l' libertarian, currently affiliated with the Republican party?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 9, 2006 2:18 PM

Frem,

Ron Paul is still a republican.

I think Libertarian with a capital "L" is being used to describe the party, and libertarian with a small 'l' to describe the ideology. There was a confusion about this in an earlier thread, and this is what people came up with.

That's a piratenewsish claim about nambla, but I don't feel like digging into it because i don't have the time, and also, yuck, so I'll take your word for it.

I think Paul should run on a GOP ticket. I'd vote for a ticket that had him as VP, with just about anyone (not quite anyone) as prez.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 11, 2006 5:51 AM

DT, you don't wanna wade through the slime you'd have to in order to see for yourself, I can understand that - just as I would rather not post the related data here for much the same reason.

Others can tell you, or just backcheck posts, I tend to do my homework before stating such a case, and that one struck a raw note with me because I was one of the folks makin the noise - I thought the Libertarian party had potential and that little stunt sent me into a rage, because I've been a hardcase about protecting our children since about 1994, and I keep up with most of the folk doin that work, so yeah, I knew about that when it happened.

On this one topic, i am certainly no expert, but a damned competent layman.

-Frem

Related linkage for the interested.
http://www.vachss.com
http://www.protect.org
http://www.childtrauma.org

I don't associate with NCMEC because of their ties with law enforcement leading to some shoddy casework, evidence contamination, misuse of information and the like, especially in this gestapo age - also law enforcement should be handled by LAW ENFORCEMENT, not civvie volunteers who get chopped to pieces on the stand by defense attorneys, resulting in pretty arrests for the newspapers and PR flacks, but no predators behind bars... Grrr!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 13, 2006 11:39 AM

Sorry for the late reply, SergeantX. I just wanted to thank you for the information. As I have noted in other threads, when I am confronted with a body of knowledge of which I have little experience I try to identify people who have more expertise with that knowledge and pick their brains. I've identified you as my preferred expert on all things libertarian/Libertarian. Hope you don't mind

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:09 PM

MISSTRESSAHARA

MHO? You all need a third party. Seriously there's too much power split between two factions (right word?) Not saying it's perfect, Lord knows Canada's been through hell with the 3 we have, but at least we have more than 2 options, and between 3 parties power is better balanced. Liberal's don't have all the seats (anymore *heh heh*) and for things to go through Parliment it's harder because one Party does not have a fair share of the votes. You really need a third part (no, not PAR-TEY. Though that would be good too)

But then what do I know, I know enough about politics knowing who NOT to vote for. *coughliberalscough*

If I'm a bitch, then life just got interesting

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 13, 2006 5:01 PM

m. ahara

i agree, we need a third party. one where the view of govt. is to protect the rights of the people, and do little or nothing else. one that follows what the founding father lay down.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 13, 2006 5:54 PM

And in that DT, lies wholehearted 100% agreement from my end of things.

We can run our own lives thankyaverramuchly.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 16, 2006 4:38 PM

Frem,

A study of the 1800s in American politics reveals some shocking stuff. Slavery was almost killed very early on, peace with the indians was almost established. The republic was well on its way to being a superpower of progress and freedom. It was way ahead of where we are now in that regard.

Then corruption set it. Jackson was stupid corrupt and evil, and the republicans tried changing the rules to prevent him from becoming president, but with the vote of the ignorant, he got in. After that, America was never the same, it was endlessly descending into exactly the sort of stuff that we see now. The civil war was not the solution that we are taught in idiot-school, btu really it was the worst of that. The reconstruction was initially amazingly corrupt. But a group of people once again had sat down to construct America, and the result was a success. This should really be called "America 2.0."

Lengthing my earlier estimare, really, it took 50 years from the founding until the corruption started digging in, and about a century until the entire union was crushed by the weigh of its own lies. Now the new America lasted about 50 years after the civil war before it elected a hopelessly corrupt Wilson, and after about 100 years, America died. This means, sometime in the 60s or 70s. I cite the exact time as being Nixon's resignation. Watergate wasn't a victory for law and justice, it was the adhoc creation of powermad agenda monkeys. And I'm absolutely sure that this is right, whether one agrees with the powermad agendamonkeys or not.

