Where are the Libertarians?
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 07:10
VIEWED: 17761
PAGE 1 of 1
And the small-government Republicans and conservatives? The "government-is-your-friend" posters. Bush just admitted warrantless wiretapping on national television. Nixon tried that and the Supreme Court already said it was unconstitutional. Been waiting for a couple of days for one of you guys to pick up the topic. So....?? 
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just wondering.
Why is it a heinous crime when Bush taps thousands of international calls and emails after 9/11 happened in order to try to prevent another one but it's completely ignored that Clinton tapped millions of international AND DOMESTIC calls and emails after the first trade center bombing?
Just curious is all.
------------------------------------------
dc4bs
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dc4bs:
Why is it a heinous crime when Bush taps thousands of international calls and emails after 9/11 happened in order to try to prevent another one but it's completely ignored that Clinton tapped millions of international AND DOMESTIC calls and emails after the first trade center bombing?
Because we liked Clinton. Well, you know, more than Bush.
I think this is one of those things that, deep down, a couple of people already suspected. It certainly didn't come as a surprise to me; in fact I found it more surprising that so many people thought this president played by the rules when it comes to their constitutional rights. This'll blow over once the White House gives the media something new to talk about.
Banging your head against a wall uses 150 calories an hour.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A lot of us Libertarians just don't give a shit anymore. People keep voting for democrats and republicans without question. They get what they deserve. I've become comfortable living free despite the government. It's not as hard as you might think. Certainly not as hard as convincing the sheep to quit voting for republicrats.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, who cares what they do, both parties are equally guilty. The libertarians are staying home and making more ammo.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Small govt. republican right here. Check. In an out-of-power way. A way out of power way.
I think Sununu is there, and Larry Craig. McCain Hagel, Graham, Chafee, Snowe, Collins, Voinovich and Lott. There are maybe some others about. But yeah, in a minority way.
Anyway, Bush's legalize watergate campaign, I thought I posted something about this. I mean, what can you say? Bush. I mean it says it all.
Bush. Clinton. Bush. Clinton. Bush.
GH Bush. B. Clinton. GW Bush. H. Clinton. J. Bush.
After that I guess Chelsey will be old enough to run.
it's a duo-dynasty.
DC4BS,
because Clinton told people who he was tapping, Bush didn't. This means that Bush was probably tapping Kerry, and Soros. Clinton might have tapped Dole, I don't know, probably did.
KHYRON,
I didn't. Like Clinton more. I can't stand either one. Clinton was the fiscal nightmare Bush is but then Bush hasn't killed as many people. Not for want of trying. I'll grant after 8 years he may have killed more. Clinton bombed more places. Clinton bombed Texas. That was pretty uncalled for. Then, anyways.
Quote:
People keep voting for democrats and republicans without question.
I definitely used to feel this way. But the major parties are the only way to get anything accomplished. The mistake the sheep are making is not signing up to Mommy Dem or Papa Gop, it's that once they do, they vote for the loser that gets nominated.
People have to stop fearing the enemy just because he's evil. After Clinton and Bush we should all know that you're own party's guy is evil too.
So, the primary is the battle. Win that, and then vote for them in the general. Lose that, look at the winner, if they're evil, don't vote for them.
The problem with libertarian ammo theory is next time you get a Cliton he'll come by and bomb you. Bush will only bomb you if you're outside the country. Or at least in a blue state. Hmm. NY, 9/11. Hmm.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Where are the Libertarians? Where they have always been bitching from the sidelines and doing exactly nothing. I sat and watched their convention a few years ago and was amazed just how like the old SDP they were -- people too ineffectual to be in charge of something who are complaining that they are not in charge!
As for Republicans --- Big Government is like the one Ring. While you don't have it's power you believe that it is evil and pledge to destroy it, but when you have it in your possession you start thinking "yeah I can use this for GOOD!" and before you know it you are half naked, living in a cave and eating raw fish (or is that just Tom DeLay???)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not a big supporter of Clinton here- I know he did some skanky stuff- but this is one thing I never heard of. First of all, it would be impossible to tap "millions" of calls because you would need "millions" of listeners, and at least thousands of translators. Secondly, I tried looking this up, and while I found a lot of hue and cry about what Clinton PROPOSED to do
Why is it a heinous crime when Bush taps thousands of international calls and emails after 9/11 happened in order to try to prevent another one but it's completely ignored that Clinton tapped millions of international AND DOMESTIC calls and emails after the first trade center bombing?
Quote:http://hnn.us/articles/366.html
For two decades, lingering popular wariness forestalled any expansion of wiretapping powers. But after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, President Clinton, warning of international terrorism, proposed measures similar to those George Bush seeks today. Civil libertarians in Congress refused to pass them, but Clinton redoubled his efforts after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and again after the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing. Yet Congress held firm, giving Clinton none of the new wiretapping powers he sought. What the bombings of 1993, 1995, and 1996 failed to achieve, the atrocities of 2001 may bring to fruition.
www.cqpress.com/context/articles/cqr19950721.html and some of what he HAD done
Quote:www.monitor.net/monitor/10-30-95/fisa.html I haven't found any- and mean zip, nada, nic- about this alleged massive wiretapping program. So, do you have a link to info about this?
Granting new powers to the FISA court was accomplished quietly and treated as a non-event in the national media. The lack of reporting was somehow fitting, though, following as it did the silent debate last year when Congress rubberstamped the annual Intelligence Authorization Act
BTW, if you check out these links, you'll find the same people (ACLU, Molly Ivens, etc) complaining about loss of freedom under Clinton as under Bush. So, I don't know where the Libertarians have been but at least the Liberals are consistent.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Where are the Libertarians? Where they have always been bitching from the sidelines and doing exactly nothing. I sat and watched their convention a few years ago and was amazed just how like the old SDP they were -- people too ineffectual to be in charge of something who are complaining that they are not in charge!
As for Republicans --- Big Government is like the one Ring. While you don't have it's power you believe that it is evil and pledge to destroy it, but when you have it in your possession you start thinking "yeah I can use this for GOOD!" and before you know it you are half naked, living in a cave and eating raw fish (or is that just Tom DeLay???)
... that was a very intelligent post, and I have to agree.
... I became a Libertarian only after leaving the United States and watching the absurdity from 10 thousand miles away.. for several years.
... Dem or Rep is a lose-lose situation these days. Both have us completely chained and bound to forces beyond anyone's control. Excuse me if I seem to be drifing here a bit, and I am no "tree-hugging" environmentalist to be sure, but...
... Saudi Arabia IS the enemy of the United States. That is to say, everybody in Saudi Arabia who isn't a billionaire hates us pretty much. And G. Bush, and Slick Willy before him spent years kissing the Saudis' arses for love of money and personal fortune (Clinton, about a month after his last term went to give a speech in Rihad... for a million and some odd dollar speaking fee. Daddy Bush did likewise).
... Colin Powel has made millions selling Boeing airplanes to the Saudi Royals, to offer another example . . . Condi Rice and that oil frieghter they named for her... I could go on and on....
... All the while Saudi Arabia is like Vesuvius of old - ready to erupt in an Islamic fundamentalist militant explosion... So our fearless leaders have to get all the cash they can, WHILE they can, eh...
... Now for that "tree-hugger" part. Hydrogen battery-powered cars, that run on nothing but water DO exist, and they run quite well. They are not yet perfected and nobody (gov't or major corporations) is putting any serious money into its development. . . why not? Well... there's no big PERSONAL cash payoff.
... Cut US dependency on Saudi oil, and a great many problems vanish. Including the "need" to go fight wars overseas to better secure oil for that day when Saudi Arabia does finally fall apart.
... Did that make any sense? I hope it did. The issue is so complex and I don't pretend to understand all of it, but this Saudi connection is cancer that crosses all party lines in the US.
... Venting finished. Thank you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well said. But there are exceptions to the rule. Some Big Problems require a Big Government. For example, fishing stocks depletion can only be resolved through world-wide regulation, which is the Biggest Government of all. Unless you can think of another way to resolve such problems. BTW- thanks for the visual on Tom DeLay. heh heh heh
Big Government is like the one Ring. While you don't have it's power you believe that it is evil and pledge to destroy it, but when you have it in your possession you start thinking "yeah I can use this for GOOD!" and before you know it you are half naked, living in a cave and eating raw fish (or is that just Tom DeLay???)
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
As for Republicans --- Big Government is like the one Ring. While you don't have it's power you believe that it is evil and pledge to destroy it, but when you have it in your possession you start thinking "yeah I can use this for GOOD!" and before you know it you are half naked, living in a cave and eating raw fish (or is that just Tom DeLay???)
I hate to admit that lately there is something to this. I'd like to think that isn't so, but for about half my party it seems to be so at elast re; the Bush crowd.
Quote:
BTW, if you check out these links, you'll find the same people (ACLU, Molly Ivens, etc) complaining about loss of freedom under Clinton as under Bush. So, I don't know where the Libertarians have been but at least the Liberals are consistent.
I'll grant that Molly Ivens is a liberal, but despite Bush claims, the ACLU is a libertarian. They stand up for the right as often as they do for the left.
Quote:
Saudi Arabia IS the enemy of the United States. That is to say, everybody in Saudi Arabia who isn't a billionaire hates us pretty much.
This was an excellent point. I would beg to differ on one part though. Those billionaires are organizing a take over of American media and banking, and they have funded a lot of terrorism. I think they, too, are the enemy of the United States.
Quote:
Condi Rice and that oil frieghter they named for her...
Actually she has two.
I aqree that there are a lot of viable alternatives up at the moment. I'm not sure about the hydrogen because the ones I've seen rely on storing a tank of compressed hydrogen, it's potentially a bomb. We drive and fly around on bombs all the time. I'd like to see a solution which can't be made to blow up.
Quote:
Some Big Problems require a Big Government. For example, fishing stocks depletion can only be resolved through world-wide regulation, which is the Biggest Government of all. Unless you can think of another way to resolve such problems.
I disagree. This can be done by a very small govt. A regulation on fishing caps is simply a law that requires very little enforcement, and could be carried out by the coast guard. Big govt. is not just a matter of how much it constricts civil liberties, it's a matter of how much money it spends, how many people it hires, and how many people's lives are interfered with. Here the only interferences on people's lives would be to large fishing concerns who come close to the limit.
I would add that the majority of these are foreign-owned, and infringing on the rights of foreign concerns to loot your nations natural resources can not be called big govt. If govt. cannot do this, it has no reason to exist.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HaoLeHaoLe
Good vent.
Where could I find out more about those hydrogen powered cars?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am a libertarian. And I am ignored by friends and family when it comes to politics. I still speak my mind, but not much one person can do except refuse to be quiet.
~~~~~
"Funny and sexy. You have no idea. And you never will."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Where are the Libertarians?
Dating the Librarians 
.
Hydrogen powered cars.
We've got some hydrogen buses travelling around London, kicking out that terribly harmful water and all. Your major concern was with the bomb aspect, but I believe that actually at least as safe as normal petrol solutions. Something to do with a honeycomb storage tank.
Fishing stocks.
They aren't your natural resources, strictly speaking, if the fish stocks are in international waters. How does, for instance, the British Navy enforce fishing quotas on Norwegian boats in the North Sea (fished by a number of countries including Britain) without potentially going to war with Norway? Hey we'd win but that's not the point.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by UnregisteredCompanion:
I am a libertarian. And I am ignored by friends and family when it comes to politics. I still speak my mind, but not much one person can do except refuse to be quiet.
yeah... that pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?
I can't help but reflect on the similarities of being a libertarian, and being a Firefly fan. So many of the same kinds of frustrations.
In each case you have something precious to you, something that (it seems) every living person should value, and you're faced with the painful fact that most people just don't care. Most people don't want liberty, they want safety. Most people don't want challenging storytelling, they want predictable fluff.
You can scream from the rooftops until you're hoarse, but in the end they still won't care. Your show will be canceled and they'll vote in another republicrat to piss away what freedom we have left.
Now I'm depressed...
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SargeX- sorry to bring up such a depressing topic. I was wondering where the usual Bush apologists are. They're awfully quiet these days. Come out, come out wherever you are!
BTW- I'm finding I have more in common with real Libertarians (as opposed to fascists in drag) than I thought. DT, SargeX- Do you suppose there could ever be some sort of uniting on common issues between lefties and Libertarians and conservatives?
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Find a few like minded people and stand for office, any office, local school board, local council anything. If you have a better way then you can demonstrate that by action. No you won't get a President anytime soon but it's better than whinging.
Evil exists because good people do nothing. If you really believe that things are bad then try to change them, don't just talk about changing them and then complain when nothing happens.
A good target would be these redistricting events that make more and more congressional seats "safe" for one party or another. No seat should ever be "safe" if someone wants to remain our representative he should have to work his ass off to keep his job, just like the rest of us do. Governments should fear their people, not the other way around.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Find a few like minded people and stand for office, any office, local school board, local council anything. If you have a better way then you can demonstrate that by action. No you won't get a President anytime soon but it's better than whinging.
Evil exists because good people do nothing. If you really believe that things are bad then try to change them, don't just talk about changing them and then complain when nothing happens.
A good target would be these redistricting events that make more and more congressional seats "safe" for one party or another. No seat should ever be "safe" if someone wants to remain our representative he should have to work his ass off to keep his job, just like the rest of us do. Governments should fear their people, not the other way around.
I've actually been quite aways down that road. Even ran for local office. It resulted in mostly frustration, as I mentioned earlier.
The alternative I recommend is to live free despite the government. Its much easier than most imagine and I think it may have a more positive effect than the traditional political approach. Our rulers maintain power through a very fragile thread - much more tenous than most imagine.
I'm reminded of a cartoon by B.Kliban. It shows a king speaking to his people from a balcony. The king says, "I'm the king and you have to do what I command or else I can't be king anymore!". That's pretty much all there is to it. They only have power because we do what they tell us. "Just say no."
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Do you suppose there could ever be some sort of uniting on common issues between lefties and Libertarians and conservatives?"
Not really. Because ideas come from pholosophies. The philosophies of these 3 groups are incompatible.
~~~~~
"Funny and sexy. You have no idea. And you never will."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
DT, SargeX- Do you suppose there could ever be some sort of uniting on common issues between lefties and Libertarians and conservatives?
This was one of my biggest sources of frustration with the Libertarian party itself. They were pretty lax in attempts to attract traditional liberals.
This was disappointing because I always felt liberals, in general, had a better understanding basic libertarian principles than the conservative republicans - even though the conservative republicans were more likely to take an interest in Libertarian politics.
It seemed a lot of conservatives were happy to call themselves libertarians when the issues were cutting taxes or pulling back on the welfare state, but when it came to really respecting the rights of people to live as they wished, were less enthusiastic. (gay marriage and drug legalization, for example)
On the other hand, Liberals, even though they seemed to have a greater respect for real individual liberty, couldn't let go of their pet 'big government' projects and saw Libertarians as a direct threat. From my way of thinking, it was an easier task to show liberals how their big gov solutions were counterproductive than to convince self-righteous conservatives that it was ok if their neighbors did drugs.
Ultimately though, it was just an uphill battle to get people to consider ideas that weren't already part of the mainstream. Most people get scared when they get the feeling they are thinking for themselves and that was the hardest barrier to overcome.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just a short personal story.
As one of the 'get involved or quit b*tchin' folk', I ran for union steward 5 years ago. Been dealing with grievances, negotiations, appeals etc ever since. Not only do I go to the meetings, I've put in hundreds of hours of my own personal time to research the things that need to be researched. And some people always, but always criticize afterward.
I'm not in it for the power. And I'm not in it for personal gain, for recognition, gratitude, or even thanks.
As soon as somebody else will step forward to do the job, I'm out of here. But nobody steps forward.
So, STEP FORWARD. REPEATEDLY if needed. Put yourself in the works and move as much as you can.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
"Do you suppose there could ever be some sort of uniting on common issues between lefties and Libertarians and conservatives?"
Not really. Because ideas come from pholosophies. The philosophies of these 3 groups are incompatible.
I disagree.
I think the left-libertarian and the right-libertarian sets could get together and make a plan to fight the pro-govt. control set from both sides. It would take planning, and agreeing to disagree on a lot of points until we got rid of the neo-con, neo-liberal set.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:Quote:
"Do you suppose there could ever be some sort of uniting on common issues between lefties and Libertarians and conservatives?"
Not really. Because ideas come from pholosophies. The philosophies of these 3 groups are incompatible.
I disagree.
I think the left-libertarian and the right-libertarian sets could get together and make a plan to fight the pro-govt. control set from both sides. It would take planning, and agreeing to disagree on a lot of points until we got rid of the neo-con, neo-liberal set.
I'd sure like to think you're right. There may be more potential than ever for that now that Bush has betrayed so many of the basic principles of the 'Reagan republicans'. Not to mention liberals are quite a bit more sympathetic to the small government ideal, now that they're not driving.
But the question remains, do people really want freedom? I'm not convinced they do. At least not in large enough numbers to matter.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
... Just a couple of links on that Hydrogen Battery Car topic:
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/06/10/HydrogenElectricCar/
http://www.hasslberger.com/tecno/hydrogen.html
This second link has engine designs for the [Do it yourself crowd.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sgt. X.
Quote:
I'd sure like to think you're right. There may be more potential than ever for that now that Bush has betrayed so many of the basic principles of the 'Reagan republicans'.
First, a couple points,
I think of myself as an 'Eisenhower' Republican. I think a lot of people do, still others look back to Teddy Roosevelt. I just have a couple problems with Reagan, more now than I did then, because of the influence that both neocons and the global socialists, and also the christian extremists had over Reagan who they handpicked to defeat Bush Sr. in '80, much the way GWB was picked by them to defeat McCain in '00. That said, Reagan would be be Mother Theresa compared to W. But I think generally most of the Republican presidents have been pretty consistant up until Reagan, and that Bush Sr. fit much more into that mold than either Reagan or W. At this point I'd like to see the whole neocon set gone from the party. They've been yacking 'do it our way' for a long time, and now we've done it their way and it sucked, and I'd like to go back to the old way.
Quote:
Not to mention liberals are quite a bit more sympathetic to the small government ideal, now that they're not driving.
I actually like to think that they've seen the light, now they've seen exactly how scary big govt. can be. I hope so. It's possible that they will revert to form when they win in '08 which if Bush continues at the rate he's going has to be a dead certainty. I was stunned and amazed they didn't win in '04.
Quote:
But the question remains, do people really want freedom? I'm not convinced they do. At least not in large enough numbers to matter.
You don't need a group that large. When you add up all the revelationists, various christian sects that worship the second coming, there are 24 million of them. 14 million are registered voters. 10 million of those voted for GWB in the 2000 GOP primary. Just about no one else did.