To be Pirate News for a secong, there was never an election again. Which is to say, there was never a free and fair, unmonkeyed election. But more importantly, the power ranks of washington were increasingly preset, unchanging. America, dead and burried, had morphed into a weird oligarchy. Having lived way passed its own lifespan, it went on into the future as Zombiemerica. Zombiemerica has begun to rot and stink for a while now. If we let it go, eventually it'll decay into a civil war. What it needs is a reconstruction. Russia has shown us that a reconstruction can be done without a civil war. They haven't done a great job of it. But we can. We've done it before.

So, it's time for America 3.0. This time we should be able to do a better job because we have the words of the first and second teams to go by. But no one ever built a nation under an existing power structure. The revolution and the civil war provided the opportunity. Since those aren't viable options, I suggest a soviet-style collapse. With a real ninny as president, the US govt. could become totally inneffectual.

Okay, so we have a ninny. I mean a real ninny. A chimpanzee. Someone...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 16, 2006 5:16 PM

I disagree.

Jackson was both good and bad.

Good in that he killed off the National Bank, tried to stuff fiat money in the trash heap of history where it belonged, and for the first, last, and ONLY time in history brought the USA out of debt.

It was this one act that so drastically angered the Whigs (later to become the ReThuglicans we all know and 'love') that they assisted, if not plotted, the very first assassination attempt on a sitting US president in american history, which failed, catastropically, as the would be assassins pistols both misfired.

The election of 1824 was a case example of the corruption leaking into our system before even Jacksons time.

That being said, he wasn't exactly a good president either, he was an uncompromising hothead (having fought several duels prior to presidency over almost ludicrous points) and Jefferson thought him unfit for presidency due to his volitile temperment.

And what he did to the native americans is both shameful and unforgiveable, but my main beef with ole Andy was the "Spoils System" - the concept of replacing current employees with family or political favorites and supporters, or even in exchange for political favors... for that one i'd like to see how spin on a rotissere in hell for a little while, given all the trouble it has caused since.

His radical anti-nullification/anti-secession stance would also be held by others, and soon, in the hands of Lincoln, lead to the greatest horror this country has ever known, an unfettered Federal Goverment with no true check against it's usurpation of power.

So to me the scales balance, Jackson was a sign of his own times, and did as much good as he did ill, alas that the ill he did lasted far longer than the good - but that was because men after him perpetuated it, so we cannot wholly blame him.

Ironically.. Jackson was the beginning of the split that eventually created the Democrats and Republicans, he was often referred to his critics as "Jackass" and depicted so in political cartoons, and being amused as much as insulted, took the jackass as his personal symbol, later to be adopted by the Democratic party.

Ergo - I take issue with stupid and greater issue with evil, as being applied to the man, he was anything BUT stupid, and while as corrupt as anyone else, and far less than some, in the politics of that day, was not anything I would consider evil.

Quote:
republicans tried changing the rules to prevent him from becoming president, but with the vote of the ignorant, he got in.

So, it's ok for the Rethugs to illegally fiddle with government and run roughshod over the restrictions in order to prevent the ignoramouses of the non-elite from actually enforcing the will of the people ?

How dare we mere people interfere with the whim of the elite, oh dear, oh my.

Nice to know where YOU stand, isn't it now - how are you so very different from our other resident drumbangers again ?

Honestly dude - that's the most offensive thing I have EVER heard you say.

And it wasn't Jackson that lead to the civil war, although he did indeed express similar sentiments, it was that Rethug dictator wanna-be that symbolises everything that party stands for... Lincoln.

He knew what he was doing, and it was entirely deliberate - and BOTH parties are to blame for it, but any attempt to deny that Lincoln was a meglomaniacal nutwad who wanted an america that was FAR from the vision of our forefathers will fall flat in the face of historical evidence - and yet, if it wasn't Lincoln, it would have been another... the rich and powerful elite would have their day, and they meant to have it.