By contrast the Democratic presidential primary is even smaller. About 70% the size. So 10 million was 50% of the 20 million votes cast, so our of 14 million democratic votes you'd only need about 7 million. Possibly a little more because I think that the team evil model democrat is a little strong in it's hold over the party than team evil model republican, not a subjective comment, just a reflection of vote totals. 10 million or so voted for Kerry.
So 10 million, that's what it takes to get yourself a president. After you win the primary, the rest of your party will fall in line. If you're not too outlandish. Oh, hell, look at Bush, or even Kerry, okay, even if you are completely absurd, the rest of your party will fall in line.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
But the question remains, do people really want freedom? I'm not convinced they do. At least not in large enough numbers to matter.
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
I'm not sure they do. There is a quote attributed to Napoleon that says that only the educated classes worry about liberty, the people worry about bread.
This is my take on it.
The poor don't vote in the numbers they should, maybe out of ignorance maybe because the system makes it hard for them to vote. In any case voter turnout in poor districts is low and it tends to be where more vote irregularities take place.
The rich do vote but they are small in number so their influence is small.
Therefore most voters are middleclass. This has a number of consequences because what the middle class want more than anything is stability. They are also the ones most concerned with security and the rule of law --- the poor have little to loose, the rich don't realy on the cops for security so things like a strong police force are middle class obscessions. The middle class are also pretty conservative, that need for stability again, when people say that America is a conservative country they often miss out the fact that America has the world's largest and most affluent middle class.
So what does this mean in electoral terms? First it means for an American political party to get elected it has to appeal to the middle class, even if it claims it's ideological allegence is elsewhere. Un the UK when I was growing up the middle class was comparatively small compared to a well organised working class. That was what made the election of a Labour government based on Socialist principles possible. Mrs Thatcher changed all that, she actively grew the middle class and the number of people owning property until the only way that Labour could be elected was to move it to the right. We are now in the possition like the US of having essentially two center-right parties chasing the same middle class voters one of which claims to be left wing and the other claiming to be pro business.
The good news is that while a middle class is strong and secure a country doesn't tend to slip into obvious tyrany. Hitler was elected because the economic woes of Germany put a lot of workers and middle class voters on the dole. If that hadn't happened it would be hard to see how the Nazi's could have triumphed. Contrary to the red scare of the 1950's the US has never been at risk of an internal revolution. No middle class voter is going to vote soviet and as long as the poor can afford to eat there is little risk of a worker's revolution.
The bad news is that all the majority of the middle class want is security. Give them that and they don't care too much about liberty. That I think is the problem with the Libertarian message; people don't dislike big governmant on principle they just get pissy about paying for it. If the middle class can get the benefit of big government without the bill they'd buy into it in a heartbeat because what big governmant DOES is try to look after every tiny need a citizen has. You can't get more "secure" than that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fletch,
I may be beating a dead horse, but here goes. Polls continually show that the % of people concerned about stability is small. 70%-80% of people would prefer peace and are really not that concerned about whether or not the Saddam Husseins stay in power. The estimated total cost I read somewhere, associated with our war in Iraq to date was just of $1 trillion. I'm sure that this is at least in the ball park of correct. I also read that a conflict with Iran is likely to cost three times as much, and would probably result in a million casualties, and like 10,000 plus American lives lost. Is it worth all this to the American people to see that Ahmadinejad and the theocrats lose power in Iran? I don't want to hear it, that was a rhetorical question. The thing is I will give you an iron clad guarantee that an overwhelming majority of Americans think not. Yet last election we saw two ultra-hawkish candidates square off in one big wargasm.
So why? It has nothing to do with what the people believe. The people were made to believe what the machine wanted them to believe. The machine has votes. Kerry and Bush each got about 10 million votes. Then, in the general election, their parties both got 50 million or so more votes.
In the general eleciton, most of our voters are voting for the jackass or the elephant, pretty much regardless of who is on the ticket. The only actual election is the primary. Each side has about 100 million registered voters. Both of us got swamped by someone with the unstoppable majority of 10%. I hope everyone feels as disorganized as I do right now.
In general, I think the degree of pro-peace feeling is fairly equal on both sides. The pro-prosperity feeling probably is too. Any campaign as organized as Bush and Kerry were with almost any sensible agenda ought to be able to annihilate them. Hell, any random fringe minority could probably do it, with enough organization.
There are almost as many Joss fans as there are fundementalist christian primary voters. If we made an alliance with the charmed viewers or the trekkies, we wouldn't need any help. Or course, it also takes unity of purpose.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT: you are mistaking security for stability. I said stability and I meant it. Let's look at that a moment. Iraq has had a slow burn with the public, Bush is only now feeling the consequences of an action he took over 2 years ago because no matter how many billions are spent overseas or how many young Americans die that has had little impact on folks at home. The stability of all those little suburban middleclass lives have not been threatened.
Now let's look at the last time his popularity was in the toilet, hurricane Katrina. That has a more immediate impact because looking after Americans caught in a domestic disaster is seen rightly or wrongly as a Federal (Big) government job and he's the boss of that. When people see all the bad things happening in New Orleans they see themselves in that situation and the government their have detailed the job of taking care of that asleep at the wheel. THEN gas prices went up everywhere else and that SUV run to drop lil Jimmy at school just became more expensive for the average soccer mom.
If there was a draft and suburban middle class kids were the majority of the casualties in Iraq we'd see a lot more reaction. If the costs of the war were being added to direct taxation and not being financed by borrowing we'd see a reaction but the truth is that Iraq doesnt touch most middle class lives. That is why it hasn't featured as a big issue.
As to polls on security. It doesn't come up because it generally isn't an issue. Had you asked the same question in DC during the beltway sniper incident of in NYC just after 9/11 you would have had a different answer. Security is only an issue if people feel directly threatened, right now they dont.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fletch,
I can't seem to find the post this was a response to, so I'll just ramble.
The draft logic is flawed if you mean to carry it to a pro-draft level as many liberals have done to me. The main reason the draft would make things worse is that it would enable a monster army and a giant war. This is why it would affect back home, not just because it was a draft. But I don't think the draft is ever going to feature big as a GOP platform point because it conflicts with Republican values which even Bush can't totally buck without getting kicked out of the party. The fact that they haven't done it already astounds me. I think this country has become to comfortable with the idea that who ever has the ring deserves the ring even if it happens to be Vice President Gollum.
To some extent I agree, security is an issue for those threatened. If this was re: inside of Iraq, I think that the external threats to Iraq are going to be pretty severe if we leave without decent preparation, plus the inside threats, heck, it's a mess. But maybe foreign powers will just manipulate the democracy rather than kill a bunch of people. I seriously have been expecting all along for a pull out on Aug. 30th of '06 because that's what the bible says.
You know, one man, he overcomes the will of the masses because he's guided by the will of God, and he comes to power in the most powerful nation on the millenium aka 2000, then he and his 24 yesmen push an invasion of th evalley of tigris and eurphrates, ie Iraq, and they rain down fire and brimstone with silver eagles from the heavens, iow, they bomb it into the stone age, and then the forces of the ruler being a dozen units of a dozen thousand occupy the land for 1260 days, ie. 144,000 US troops or so occupy Iraq until Aug. 30th of 2006. Then it's time for bible-mandated withdrawl.
Silly people, reading the constitution, declarations of war, Pah! This adminisration gets its legislative ideas from a higher power.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think several postings here have touched on a major truth but I didn't see any that mentioned an effective strategy. The truth is that neither the Republican party or the Democrat party really represent the majority in this country anymore. The Repuplican far right with Bush has hijacked the party and racked up massive deficits when the Repuplican party used to stand for smaller government and fiscal responsibility. The Democrats have gone overboard with pushing new entitlement programs while not doing anything to fix the rampant fraud in the ones that we really need to keep in order to promote opportunity and the chance of prosperity for ALL Americans like Social Security, Medicaid and the Student Loan Program.
It's time for a new party that really represents the concerns of the "silent" majority in this country and Libertarians aren't going to appeal to most of us and they can't get their message straight either. We need to form a new party that has as it's basic priorities first and
foremost education, fiscal responsibilty (balanced budget amendment) and strict protection of civil liberties. We should call it the Eagle Party since Eagles make a much cooler symbol than either an ass or an elephant. Then come election time we just vote out all the incumbents, Democrat or Republican. NO ONE GETS REELECTED. Voter enforced term limits can work. Break the back of the old boy network and then you'll see some true change for the better.
Jaytee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I agree that it isn't going to appeal to most of you, but the Libertarian message couldn't be much clearer. I honestly can't think of a political party that has anything like the clear, concise philosophy the Libertarians espouse. You might not like it, but it't plenty straight.
Originally posted by JayTee:
It's time for a new party that really represents the concerns of the "silent" majority in this country and Libertarians aren't going to appeal to most of us and they can't get their message straight either.
Quote:
NO ONE GETS REELECTED. Voter enforced term limits can work. Break the back of the old boy network and then you'll see some true change for the better.
Term limits might work for bit, but if you have the political will to pass term limits, why not just vote the bums out of office? Or change the voting systems that give incumbants such an advantage in the first place?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What I said was that voters had to vote the incumbents out thereby creating a "term limit" since there is no way Congress will vote for term limits on their own. It's not in their best interests and that seems to be all that concerns them in the first place.
Jaytee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm going to hijack my own thread and come back to the original topic:
Quote:www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/24/domestic.spying.ap/index.html Naturally DoJ head Gonzales thinks this is all legal. Now, one wonders- does one not?- why Bush was SOOO anxious to get Harriet Miers or another Klansman into the Supreme Court so quickly! Then they could rubber-stamp his coup.
NEW YORK (AP) -- The National Security Agency has conducted much broader surveillance of e-mails and phone calls -- without court orders -- than the Bush administration has acknowledged, The New York Times reported. The NSA, with help from American telecommunications companies, obtained access to streams of domestic and international communications, said the Times, citing unidentified current and former government officials.
Since the Times disclosed the domestic spying program last week, President Bush has stressed that his executive order allowing the eavesdropping was limited to people with known links to al Qaeda. {Yeah. Right. This Prez is a pathological liar. AJ? Geezer? Hero? Finn? Any defense of this would surely be appreciated.
I hope the Senate takes an indefinitely long, hard look at Alito, who probably doesn't think that Americans have a right to privacy. Abortion is just a red herring.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I love Big Brother.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JayTee:
What I said was that voters had to vote the incumbents out thereby creating a "term limit" since there is no way Congress will vote for term limits on their own. It's not in their best interests and that seems to be all that concerns them in the first place.
Ahh.. I misread. In that case I couldn't agree more. Have you looked at Approval Voting? It's something that, I think, could be adopted at a grassroots level and could really change the way elections are approached by candidates.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Merry Christmas
I just want to take a stand to oppose term limits. Strongly oppose them. Vehemently oppose them.
Okay, here are my points
1. Experience is important, freshman lawmakers are very close to useless and easily swindled into bad policy by suave long term washington lobbyists.
2. A party can and does get corrupted. If there were term limits then the party constituency would always reflect the party leadership, which would be bad, and not just a little bad but appallingly nazi bad.
3. Lifelong lawmakers can come in from any period in history, and become a sort of freezeframe of their parties position at that point. McCain is a Nixon Republican, because that's when he came in. This sort of thing forces a party to be consistant to its own values throughout history.
If I were to look at my party and its elected officials, there are a few new ones I like who have promise, but I have an overwhelming tendency to prefer the ones who have been there a while. I think there's a fair chance if we have better GOP leadership in the future, well it would be hard to fathom worse, then some people like George Allen and Norm Coleman who went off half cocked might make very good long term GOP members. If they don't, we can vote them out.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
JT,
You're sounding like the Reform Party USA.
I don't think this is a workable solution. A third party would have the opposition of both major parties, and during its early life would tend to force the group it hates more to win perpetually.
Here's what I think may be a better idea:
We should take over the two parties. At the moment 30-40 mil people vote for a candidate in a primary every 4 years, totalling both sides. That's just over 10% of the population, and under 20% of registered voters. Everyone else votes for a party in a general election. This means the parties come with 40 million free votes apiece, or 80 million total votes for free, if you can organize the others. It's very doable. It's not easy, but it's far from impossible.
On either side it would take 10 million votes to win.
By contrast, it would take a 3rd party candidate at least 40 million to win, assuming an excellent 3-way split.
So by going the third party way, even if you discount the whole legal battle of having both major parties against you, you've still automatically made your task 4 times harder.
Since I think it's very important that absolutely no one who opposes Bush and Co. go and help them stay in power, I have to list off the democrats who will be most likely to continue the Bush policies, again, of course, I'm referring tot he democrat half of team evil:
Ben Nelson, aka the Benator
Diane Feinstein aka Difi
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Joe Lieberman aka Joementum
John Forbes Kerry
Wesley Clarke
Don't go to work for these people. If you're a democrat, a progressive and care about your party and are not happy with Bush policies, pick someone from outside and don't just vote, work for them in the primary campaign. But only if they work to get definite members rather than through pure advertising, which never works.
If I were a democrat, my pick would be Russ Feingold if he will run, but whoever it is, make sure that you know they are who they say they are and who you're sure has at least a snowflakes chance in hell, ie. they haven't already done something chappaquiddickish.
My current choice for GOP runner to volunteer for will probably be Chuck Hagel. I like McCain okay, but if both run I'll probably still work for Hagel, even if I think he'll lose to McCain to at least earn VP.
And organize, organize, organize.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Third party isn't going to work. I don't know about the US but in the UK new parties only tend to make breakthroughs when old parties are either completely discredited or if they split over policy. I don't know that we are in a position where either of those two events is likely. Even if you accept the Dreamtrove idea that Bush et al are a rebel gang currently in charge of the Republicans it would be hard for traditionalist Republicans to shake them off. Why? because such events do not happen in isolation, the parties that exist today are a reflection of the political, economic and social standards of our time while those ideas persist we will have more of the same.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
you didn't look very hard.
'Warrantless' searches not unprecedented
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 22, 2005
Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.
"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.
More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
Such warrantless searches have been at the center of a political fight in Washington after the New York Times reported Friday that the Bush administration had a program to intercept communications between al Qaeda suspects and persons in this country, a story whose publication coincided with the congressional debate over reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act.
In a 2002 opinion about the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA Patriot Act, the court wrote: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
Indeed, previous administrations have used that same authority.
One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.
In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.
Previous administrations also asserted the authority of the president to conduct searches in the interest of national security.
In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government.
That same year, Congress approved and Mr. Carter signed FISA, which created the secret court and required federal agents to get approval to conduct electronic surveillance in most foreign intelligence cases.
and:
'Warrantless' searches not unprecedented
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 22, 2005
A Washington Post report at the time said the new FISA law permits "the government (primarily NSA with the occasional help of an FBI 'black bag job' or break-in) to continue electronic spying without a court order if it is directed solely at the premises or communications of 'official' powers, such as governments, factions or entities openly known to be directed and controlled by foreign governments."
The year after FISA became law, a columnist in The Washington Post described what could still happen to any person or group determined to be "an agent of a foreign power."
"Once the attorney general has made that finding about someone, then the FBI can spy on them or burglarize their offices," wrote William Greider in a May 1979 column.
The Bush administration
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's all good as long as 007 does the right thing.
Chrisisa double-D'oh
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I vote libertarian, when taxes are 2% of the family budget instead of 50%, I'll consider the other 2 parties again.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fletch,
Again we're closer than usual to agreement. How unlikely. I want to clarify something.
The situation in the GOP right now is very peculiar. The Bush/neocon set has one (1) voter group which votes for them at the polls. This is the christian right. The thing to do which is counter intuitive, is to outbid them for the christian right. A new republican agenda would have to do that. But there's more peculiar about this voting block. They are really isolationists. They're so isolationist that they would like to set up their own rules and have no interference even from the state and local govts. There is undoubtedly a compromise which can be reached where we stop affecting their enclaves, and they stop effecting our federal govt. In essence, they would become like indian reservations.
But then it would have to revert to the values the rest of us hold, fiscal discipline, limited govt. etc. The thing is that Bush is to some extent an abberration. Neocons are not really republican at all, they're hald of the former social democrats, the other half are still democrats. But close examination of both our primaries and of the senate reveals that GOP resistance to Bush is far greater than Democratic resistance to Clinton. As I recall only Russ Feingold consistantly opposed the Clinton Admin.
But I'm not saying it's going to be easy. I will guarantee you it is easier than throwing the hawks out of the democratic party. In the primaries, the hawks take 70%-90% consistantly of the dem ticker, and only 50% of the republican, and that is just the christian right, which is in its heart much more of an isolationist, they don't vote for neocon hawks for the war, they do it for the pro-religion. I think it's doable to kick the hawks out of the GOP more or less permanently. I think it's much more difficult to do so in the Democratic party, but I fully support anyone who wants to try.
Finally, I think these things DO happen in isolation. Bush and co have very few ties to other republicans, and tensions are very high. The fuzzier part is that there are SOME republicans who WILL work with Bush but AREN'T particularly neocon themselves, or wouldn't be if Bush disappeared. John McCain, Colin Powell, Even Condi Rice would revert to being a normal Republican if the mainstay neocons were axed. Where I think the neocons are entrenched is not in the GOP proper, but in the auxilliary complex, like the media talk shows and whatnot. Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, etc. are going to follow the neocons off the end of the Earth. By contrast, I DO think that Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and the like would follow the GOP back into the mainstream if it recovered.
Actually.
Let me take a moment to lay all the cards on the table.
We have three options. We must take one of those three options, because the option of total defeatest apathy is not an option.
Option 1. We form a third party and break in.
Option 2. We resurrect the democratic party.
Option 3. We resurrect the republican party.
Considering option 1, I think most of us have discarded this, it take 4 times as much success to succeed, minimum, on an absolute scale.
Option 2, I say "How?" I'm all for the idea of Russ Feingold for president, but getting the Democratic party to nominate him is like getting the GOP to nominate Lincoln Chafee. It's totally comparable, because neither one can be counted for to vote with their own party more than half the time. Realistically, the democratic voters are far more likely to vote for a hawk in the primary and in the general election because this is how it was in '04, '00, '96, '92 and so on back to 1824 with very few exceptions. It's a fairly quixotic bid.
Option 3, has the strong advantage that there's already a large disaffected population within the party willing to move towards change, and a long standing history of not voting for hawks. Republicans historically not only have many times the number of peaceful presidents on their resume, but also, even in the recent election primaries, w
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's painful for me to swallow, but you do make a lot of sense. The trouble is, I have the hardest time trusting anyone who can succeed through a major party primary process. I haven't been there, so I can't say you're wrong, but my impression is that it takes so many compromises and entangling alliances that no one can come to power without baggage that's sure to flatten any kind of reformist ideology.
I'm reminded of Reagan. For all his cashing in on distrust of big government, he did very little to dismantle it. Maybe his intentions were good, but nothing budged.
I'll think about this more. Your argument gives me some slim hope. It's been my position for sometime that the only effective opposition to Bush's policies will be from within the republican party. Hmmmm
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sgt X.