Wilson was indeed corrupt, I wouldn't dispute that a minute, and he was hardly alone in that, even now.

Quote:
Watergate wasn't a victory for law and justice, it was the adhoc creation of powermad agenda monkeys. And I'm absolutely sure that this is right, whether one agrees with the powermad agendamonkeys or not.

Then shut up and jump in with the Bush cartel where you belong, because Nixon fried for *exactly* the same crap this administration is in trouble for, starting with illegal wiretapping.

Watergate was a bright start in the fact that finally presidents were shown that they were NOT above the law, and that we did NOT live in a De-Facto dictatorship, and if you really believe what you are saying, then why would you want to replace a regime that you support then ?

Why ?

Because your own words condemn you as supporting exactly what the Bush administration believes, chapter and verse, or is it that, like many others, you don't have an issue with the pie being stolen - you have an issue with how it's being SPLIT, is that it ?

Hungry for a slice, are we ?

I want to pitch the table and chairs over the side of the ship, not just switch a couple of the seats here.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 16, 2006 5:47 PM

MISBEHAVEN

Tommy Chong

It never got weird enough for me.
-Hunter S. Thompson

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 17, 2006 5:12 AM

Quote:
later to become the ReThuglicans we all know and 'love'

Hey!

Jackson was of course, the first Deathocrat.

But partisanship aside, I think that the so called corrupt bargain (1824) was not corrupt at all. This was simply a ruling on how to handle a three way split which should have stuck. I think it's a better solution. If you have a split, then the fringe players should choose Mr. 1 or Mr. 2. And it should be obvious to the voters. I don't think the voters for Clay and Crawford thought that the split would elect Jackson. I think they assumed that Jackson with his 41% could not walk into the whitehouse without majority support. He was able to politically manipulate the situation and get elected in 1928.

Quote:
in the hands of Lincoln, lead to the greatest horror this country has ever known

No argument from me on this one. I think this is probably why both major political parties are shot. They were ushered into office by real losers.

Quote:

Ironically.. Jackson was the beginning of the split that eventually created the Democrats and Republicans, he was often referred to his critics as "Jackass" and depicted so in political cartoons, and being amused as much as insulted, took the jackass as his personal symbol, later to be adopted by the Democratic party.

He was a jackass. I read that the think dated back to an 1882? political cartoon in harpers, and that the jackass was the democrats who were trying to get people to fear republican dominance with a fearmongering campaign not unlike what we see today. But you could very well be right, the jackass may have been an earlier reference. Do you have a source?

The part you're missing is that GOP didn't used to be evil. It's just gotten that way lately. I think it was a commie infection I call neocons.

Quote:
Quote:
with the vote of the ignorant, he got in.
Honestly dude - that's the most offensive thing I have EVER heard you say.

You don't think this is true? Jackson totally snowed the public with his corruption story, and played up the idea that they hadn't chosen the republican ticket, which actually they had. When people believed that they had not elected Adams, who was after all the son of a president, they began to see him as a usurper, with all of the aristocratic trappings.

But this is what jackson won the election on. It was a masterful manipulation, but it relies heavily on an ignorant public. It wasn't based on the issues. If educated people had looked at the policies, I think they would have chosen Adams.

I think if you look at the results, you'll find this is true. The more educated you were, the more likely you were to vote for Adams. I don't see how that's offensive. I think it's just a statement of fact.

Quote:
And it wasn't Jackson that lead to the civil war, although he did indeed express similar sentiments, it was that Rethug dictator wanna-be that symbolises everything that party stands for... Lincoln.

Well gee, this is turning into a pointless partisan debate. But this isn't actually true. I'm not going to defend lincoln, who was appalling, but he did inherit the war, and of course, the situation. He handled it very badly.