Politics is the art of compromise.
That said, it's a matter of who you choose to compromise with that matters.
Reagan was a stooge, a lackey. He was hand picked by the neocons as their first pet election project, and then then fed to the christian right as someone who would put God back in the whitehouse. Reagan himself did a lot of compromising to become that.
That gave him the numbers to win, then he walked in an took the nomination flat out, and there was a huge fight. The GOP didn't like an outsider winning, esp. one who was backed by two groups they didn't traditionally represent, one trosky-socialist, and the other religious-fanatic.
So a huge fight ensued, and the result was a compromise. This compromise worked out at the '80 GOP convention would make George H. W. Bush, former CIA chief, vice president (he would not have been Reagan or his supporter's pick by any means) and that Reagan once in office would appoint a number of traditional republicans into govt. Reagan also appointed a good number of neocons. It's was kind of a mix.
If Reagan hadn't made the first compromise in order to get the votes, he could have been a lot better. If he hadn't made the second compromise with the party, he would have been a lot worse. The result was acceptable, but not perfect.
A new group would have to make similar compromises. First, they would need to assemble into a well distribute group of 10 million or so. Once they did this, advertising would be more or less unnecessary until the general election. They would walk in an take the title by sheer numbers. This group would already have compromised on a platform. This platform would be not carved in stone by more a list of sort of things we promise to try to achieve, and if we fail, well then you probably won't vote for us in the future, so we better try.
The once having won the title, another compromise would have to be worked out so that the party would consent to give you its full backing. Certain candidates like McGovern in '72 seem to have run without a full party backing, meaning the backers of the party weren't willing to throw in the necessary support, and so the campaign kind of flopped. There are one or more trade offs that would have to be made here, but that's a hell of a lot better than just letting evil reign. But most importantly, I have an idea to offset too much loss from this final compromise, you seek out the agreement you need ahead of time. You look for what you would need to have and who you would need to work with in order to get that final support. So you say okay, well my platform helps stem cell companies and not oil companies, so it needs something else, what can I do for major manufacturing sector or information tech. companies. etc. And you collect a group of people already in the base, without catering to the ones you don't want to cater to. Then you do the same with the old guard of the party. There are a lot of reasonable men there who would welcome the chance to work with just about anything non-neocon just as long as it was remotely more traditional. If you did all this footwork in advance, when you got into the party convention and big oil and neocons objected, you could more or less shout them down.
I do think the primary is their weakest link. It will take a smaller opposition to defeat them there then in either the general election or a power struggle in some major multinational body like the UN or God knows what that they plan to invent.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dutch- It sounds as if you support warrantless searches. Is that your intention?
Presidents have long claimed the authority to order warrantless searches for intelligence purposes as long as national security is at stake. That includes Nixon and Reagan (Executive Order 12333) as well as Clinton (Executive Order 12949). The distinction is that crime-fighting requires a warrant and probable cause while intelligence-gathering does not. However, after the abuse of warrantless searches by Nixon (against anti-war groups who were exercising their First Ammendment rights and who did not pose a security threat to the USA) Congress placed the authority w/in FISA. BTW- technically, the surveillance authorization from FISA is not called a "warrant" but a "surveillance order", so searches and wiretaps conducted under FISA are indeed "warrantless". However, they are conducted under Judicial review.
What you quoted was many opinions from advocates of warrantless surveillance. These opinions have not (or probably will not) w/stand Judicial or Congressional scrutiny. The reason is that- knowing that obtaining a FISA surveillance order may take up to 72 hours- there is a loophole that offers the ability to obtain a surveillance order after the fact. Thus, there is no possible reason to evade judicial oversight for warrantless searches.
www.slate.com/id/2070287 www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp
And my point remains- where are the Libertarians? The ACLU and leftist organizations have been dogging this issue whether it involved Nixon, Reagan, Clinton or Bush. (Look at the bylines of the varius articles.) Nobody- certainly not me- is claiming Clinton was a great President.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dreamtrove- I think you've identified the primary as the "weak link" and the point at which to aim. However, the Republican Party has been so relentlessly on -message (of the neocon sort) that that I find it hard to believe that there really are enough disaffected Republican politicians OR voters to turn the party around. If you break out the Bush-approval poll numbers by self-identified Republicans, Independents and Democrats, Bush still maintains a very large approval within the Republican party, and the inverse among Democrats and Independents. You'd be plowing some pretty stony ground.
In addition, the Democratic Party is more openly suffering a split, with Hillary/ Biden/ Feinstein on one side and Dean/Feingold/Edwards on the other. I think that split could be more effectively exploited.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If I may dig up a quote from WAAAAAAY back (sorry haven't been to this thread in a while)
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Do you suppose there could ever be some sort of uniting on common issues between lefties and Libertarians and conservatives?
There should be. Libertarians were Conservatives that basically split off and adopted some 'leftist' Liberal ideals (such as small government).
Ergo for the two largely opposing views of Liberals and Conservatives Libertarians are the mixing point... Like one of those colour graphs.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I found this website for centrist Republicans
www.mypartytoo.com
Here is the flavor of their discussion board:
Quote:Thought you guys would be interested.
Stupid Budget Decisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GardenLady | 12/13/2005 11:21:23 AM
Stevens is actually fairly fiscally conservative when you ignore the elephant of the Alaska pork. Another example of the Party's ethical challenges.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rational | 12/12/2005 1:42:23 PM
The beauty of this site and the main street coalition's is that we do not have to agree with everyone. That is what makes us moderates. The ability to debate, change minds--including our own-- and often to agree to disagree without animosity or shunning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fringeright | 11/28/2005 8:43:22 PM
Ted Stevens is a member of the Main Street Coalition. A coalition that this website argues is a "strategic Partner." Odd the main opponent to the bridge to nowhere appears to be one of those evil far right republicans, Tom Coburn. I agree Ted Stevens should be ashamed, of the bridge to nowhwere and of his affiliation with teh Main street Coalition.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Not a big supporter of Clinton here- I know he did some skanky stuff- but this is one thing I never heard of. First of all, it would be impossible to tap "millions" of calls because you would need "millions" of listeners, and at least thousands of translators. Secondly, I tried looking this up, and while I found a lot of hue and cry about what Clinton PROPOSED to do
Why is it a heinous crime when Bush taps thousands of international calls and emails after 9/11 happened in order to try to prevent another one but it's completely ignored that Clinton tapped millions of international AND DOMESTIC calls and emails after the first trade center bombing?Quote:http://hnn.us/articles/366.html
For two decades, lingering popular wariness forestalled any expansion of wiretapping powers. But after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, President Clinton, warning of international terrorism, proposed measures similar to those George Bush seeks today. Civil libertarians in Congress refused to pass them, but Clinton redoubled his efforts after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and again after the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing. Yet Congress held firm, giving Clinton none of the new wiretapping powers he sought. What the bombings of 1993, 1995, and 1996 failed to achieve, the atrocities of 2001 may bring to fruition.
www.cqpress.com/context/articles/cqr19950721.html and some of what he HAD doneQuote:www.monitor.net/monitor/10-30-95/fisa.html I haven't found any- and mean zip, nada, nic- about this alleged massive wiretapping program. So, do you have a link to info about this?
Granting new powers to the FISA court was accomplished quietly and treated as a non-event in the national media. The lack of reporting was somehow fitting, though, following as it did the silent debate last year when Congress rubberstamped the annual Intelligence Authorization Act
BTW, if you check out these links, you'll find the same people (ACLU, Molly Ivens, etc) complaining about loss of freedom under Clinton as under Bush. So, I don't know where the Libertarians have been but at least the Liberals are consistent.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
You mean poof like this??
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm
Quote:
FLASHBACK: CLINTON, CARTER SEARCH 'N SURVEILLANCE WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval
Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"
WASH POST, July 15, 1994, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches": Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."
Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.
Government officials decided in the Ames case that no warrant was required because the searches were conducted for "foreign intelligence purposes."
Government lawyers have used this principle to justify other secret searches by U.S. authorities.
"The number of such secret searches conducted each year is classified..."
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."
As you were saying??
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'd already linked to that. Yes, Clinton signed an Executive Order. So did Bush, Reagan, Carter, Bush, and Nixon. For all I know, so did Ford, Eisenhower and Roosevelt. But I haven't heard of wiretapping "millions" of people simply because it would be impractical. I HAVE heard of NSA programs that screen electronic communication for key words.
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval
And you somehow have failed to respond to the key question: Where were the Libertarians (or in fact Republicans or Conservatives?) The question wasn't "who" spied and/or wiretapped, the question was: Didn't anyone (besides those nasty pro-government liberals) do anything about it?
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I realize that there are true small-government Libertarians on this board, and then there are those self-professed Libertarians who believe in small government unless in involves squashing people's privacy, invading nations, or helping monopolies. At that point, they like BIG government. They're fascists pretending to be Libertarians and all my poking and jibing is directed at them. DANG! They're giving Libertarians a bad name!
After reading the various (real) Libertarian arguments, posted by people I both like and respect, I've come to see that large government can indeed be dangerous. There was a post about big government being like the One Ring- when you don't have it, it looks evil. But once you have it you think- well, I can use this for GOOD- and it becomes almost impossible to give up.
And yet, I also think that semi-planned economies are the wave of the future, and that attempts to dismantle a centralized government will only lead to takeover by someone else's monopoly. The mechanism for this is simply the efficient accumulation and direction of capital, and that nations that are not efficiently accumulating and directing capital will wind up like Argentina. In order to break out of this conundrum, we need to find a totally new long-term paradigm. One without stock markets, for example.
Until then, it seems to me that Libertarians and Liberals and leftists have much in common. One strategy, as pointed out by Dreamtrove, is finding an acceptable candidate (of either major party IMHO) that is not part of "the machine". We can gleefully kick Hillary, Feinstein, Biden, Lieberman off the list. YAAAY and good riddance! Just curoius- who else would you kick off the list? (yes, I know- it involves most of the Democractic party. Pretty much like it involves most of the Republican party.)
But- an independent President would be stymied by an intrasigent Congress. And. Congressional elections are coming up. So- who are good Congressional candidates (either party) in your opinion?
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Key word screening is gone. In its place is contextual screening which doesn't look for specific words, but words that cluster together. Like funds, shipment, goods, meet etc.
I HAVE heard of NSA programs that screen electronic communication for key words.
Now I bet that gets me on a list.
But I do agree with you. There is a deafening silence from some self-proclaimed Libertarians.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I mentioned before that it's useless to view the political situation without relating it to the overall social and economic state of the country. The parties that currently exist and their political platforms are the ones that economics say will exist.
The media says there is a 50/50 red/blue split, so let's start by looking at that. Before the last election I watched a CSPAN program where a Republican polester was giving a lecture at a University. What he said was basically this. For both main parties 30% of their supporters are hardcore, dress a pig in a suit and put him up as that party's canidate and these folks would vote for him. 10% of each party's vote is "Soft" most of the time they will vote for one party or another loyally but the right canidate and policy can steal some of this group away. This is where folk like Reagan Democrats come from. Add that up for the 2 political parties and you get 80% of voters, the 20% that are left are the genuinely independent/undecided crowd. To win you have to attract them.
So politics becomes a juggling act. In the primaries Democrat hopefulls go left to appeal to their activist base. Republicans used to go right, these days they hit the religious crowd. Once a canidate is nominated he moves back towards the center because that's where his 10% "soft" vote is and that is where he has the best chance of picking up some of those 20% undecideds. As the election process continues each party consolidates the middle trying to get and keep as many of the 20% as they can, at the same time they poach at least one of their opponent's trademark issues in an attempt to woo the other party's soft vote. Unlike the undecideds the soft vote is doubly attractive because not only do you gain votes you also take vote's from the other guy. Last election cycle Kerry played the defence card to appeal to soft Republican voters, Bush played the Prescription Drug Benefit card with seniors that usually vote Democrat.
So after all that manouvering what did we get? Almost a 50/50 split. If you look at the two parties platforms on most subjects their possitions are quite close, in all cases appealing to the middle class voters that make up the undecied 20%. Those subjects that do divide them are hot button issues like abortion where there is very little middle ground.
DT likes to see a world where PNAC and the DLC have the next 3 or 4 elections planned out, either because they are the same shadow cabinet or because they have a deal. I see a world where the people that vote want a safe quiet life with good economic prospects and decent security. They will vote for whichever party they believe will deliver that and as what needs to be done is pretty obvious both parties tend to have the same general policy in these areas.
So an election prodiction for 2008. If Bush comes out of this term with no mainland US terrorist event, American troops out of Iraq and a reasonable economy then whoever the regime decides is his successor will probably win. If the world hasn't done anything bad to America people will vote for more. If Bush blows it then Republicans will nominate a Bush critic to be their canidate and will try and distance themselves from the Bush legacy.
If Bush ends his second term more or less ok Democrats will nominate someone with media interest and try to woo voters by going to the right, since that is where the electorate is. If the economy is in a mess they will go left because that's where the 20% will be. If the US has a terrorist attack they will go hawkish to try and get the 10% soft Republican vote.
From our point of view nothing will change.
The ONLY way for a seachange is for things to go bad and stay bad for a protracted period, long enough for the 20% and one party's "soft" vote to permainently drift to one party or the other. That would give that party the seats in congress and the mandate to effect change.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signym,
Ah, I see you're still thinking too 20th century. That's so democrat of you :). Kidding, and yet not. I think there's a new paradigm in town, and so it needs to be examined.
First. You put Dean (Yale/S&B?..) in the wrong crowd, he's part of team evil. Don't think they would have let him sneak in. Okay, granted, he came in as a partial-outsider. But the media killed him like a rabid dog and then he capitualated with the team evil and they made him Dunce Regent. He waived his right to vote for platform points in the '04 dem con, that's a total capitulation to Kerry, who is Evil. Dean needs to be counted as evil. But that's just a showing that the dem vote totals are pathetic, but this isn't the paradigm, so I digress.
Before moving on to the point, Ted Stevens annoys me, he's likt the GOP's Mary Landrieu, the totally corrupt oil puppetician who every once in a while acts like an elected representative of the people. But he's not conspiring with the actual enemies of the united states, those being al qaeda and the commies, and so I wouldn't kick him out of the the party or anything, just not putting him forward as president.
Anyway, the new paradigm is 'You vote for your guy, no one else does.' Under this paradigm, advertising is uselss, because everyone else is voting for their guy. The assumption here is everybody voting is a de facto employee of one of the candidates. Therefore it behooves you to create a base of support large enough to get your candidate elected. This means when I say it takes 10 million to win, I mean your organization needs 10 million members. It's not impossible, many organizations have 10 million members. If Seinfeld viewers wanted to elect a primary candidate and were organized to do so, they would would win hands down. If the nations black voters were highly organized they could trounce the traditional demohawks.
Most of the GOP is supporting the party. Someone them barely know who Bush is, and the rest don't care. Bush started out with about 10 million supporters, and now I think he has about 5 million. The GOP has 50 million. This is why the primary is so important. As long as you don't spit in the face of the GOP once you get the nomination [*considers bush for a second*] okay, even if you spit in the face of the GOP after the election, they will more or less fall in line.
To say that 55 million people support Bush is to not understand the dynamic at all. All of those 50 million republicans would support John McCain, John Sununu or Larry Craig, Chuck Hagel or even Lincoln Chaffe if he was on the ticket.
Let's take a point to the side for a moment. These voters are not 'stupid.' This is a classic misinterpretation which leads one down the path of bad strategy. These voters are strategic voters who feel they are better off with the worst republican than with a democrat. Most care little about wide-sweeping political issues and care a fair amount aboiut one or two issues. Some care about freedome of religion, others care about tax breaks. Some care about how well their employers do, or to what degree the govt. interferes in their lives. Some of this last group are hating Bush right now, but not enough to vote for a democrat. Many 'Bush supporters' now are even anti-war. Kerry promised more war than Bush delivered, since historically democrats have just about always done so, it would be foolish of an anti-war conservative to support the democrats.
So in essence, these voters are locked in, they support GOP, their support of the candidate is simply a side effect of their support for the Republican Party.
The democrats have similar groups. People who care heavily about affirmative action, feminism, or gay rights. People who rely on a steady welfare check. A lot of these people may have been angry with Clinton for the degree to which he did not support their issue, they may have even hated him for it, but if they, because of that, joined the GOP, then they are fools. These people also aren't stupid. They support the Democrats. In the primary, they are liable to s
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
These voters are strategic voters who feel they are better off with the worst republican than with a democrat.
This is very true. I can't see that I would ever EVER vote for a Democrat because they are consistantly working to destroy rights that are important to me in a much more dramatic and concerted way than the Repubs. The 2nd Amendment is one major part of that for me, but there are many other main Dem platform items that I am adamantly against. I would vote Republican as a step to keep the Dem-wolves at bay, and it really is a lesser of two evils situation.
If the Libertarians would get a REAL candidate who wasn't a fool and who's policies weren't idiocy, then I would consider voting for them and would help push candidate to people I know. I would actually LOVE for this to happen so I could throw my support in with them.
I feel the same way about the concept of Libertarianism as I do the concepts of Liberalism or Conservativism. All are nice theories and I philosophically agree with all three of them. Individual freedoms from Libertarianism, tolerance and understanding of Liberalism, Small government with limited power & spending and an adherence to the old Constitution and the intentions of the founders from Conservatism.
Unfortunately, these philosophies do NOT carry over to the parties that claim to represent those ideals. Modern 'liberals' are hypocrites and often the least tolerant people I know - coupled with no common sense whatsoever when it comes to real world or the nature of people.
Libertarian politicians seem to have no clue when they start talking policy and governance. It's all good talk until they get to the details.
Conservatives? Where?? GW isn't the demon that many make him out to be in their frothing at the mouth ravings, but he is a typical politician that is for middle of the road big government. The Republican parties has some real conservatives and Constitutionalists in it, but they are far too few and to weak to make it happen with that party. I bet a lot of them would defect if the Libertarians got real.
Repubs are the slow road to destruction as opposed to the Dems who are the fast track. The Libertarian politicians have to get potty trained at some point and get out on their own with a real message and workable solutions - so that they can be taken seriously as a player.
Check out my songs:
http://www.thelightningwaltz.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well said
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One LARGE differance.( I'll go slowly) President Clinton took the legal method of going through the FISA court to get the wiretaps your talking about( By the way why do we still call them wiretaps, it's not how they do it anymore) The Fisa court was set up to make sure the system was not abused and has worked for many years. 98% of all requests are approved when the Executive branch asks for them. Dispite what hot air is coming from the political landscape, they are quick and almost always rubberstamped. President Bush is trying to extend the power of the Presidency period. I respectt the footsoldgers of the republican party even when I diagree with them but your own party is playing you and you do'nt even know it
jhance11
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Guy's try to remember politic's are cyclical. There was A time when this oldman can remember. there was such A thing as A liberal Republican.