It's not that I'm saying that democrats, as a party, caused the decay of america in the 1830s, 40s, and 50s, which led to the civil war, I'm saying that politics steered off course. There's plenty of republican/whig blame to go around. The right had proposed the partitioning of the west as a direct attempt to marginalize the southern democratic vote. Admittedly, the main issue was slavery, but there is a corruption here of trying to make a permanent senate majority. It was funny to hear democrats last year stand up and protect the sanctity of one state two votes on moral grounds. I wondered if they realized how corrupt a system it was? The partition plan did, of course, go through, after the war, but it was the proposal which actually sparked the war. The confederates all say so in their declarations of independence. They were of course, right about one other thing: The true union of america is the confederacy, founded in 1776, and confirmed in 1881 with the articles of confederation. The 1889 constitution was a hijack by the federalists, the same people who fought, and were still fighting, to see the bill of rights be banned.

Quote:

Then shut up and jump in with the Bush cartel where you belong, because Nixon fried for *exactly* the same crap this administration is in trouble for, starting with illegal wiretapping.

You have it exactly backwards. Bush et all *were* the watergate prosecution. Nixon wasn't guilty, people in his govt. set him up. It was a coup. That coup created ford. It later supported carter. Then reagan. The only president since that was arguably not the first choice of the neocons/social dems (team evil) in the post watergate world, was Bush Sr., (they supported dole) but to say that they were nowhere in his govt. would be absurd. Each passing govt. has had more neocons than the last.

Neocons, you may know, were democrats before they were republicans, but in an earlier dispute I agreed not to blame the democrats for them, since they were communists before they were democrats. Many of them are still democrats.

You bought a hardcore lie on watergate. It was not the toppling of a corrupt dictatorship, it was the rise of a corrupt dictatorship. Everyone who has come to power, everyone who is in power, was part of the watergate cabal. It's a ruling elite, literally communist in its background, as in american communist party, and its fragment groups (swp et al) and it's been in charge ever since. This is the USSA, the new soviet union, ruled by true believers, and leaders of the revolution (watergate) in which no outsider is allowed to govern. It's an extremely soviet style of govt.

Meet Mr. Max Shactman, leader of the Trotskyite movement, or the american communist party. It's a rabbit hole. Enjoy the journey. And, oh, btw, thing are much worse than you think.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 17, 2006 9:30 AM

Quote:
but there is a corruption here of trying to make a permanent senate majority

That's called Gerrymandering - as you say, corruption isn't a partisan issue.

As for Nixon, as captain of the ship of state, he is at the end responsible for all that those under him do, just as I hold Bush responsible for all his crony's work.

Nixon was indeed a creep, and a creep who got what he had coming, would that we had run more of these goons out of office, and I stand by the assertation that he damned well shoulda been impeached, as should have a LOT of presidents before and after him.

George in charge of the CIA always worried the hell out of me, as does that old fat bastard Kissinger in ANY advisory capacity, but for some reason he doesn't have the decency to keel over and die... *grumble*

I DO know how bad it is, I just don't go on about it to folk who don't particularly care, or are so immovably set in their own worldview that it's pointless to discuss.

I also don't particularly care about the details even tho I know them, my primary concern is reversing the FUBAR things have become before things become...
untenable.

I don't affix any political label to the cabal, none.
Money and Power is all that it is, and they'll wear any mask that allows them to get it, from one end of the politican spectrum to the other, it matters not because in truth they BELIEVE in nothing but themselves.

You can call em anything you like, but the only word that universally applies is 'evil'.

I still take issue with the whole idea that us ignorant peons shouldn't have a say in who we hand off the power of state to - who WOULD you rather have decide, us the unwashed... or the cabal ?

How is that a choice, again ?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 17, 2006 1:22 PM

Frem,

And Nixon said as much. But I disagree. I think he was being set up by Karl Rove. I think we can bury this one. I think Dick Nixon was a good guy.

Quote:
I DO know how bad it is

Always a dangerous one. I never know. Each day I'm finding out that it's worse. The most common mistake people on the left make is to think that Bush is the result of the culminating ideologies and political movements of the right. If this were so, there would be no resistance at all to him coming from the right, but there's quite a bit.

I used to call commies left, but now I think they're some alien breed of ideology that doesn't fit into out political spectrum.

Quote:

I also don't particularly care about the details even tho I know them, my primary concern is reversing the FUBAR things have become before things become...
untenable.

Oh... It's way too late.

Quote:

I don't affix any political label to the cabal, none.
Money and Power is all that it is, and they'll wear any mask that allows them to get it, from one end of the politican spectrum to the other, it matters not because in truth they BELIEVE in nothing but themselves.

This is close to the truth, but not entirely fair. They believe in world peace through a one world govt. but only if they're the dictator. They don't trust anyone who isn't them. They don't even really trust them. But basically I agree.

I dub them commies because that's where they come from. They're some mutated form of commie, but all forms are a disaster so why nitpick?

Corporatist or Fascist also work.

I think I've called them evil a few times.

Democracy doesn't work because people have a weight based on the number of heads, not whether theirs anything in the head. I posted this in an earlier thread.

Someone I know went to the polls and said to me later, well there I was and their were names, and Bush was on top, and he was already president, so, she said, "Might as well be Bush"

That's the amount of thought that went into the vote. This is why television commercials work. It doesn't matter what your stance on any issue is, the voting public will decide according to: how their parents voted (80-90% of political party affiliations in this country are inherited)
who is listed first, which name sounds better, how good looking the guy is, whether or not he has a skill for public speaking, or how flashy his TV ad was, and did it make them feel good. There's about 5% of voters out there going "who would be better to handle the situation in afghanistan.... hmm..."

I'd probably make some sort of hierarchy. If you paid any attention, you get moved up, the more you know, the more influence you have. I just know that ignorance elected Bush, Clinton, and a lot of other yahoos. It's no secret that the record for oligarchic democracy is pretty bad, second only to socialism/communism in the level of death it has created.

Not saying I have it all figured out, just losing my faith in democracy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 17, 2006 5:33 PM

Who was it that said.. if voting really mattered, they'd outlaw it ?

Between gerrymandering, 'diebolding', voting the cemetary, and all manner of dirty tricks, not to mention the screwballery of the electoral college and the gamesmanship THAT entails.

People no longer believe voting matters, and their apathy shows, they KNOW it doesn't make an impact.

History has really, REALLY sharp teeth however.

The four boxes that ensure liberty ?

1 - The soap box (free speech)
2 - The ballot box (safe, honest voting)
3 - The jury box (impeachment)
And the final arbiter...
4 - The cartridge box (2nd amendment)

Any attempt by any gov or politico to lay hands to any one of those is a tyrannical act.

Eventually, people get sick of the ruling elite and retaliate, you see... ask Marie Antoinette how that tends to turn out - sadly because of our nature that only fixes things for a little while, and the cycle begins anew, it's part of humanity, one could say.

Truthfully, if ENOUGH people want someone out of power, they're gone, their soldiers will defect, change sides, their security will run for the hills, etc etc - so the will of the people IS a factor, just not one with a populace conditioned to a suicidal work ethic that eats every waking moment of their time just to survive on the scraps the governmental tax dragon leaves them, while enriching the elite... but peasant revolts are inevitable, in any system, and generally go pretty ill for the nobles and the peasants, especially when the middle classes throw in.

Study the french revolution for more info on just how that's gonna go.

Really, when it comes to politics there is very little new under the sun, endless cycles of abuse and retaliation.

The more history you know, the better you can apply it to understanding the present, in all honesty.

If you wanna see some systems that work a little better than the ones you are familiar with, the evolution of tribal societies minimally influanced by europeans is a good start, Finland, Norway, Sweden, while not exactly *fond* of those governments, you'll notice a better 'balance' for lack of a better word, than some.

But really, given human nature, there's no permanent answer but to forcibly throw out your goverment entire once in a while, and several of our founding fathers knew and said this.

I figure we should make public service.. public SERVICE - here's an idea for ya, new rule for congress...

Execute them at the end of their first term.

See how many you got lining up to "serve their country" at that point ?

And if it's none... good, less meddling.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 17, 2006 6:42 PM

Frem

I studied plenty of the french revolution, enough to know democracy was off to a bad start, and just got worse. The problem is, open society is a failure. If it is completetly open, it will fall to whoever wants it most, which is inevitably george w. bush. It's certainly not me. Taoism doesn't teach me to go out and seek power, and benefit myself with it.

What's going to happen in any completely free system is that evil will float to the top. So what we need is a controlled system, just as we need with capitalism, where the rules of the system set it so that good things happen. If that can't be done, I'll gladly take Marie Antoinette. Aristocracy didn't kill her, revolutionary democrats did. Plenty of generations survived without it.

Quote:
Truthfully, if ENOUGH people want someone out of power, they're gone

Nowhere near good enough.

At 98% or so, the nazis were still going strong. I think Bush is over 80 now. Remember, the polls are slanted because they tend to discount the non voters, who tend to be people who cannot stand democrats and republicans. Republicans actually make up only 20% of the population, and only 1/2 of those actually support bush so 10% or so of the people support bush. And a whole lot of that is very tenative.

A leader needs to be gone when half his people want it, maybe less.

I think I know a lot more than you think I do.

So you're a democrat for limited govt?

Anyway, you're death rule will have takers, of the al qaeda variety. You've just invernted Martyrocracy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 18, 2006 7:01 AM

I dispute that 98% figure, because as I said - if ENOUGH people..

That includes the Military.

What happens when generalissimo orders battallion one to attack a sympathizer village, and they tell him where to stuff it ? then he orders battallion two to attack batallion one for disloyalty, and they LAUGH at him ?

And so they march on the capitol instead

Battlion three, guarding the capitol, after a short discussion, firefight, or whatever internal sorting out happens, joins with the rebels and i'm sure you can imagine it from there, devolving into chaos not only because no one knows for sure who is on who's side, but once the generalissimo bites it, if there's no strong opposition leader to quickly fill the vacuum, everything goes to hell in a handbasket as various factions start whooping each others ass.

Haiti, and some African regimes have seen this happen, some more than once, and it can get really messy, and unfortunately the strongmen send out others to die for them, cause if it was just between themselves, I would say let em kill each other till their ain't none left.

It's like one man holding one hundred people hostage, it may work for a little while, but if he blinks, nods off, or simply if enough of those hundred think it's worth their while - he's toast.

As for how much you know, I don't assume - I simply suggested where to find more information presented in a better fashion than I am capable of, cause I know that sometimes I just can't seem to get the meaning across very well.

And no, I am not a Democrat, nor a Libertarian - I am an Anarchist, the best government is one that does not EXIST in the first place.

I am also a realist and know this is unlikely, and thus support in any way possible limiting the one we have and getting it off the case, and out of the lives and wallets of it's people.

As for Martyrocracy - How many of our current Congress do you think would lay down their lives in such a fashion to serve their country in an administrative capacity ?

It was a loaded, trick statement - because this same Congress is asking just that of our young men and women in iraq, to put their lives on the line to define and enforce policy, but unwilling to make such a sacrifice themselves.

Consider that very well, and then go back and think about WHY I would have proposed such a thing ?

It's all too easy to send others out to die to enforce the will of the state, when one's own butt is planted firmly in the most heavily defended place in the US, and not at risk... so what's so very wrong about asking them to make the same sacrifice they ask of us, then ?

And in answer to the argument "but not every soldier dies" fine, then kill em by lottery in proportion to the soldiers that have - and if they are unwilling to bear the risk ?

Pull the troops out.
Now.

It's simple as that, cause for mine own, I would NEVER ask of sometime to take a risk, make a sacrifice, or do a dirty job that I was unwilling to do myself.

I made the same argument at would-be Hero, that those who support this insanity can go participate if it means so much to them, and not force it on us.

If Congress and Al-Qeada wanna go at it, fine, have the 82's C-130's airdrop CONGRESS on Al-Qeada HQ and have it on pay-per-view...

And leave us the hell out of it.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 18, 2006 11:39 AM