Religion can be A wonderful thing. It gives hope,direction and purpose. However when Religion rears it's head in politi'c the end result is always bad. If history tells us anything it tells us that.
The wheels will eventually come off the strangle hold the religous right has on the Republican party bad things will happen when it does. After that there will be A timeof comprommise and talking and things will get done. Hang in there
jhance11
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
One LARGE differance.( I'll go slowly) President Clinton took the legal method of going through the FISA court to get the wiretaps your talking about
No, not a LARGE difference. I can't believe I'm going to defend Bush wiretapping. I guess I'm not defending it, Bush is still wrong, but I have to shoot down this argument, err. clay pigeon.
Bush is lazy. Clinton is dilligent. Clinton did NOT acr according to FISA. He modified FISA to suit his purposes in a way that made FISA completely irrelevent. I've posted this six times now and no one gets it:
Clinton FISA works like this:
1. AFTER you tap, you apply for a warrant.
2. If you don't get your warrant, then the evidence becomes inadmissible in a court of law.
3. If you never intended to use the evidence in a court of law, but were instead tapping political groups, opposition parties, and corporations, then you intend to use this information in subversion, political campaigns and business.
4. Thus, the Clinton bastardization of FISA makes it perfectly legal for the president to order unwarranted wiretaps for any purpose OTHER than to protect America.
But there's one other thing that almost no one gets:
Bush is Clinton, Clinton is Bush. Or, in Jossese: Ben is Glory, Glory is Ben.
The thing is that these people, now the Bunton administration, have been pushing for an increase of executive power since day one, and Bush's transgression is the natural extension of Clinton's, with one difference. Bush is lazy, and didn't bother to make it law first. If Bush were Clinton, he would write the new law like this:
"If the president fails to apply for the warrant, then at the end of 72 hours it becomes treated like the warrant was applied for an refused, and the information would inadmissible in a court of law."
If Bush had bother to ammend the FISA law to include this line, he wouldn't be over his head now. But people are talking like Bush made watergate legal. No he didn't, Bush broke the law. Clinton made watergate legal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All of this is completely irrelevent.
First you have always been spied on, if you have ever expressed a serious political opinion, joined a political party been active in trade unionism, lobby groups, political action comittees or the like somewhere the government has a file on you. It's what governments do.
As to wiretaps, here's something you may not know. In the UK we have an electronic interception center called GCHQ. Back in cold war days it spied on the Soviets. As part of the "Special relationship" a member of the US NSA was assigned there as a liason. If GCHQ heard anything of interest to the US they passed the file to him and he sent it to his superiors. Reciprical to this arangement the UK had an agent at Fort Meade. However, other than keeping tabs on US IRA sympathisers he had little to do. At the NSA's request he would spy on suspect Americans using US equipment, he would then pass his findings to the NSA who would mark them "gathered from foreign intelligence sources" and use them. So Americans were being spied on in their own country by Brits using American equipment to get around domestic spying rules.
Oh and I know I have a Special Branch file -- my crime? My association with that radical group the Young Conservatives while in college. The important thing to note here is that when I was in college the Conservatives were in power meaning that the intelligence machine will actually spy on the current ruling party (well they do in the UK.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just a bit of historical trivia for those who like to keep track of Bush's mis-statements:
"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Your shot missed the mark here my friend. The FISA court was modified long before Clinton took office. There are times in the inteligence business that information has to be acted on quickly. That was the reason for the modification.
If it sounds like I'm making Bush's aurgument for you not listening. The largest differance between the two processes you discuss, is oversight. By going to the FISA court no matter the method. A judge and the panel are aware of the matter and can step in if they see abuse'es.
Plus the fact the procedure can become public much easier if the court feel's like abuse's are occuring. Accountablility is the key. is the system perfect, anything but. If you have A better Idea to inprove it and still make it afective, now's the time. Bush is not lazy, he just has an ingraned arrougance that comes with the victory's the Republican's have scored.
Yes both wanted to expand the power's of the Presidency as Congress like's to do the same with their's it's the nature of the beast. There are times in society the Executive branch need broader power's and there are times Congress need's more oversight. Back to the original subjuect. Modified or not Clinton followed the law Bush did not and history will judge.
jhance11
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Steve Kubby will run 2008
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sure, and where are the Richard Nixons?
Nixon didn't 'try that'. Some people in the nixon govt. tried that. People like Karl Rove. They're still 'trying it' and they will be 'trying it' as democrats, just as they did in the clinton and carter administrations.
boy, the weird twisted lense of the democrats-eye-view.
Anyway, I agree, libertarians, where'd they go. Just a few raging voices, ron paul, russ feingold, john sununu, but not a lot of power.
I think that we need richard nixon right about now. Nixon '08
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Anyway, I agree, libertarians, where'd they go. Just a few raging voices, ron paul, russ feingold, john sununu, but not a lot of power.
Libertarians just dropped the ball really. Not that making a dent in the two party system is a realistic goal, but that's where they failed. The goal should have been squarely on influencing debate and making inroads, not on quixotic runs for national office. To be fair, most party members see it that way, but the message is too extreme and not presented in a strategic fashion.
Unfortunately the party attracts ideologues who take great pleasure in shocking people with their iconoclastic and novel 'understanding' of government. The strongest feature of the Libertarian party, the purity of their political philosophy, is also their greatest flaw. It's what keeps zealots from approaching compromise and real political progress.
That said, I still think the real leverage point is the voting system. As long as we're stuck in a plurality, winner-take-all system, all challenges to the status quo will lose miserably. If we can change that, we might make some progress, but it's not really on the radar these days.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nixon was a crook, but he was our crook, more willing to share the largess with the masses to keep them happy than hoard it all and split it with his buddies like our current crop.
The only time the Vox Populi is truly heard by the ivory tower crowd is when it is expressed with violence, this is a sad, but true fact and history shows numerous examples of it.
And make no mistake, it's an ugly, ugly business (Google: Bonus Riots) that it tends to come to.
We all see it comin, it's just a matter of when, and how - not to sound nihilistic, but do you REALLY see another solution actually happening, or are you clinging to such possibilities in the hopes that history will NOT repeat itself as it always does ?
For myself I'd like to see Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinuich on a Lib ticket, but it won't happen when every aspect of the political arena is controlled by a firmly entrenched,moneyed elite we have no power over whatsoever.
It'll get.... as bad as it gets, and while that leak in the dam spreads, I am doing much what Sarge is and just ignoring the bastards, cause there's little else I can do other than feed information to folks likely to put stumbling blocks in the path of our inevitable dictatorship.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
they should do good in '08
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You've hit the nail on the head.
Originally posted by SergeantX:
That said, I still think the real leverage point is the voting system. As long as we're stuck in a plurality, winner-take-all system, all challenges to the status quo will lose miserably.
Libertarians can't make a real dent until the voting system changes to allow easier third-party access to the ballots AND run-off voting or something similar.
In my state, we had to fight draconian laws to get on the ballot. Case in point, the law required us to warn all people we solicited to sign our petition (to get on the ballot) that they would not be able to vote in their primaries if they signed--even though that was completely untrue. We had to sue the state to get that law changed--and then we only had 4 months to get 16,000 signatures we needed to get on the ballot. We busted our asses and got 18K sigs, but 3000 were invalidated, leaving us 1000 short. We tried to get the deadline extended just 3 more months, because by then we had the necessary signatures for the 2004 presidential candidate. The courts refused. It was a huge amount of work and money to fail in the end. Getting on the ballot shouldn't be this difficult.
People complain that Libertarians don't get anything done. What they don't see is that they (and all third party candidates) have to fight unreasonble obstacles placed by those in power to get them from effecting change. There is no way we (or any third party) can make a dent until those obstacles to reasonable proportions. We live in a duopoly with the power and money to keep change out, and that is the fact of life.
I have largely given up on trying to change this country. Things are going to get a lot autocratic and corrupt until the whole system collapses. Then some other country with more freedom will take over as the world superpower. And we'll deserve to be left eating their dust.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
another dead youtube.com watch?v=ZlEGAN2nL1Y link
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Pelosi?
https://streamable.com/s680i
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Is this the record for necroposts?
Almost 11 years.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jesse Ventura and producer Brigida Santos discuss the recent arrest of alleged serial pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and reveal the names of the politicians and celebrities listed in Epstein’s black book. RT Host Rick Sanchez scolds prosecutors for referring to Epstein’s female child victims “prostitutes.”
https://news.ava360.com/jesse-ventura-%E2%80%9Cpowerful-forces-covered
-up-the-epstein-case-the-first-time-for-a-reason%E2%80%9D_00ea87cad.html
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Is this the record for necroposts?
Almost 11 years.
Not even close
Only the other day I seen a thread from 2002 get bumped ...
maybe before that, I seen one bumped 10 yrs old
Epstein was convicted or served a Criminal penalty? for ?13 months back in 2008, that's 11 yrs ago. I will see if I can bump the original, pretty sure it was a crazy 'John Lee pirate news' thread where he was ranting about Bush, Clinton, rambling conspiracy about High-Priests, Masons maybe the Jews and Satanic Lucifer Devil Temple rituals
I will see if I can bump the original thread
Jesse Ventura: “Powerful forces covered up the Epstein case the first time for a reason.”
http://watsupamericas.com/news/jesse-ventura-powerful-forces-covered-u
p-the-epstein-case-the-first-time-for-a-reason/
The island?
https://medium.com/p/d2ad68e2e845/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
the Blackbook
https://hooktube.com/watch?v=rDSM_DTUMyQ
Butler : STORY OF THE MAN WHO SAW IT ALL
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Biden may push to Print another 2 Trillion in Aid?
Security tight, crowd thin for Biden’s address
President Joe Biden in his speech he wants them to pass the George Floyd act, Biden urges Congress to pass George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
The Capital protesting? He called the riot or protest at the Capitol terrorism? the worst attacks since the Civil War, worse than 911? Worse than Pearl Harbor?
Not sure who he's calling out, the Republcians, Q-Anon? maybe Rightwings or Conservatives or Trump voters? says the White Caucasian Patriot American or the Right is the most lethal terrorism threat?
https://nypost.com/2021/04/29/biden-calls-capitol-riots-worst-attack-o
n-our-democracy-since-the-civil-war/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-slammed-for-plans-to-cal
l-capitol-riot-worst-attack-on-our-democracy-since-the-civil-war-in-speech-to-congress
https://www.westhawaiitoday.com/2021/04/29/nation-world-news/biden-cal
ls-for-sweeping-changes-as-us-emerges-from-pandemic/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56924684
https://news.yahoo.com/biden-speech-us-needs-prove-212317094.html
https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-bidens-washington/bidens-sp
eech-offers-an-alternate-reality-for-democrats-to-love-after-four-years-of-trumpian-fantasy
Joe Biden Tells Congress: ‘We Have to Prove Democracy Still Works’
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dc4bs:
Just wondering.
Why is it a heinous crime when Bush taps thousands of international calls and emails after 9/11 happened in order to try to prevent another one but it's completely ignored that Clinton tapped millions of international AND DOMESTIC calls and emails after the first trade center bombing?
Just curious is all.
------------------------------------------
dc4bs
I guess I haven't changed much.
The only two insights I had later were that:
1) Efficiency is the deathknell of robustness, and
2) If I had to choose between Marx's predicted future of one-world government and nationalism, I choose nationalism.
People, read the ENTIRE thread. This is back from when we had intelligent posters, not hate-filled ideological bots. People who knew how to discuss intelligently. There are a lot of insights from across the political spectrum (when there still was one, and it hadn't been reduced to a Punch-n-Judy show of who could lie about the other side more effectively and get the media to propagandize it).
Seriously, take a lesson from the past and learn something
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Would JFK Be A Conservative Today?
https://rumble.com/vebt8l-would-jfk-be-a-conservative-today.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Maybe you are confusing this site with some other you used to visit.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:I guess I haven't changed much.
Originally posted by dc4bs:
Just wondering.
Why is it a heinous crime when Bush taps thousands of international calls and emails after 9/11 happened in order to try to prevent another one but it's completely ignored that Clinton tapped millions of international AND DOMESTIC calls and emails after the first trade center bombing?
Just curious is all.
The only two insights I had later were that:
1) Efficiency is the deathknell of robustness, and
2) If I had to choose between Marx's predicted future of one-world government and nationalism, I choose nationalism.
People, read the ENTIRE thread. This is back from when we had intelligent posters, not hate-filled ideological bots. People who knew how to discuss intelligently. There are a lot of insights from across the political spectrum (when there still was one, and it hadn't been reduced to a Punch-n-Judy show of who could lie about the other side more effectively and get the media to propagandize it).
Seriously, take a lesson from the past and learn something
As I recall, there was a clique of Libtards here, almost all of whom proclaimed they were from a DIFFERENT part of the Loony Lefty Extremist Libtard spectrum, who always argued with any common sense or rational PoV. Most sensible, rational, reasonable folk here just ignored them, didn't bother engaging their Libtard nonsense, and let them circle-jerk each other ad nauseum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Obviously.
Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
Would JFK Be A Conservative Today?
https://rumble.com/vebt8l-would-jfk-be-a-conservative-today.html
But LBJ pushed the Racist agenda, the Jim Crow agenda.
Then Jiminy Cotta pushed the incompetence agenda, the Inflation agenda, the Anti-America agenda.
Then perpetual Serial Rapist BJ Clinton pushed the Sexual Assault agenda, the Hate-The-Military agenda, the weaponizing the Exec Branch agencies agenda, the assassinate anybody who ticks off Hilliary agenda.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
McAfee is dead but I came across this interesting vid
# VoteDifferent was the hashtag
https://hooktube.com/watch?v=8KZFwkf2ONI
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
But LBJ pushed the Racist agenda, the Jim Crow agenda.
the senile traitor Ronnie Raygun Irangate was more open and honest about it in the Nixon Tapes
kissed the ass of Iranians and the Jewy swindle 'Greatest Ally' shekel counters, sold American streets out to South American narcos
'Apes who are uncomfortable in shoes'... was the phrase maybe
Ronald Reagan called Africans at UN 'monkeys', tapes reveal
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49177034
scum come in many flavors, they can be Jew, Muslim, White, Black, Yellow, Brown, the can vote Red or vote Blue
they might be sleaze like Clinton or pedophiles like Republican US Speaker of the House of Representatives like 'Dennis Hastert'
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"U.S. District Court Puts Maine Libertarian Party on the Ballot for 2022"
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/12/31/u-s-district-court-puts-maine-lib
ertarian-party-on-the-ballot-for-2022/
Law enforcement officials in 9 WNY counties won't enforce Cuomo's 10-person limit
https://www.wnypapers.com/news/article/current/2021/12/16/144212/law-e
nforcement-officials-in-9-wny-counties-wont-enforce-cuomos-10-person-limit
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Libertarian, 22-Year-Old Pilot Join Race for State House
https://www.lkldnow.com/libertarian-22-year-old-pilot-join-race-for-st
ate-house/
Court ruling allows Maine Libertarians to re-enroll
https://www.thecentersquare.com/maine/court-ruling-allows-maine-libert
arians-to-re-enroll/article_30c928de-6e70-11ec-a4a0-ab5d9992a20f.html
Libertarian Party of Georgia Loses Ballot Access Lawsuit
https://reason.com/2022/01/07/libertarian-party-of-georgia-loses-ballo
t-access-lawsuit/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Betsy Johnson is loosing in 2022, state senate in 2021, after she announced that she was running in the 2022 gubernatorial election as an independent candidate?
Green Party targets fellow lefties over ‘Orwellian’ support for Kathy Hochul
https://nypost.com/2022/11/03/green-party-targets-fellow-lefties-for-h
elping-kathy-hochul/
Conservative Party of New York State
http://www.cpnys.org/
Constitution Party, formerly the U.S. Taxpayers' Party until 1999
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
Vermont Progressive Party, formerly the Progressive Coalition
http://www.progressiveparty.org/
Partido Nuevo Progresista, PNP is a political party in Puerto Rico
https://twitter.com/pnp_pr
Oregon Progressive Party
http://progparty.org/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We don't deserve a third party.
Let's just make ourselves comfortable and watch the world burn.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There was an old 'In vogue. Again.' discussion
Rogan is a drinker a pot head and sucks up to people while talking conspiracy nonsense but as much as I dislike, the mainstream media is worse and he can have good guests
Bill Maher Joe Rogan
might also be mirrored on Rumble and Bitchute and Oysee if it gets banned by u tube filter Admin bots
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
of course you tube bans stuff again, what a crap crap social medias
sometimes alt censored catches normal vids before they are pulled for political censorship reasons
https://altcensored.com/
or go to bitchute or rumble
Libertarians Booed Donald Trump Because He Isn't Libertarian
https://reason.com/2024/05/26/donald-trump-libertarian-national-conven
tion-speech-boos/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How RFK Jr. Became Colorado's Libertarian Presidential Nominee
https://www.westword.com/news/how-rfk-jr-became-colorados-libertarian-
presidential-nominee-21300133
MUTINY within?
the post
https://www.lp.org/platform/
but for now a wrecking ball pervert runs the party?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Libertarians deserve at least as much coverage as RFK Jr.
https://news.yahoo.com/news/libertarians-deserve-least-much-coverage-0
91115327.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
maybe Bill Maher could be classed as a Libertarian, a few guests on the show
Mark Cuban says Trump campaign like ‘new season of The Sopranos’
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mark-cuban-says-trump-campaign-152016340.ht
ml
but Scarborough from MSNBC thinks Organe Man 'Bad' and Gives Ominous Trump Warning on Bill Maher’s Show
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Some interesting clips from Trump on Rogan explains why a Third Party cannot win president, the system just eats you alive!
'the Reform Party -- I was thinking of doing that for a little while.'
a fix and rigged against "Third Party"
Democracy Ended some time ago
two Big parties collude to prevent a Third Party candidate
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RFK turned up to troll and sabotage Kamala Harris chances and Chase Oliver lost to Jill Stein and lost to a guy who wasn't even running.
Justice Dankula speaks with a Scottish accent CountDankulaTV
'We at the Supreme Court officially declare the election for Trump.'
https://x.com/CountDankulaTV/status/1854150376397713639
Democracy triumphs this day.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
and many still dislike RFK on the Republican NeoCon Right but even more so on nu-Left
while idiots Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera debate Trump’s new tariffs
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Venezuela airspace should be considered closed: Trump
https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/2025/11/30/venezuela-airspace-trum
p
Is Venezuela a redux of the lead-up to the Iraq war? Not exactly
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/venezuela-redux-lead-iraq-war-230658371.html
Donald Trump confirms conversation with Venezuela’s Maduro amid speculation US attack is imminent
https://thenightly.com.au/politics/us-politics/donald-trump-confirms-c
onversation-with-venezuelas-maduro-amid-speculation-us-attack-is-imminent-c-20851937
Is Trump about to attack Venezuela?
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/trump-attack-venezuela-160002981.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME