World Politics

[redtreviso]

Admit it red, it's a meat b%#*ing fantasy for you.

projecting a little?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamprey

 

[Cobblestones]

Admit it red, it's a meat b%#*ing fantasy for you.

Throw in Christine O'Donnell as secretary of defense and Sharon Angle as secretary of state.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201105100025

There are plenty more, but I won't do your heavy lifting. Maybe if you learn google you might work out this stuff for yourself lol.

That does not support your claim that someone said that merely extending the Bush tax cuts would fix "everything".

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Newbie to politics huh? Um, having the presidency with a congress with little to no real support for your agenda is a circle of fu*k of cluster. But hey, ideological utopias have often come about when extreme ideologists have risen to power lol...

Plus, you should consider that Libertarian economic ideas have a big drawback; Not a single major industrialized nation on the planet uses them. Ringing endorsement from reality, huh? lol

Ron Paul is polling ahead of Romney in the latest Zogby poll. You might want to read the articles I posted earlier.

The long-term sustainability of all existing economies is in question, in case you haven't noticed. We need something new. And libertarian and the federal level does not necessarily mean libertarian at the state level, by the way.

 

[redtreviso]

Ron Paul is polling ahead of Romney in the latest Zogby poll. You might want to read the articles I posted earlier.

The long-term sustainability of all existing economies is in question, in case you haven't noticed. We need something new. And libertarian and the federal level does not necessarily mean libertarian at the state level, by the way.

Libertarians are just cowards that won't admit they have always been the first in line to vote for Republicans during every election.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Libertarians are just cowards that won't admit they have always been the first in line to vote for Republicans during every election.

The belief that a libertarian would vote for a mainstream Republican reveals a very superficial understanding of libertarianism.

Libertarians have been referring to members of both major parties as Republicrats and Demopublicans for decades, recognizing that there is actually very little significant difference between the two parties, especially when you put aside the empty rhetoric and look at their actions. From the interventionist foreign policies to economic intervention, if you look at the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations, there's not much difference. Nixon imposed price freezes and ****-canned the gold standard. Reagan raised taxes and created the biggest deficit the nation had ever seen. Bush Sr raised taxes again. Clinton was aggressive militarily and was generally "centrist" with respect to domestic policy. Bush Jr, grew the government and deficit even more than Reagan. And now we have Obama whose escalation in Afghanistan and intervention in Libya makes his foreign policy difficult to distinguish from that of Bush Jr., and his domestic economic bailouts are just a continuation of Bush corporatism.

Democrats tend to be a bit better on civil rights, but not much, and Republicans maybe a bit better on economic rights, but again not much. Ultimately the choice presented by the two major parties is usually akin to choosing between stubbing your left or right toe.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, is something altogether different. Probably to a lesser extent, so is Gary Johnson, by the way. Speaking of the former New Mexico governor, characterizing Ron Paul as an ideologue might not be far off the mark - that's why he's so consistent in his record - but what's interesting is that Johnson is not an ideologue at all, he's a very pragmatic "everything is about cost analysis" type of guy, and yet his positions on the major issues are very similar to Paul's. These two guys demonstrate how libertarianism can be reached via ideological (moral) or pragmatic routes, and, by extension, both. Along the same lines, the Mises Institute is more ideological, while Cato is more pragmatic, but both are libertarian think tanks.

 

[redtreviso]

The belief that a libertarian would vote for a mainstream Republican reveals a very superficial understanding of libertarianism.

Libertarians have been referring to members of both major parties as Republicrats and Demopublicans for decades, recognizing that there is actually very little significant difference between the two parties, especially when you put aside the empty rhetoric and look at their actions. From the interventionist foreign policies to economic intervention, if you look at the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations, there's not much difference. Nixon imposed price freezes and ****-canned the gold standard. Reagan raised taxes and created the biggest deficit the nation had ever seen. Bush Sr raised taxes again. Clinton was aggressive militarily and was generally "centrist" with respect to domestic policy. Bush Jr, grew the government and deficit even more than Reagan. And now we have Obama whose escalation in Afghanistan and intervention in Libya makes his foreign policy difficult to distinguish from that of Bush Jr., and his domestic economic bailouts are just a continuation of Bush corporatism.

Democrats tend to be a bit better on civil rights, but not much, and Republicans maybe a bit better on economic rights, but again not much. Ultimately the choice presented by the two major parties is usually akin to choosing between stubbing your left or right toe.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, is something altogether different. Probably to a lesser extent, so is Gary Johnson, by the way. Speaking of the former New Mexico governor, characterizing Ron Paul as an ideologue might not be far off the mark - that's why he's so consistent in his record - but what's interesting is that Johnson is not an ideologue at all, he's a very pragmatic "everything is about cost analysis" type of guy, and yet his positions on the major issues are very similar to Paul's. These two guys demonstrate how libertarianism can be reached via ideological (moral) or pragmatic routes, and, by extension, both. Along the same lines, the Mises Institute is more ideological, while Cato is more pragmatic, but both are libertarian think tanks.

So you're a Ron Paul Fanboi.. we get it..additional paragraphs are not needed. Libertarians=Bush who? Moi?

 

[ChrisE]

The belief that a libertarian would vote for a mainstream Republican reveals a very superficial understanding of libertarianism.
.

That explains why Paul and Johnson are both republicans, and their supporters will vote republican if neither wins the nomination.

 

[Cobblestones]

The belief that a libertarian would vote for a mainstream Republican reveals a very superficial understanding of libertarianism.

Libertarians have been referring to members of both major parties as Republicrats and Demopublicans for decades, recognizing that there is actually very little significant difference between the two parties, especially when you put aside the empty rhetoric and look at their actions. From the interventionist foreign policies to economic intervention, if you look at the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations, there's not much difference. Nixon imposed price freezes and ****-canned the gold standard. Reagan raised taxes and created the biggest deficit the nation had ever seen. Bush Sr raised taxes again. Clinton was aggressive militarily and was generally "centrist" with respect to domestic policy. Bush Jr, grew the government and deficit even more than Reagan. And now we have Obama whose escalation in Afghanistan and intervention in Libya makes his foreign policy difficult to distinguish from that of Bush Jr., and his domestic economic bailouts are just a continuation of Bush corporatism.

Democrats tend to be a bit better on civil rights, but not much, and Republicans maybe a bit better on economic rights, but again not much. Ultimately the choice presented by the two major parties is usually akin to choosing between stubbing your left or right toe.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, is something altogether different. Probably to a lesser extent, so is Gary Johnson, by the way. Speaking of the former New Mexico governor, characterizing Ron Paul as an ideologue might not be far off the mark - that's why he's so consistent in his record - but what's interesting is that Johnson is not an ideologue at all, he's a very pragmatic "everything is about cost analysis" type of guy, and yet his positions on the major issues are very similar to Paul's. These two guys demonstrate how libertarianism can be reached via ideological (moral) or pragmatic routes, and, by extension, both. Along the same lines, the Mises Institute is more ideological, while Cato is more pragmatic, but both are libertarian think tanks.

A true believer then. Take some antidote. It pretty much puts the finger on the glaringly obvious hole in the libertarian ideology.

 

[Anonymous]

That does not support your claim that someone said that merely extending the Bush tax cuts would fix "everything".

Yea, it does. That guys says everything is moving forward BECAUSE OF THE TAX CUTS. If you are going to make a point, make a legitimate point.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

That explains why Paul and Johnson are both republicans, and their supporters will vote republican if neither wins the nomination.

I know I'm only a sample of one, but while I did vote for Paul in the 2007 primary, in the general election I voted for Obama, first time I voted for a major party candidate (not including the vote for Paul in the primary) since the early 1980s.

If neither Paul nor Johnson win this nomination, there is no way I will vote for any of the other Republican pols, and will vote for the Libertarian candidate. I have not been surprised by Obama on economic issues, but I thought he would be much different than Bush Jr on foreign policy. Since he hasn't been, no way will I vote for him again.

I don't think I'm atypical for libertarians.

 

[Anonymous]

A true believer then. Take some antidote. It pretty much puts the finger on the glaringly obvious hole in the libertarian ideology.

So this passes as "antidote"?

This is an opinion piece by a leftist... nothing new here. I particularly like the last line...."In a corporate state, this is true. In a democracy, government is us."

A corporate state is "us" too.

And more brilliance... "But in a corporate state, business and government are one and the same. And if business is governing, then there can be no democracy."

Oh boy. Here is a guy that has total faith in govt but somehow the corporate type has "managed" to corrupt otherwise altruistic public servants. This is pure fantasy.

This is too good... "He's (Paul) been so sure that businesses operating in a free market are the cure for all that ails us that he can't see that in a free market, corporatism is the inevitable result. If there are no rules, why shouldn't the corporate world consolidate into large companies and then take over government?"

Again, I thought the govt was us?? There has to be a corrupt politician to accept being purchased from a corrupt corporation (also "us").

Here's his blogger profile.

http://www.blogger.com/profile/03401840945694159288

Take a quick look at blogs he follows...

Maybe you were joking with this piece?

 

[redtreviso]

So this passes as "antidote"?

This is an opinion piece by a leftist... nothing new here. I particularly like the last line...."In a corporate state, this is true. In a democracy, government is us."

A corporate state is "us" too.

And more brilliance... "But in a corporate state, business and government are one and the same. And if business is governing, then there can be no democracy."

Oh boy. Here is a guy that has total faith in govt but somehow the corporate type has "managed" to corrupt otherwise altruistic public servants. This is pure fantasy.

This is too good... "He's (Paul) been so sure that businesses operating in a free market are the cure for all that ails us that he can't see that in a free market, corporatism is the inevitable result. If there are no rules, why shouldn't the corporate world consolidate into large companies and then take over government?"

Again, I thought the govt was us?? There has to be a corrupt politician to accept being purchased from a corrupt corporation (also "us").

Here's his blogger profile.

http://www.blogger.com/profile/03401840945694159288

Take a quick look at blogs he follows...

Maybe you were joking with this piece?

Here's your paw paw and your political roots scott

 

[Anonymous]

Here's your paw paw and your political roots scott

That you holding the mic?

You look good with a flat top.

 

[rhubroma]

So this passes as "antidote"?

This is an opinion piece by a leftist... nothing new here. I particularly like the last line...."In a corporate state, this is true. In a democracy, government is us."

A corporate state is "us" too.

And more brilliance... "But in a corporate state, business and government are one and the same. And if business is governing, then there can be no democracy."

Oh boy. Here is a guy that has total faith in govt but somehow the corporate type has "managed" to corrupt otherwise altruistic public servants. This is pure fantasy.

This is too good... "He's (Paul) been so sure that businesses operating in a free market are the cure for all that ails us that he can't see that in a free market, corporatism is the inevitable result. If there are no rules, why shouldn't the corporate world consolidate into large companies and then take over government?"

Again, I thought the govt was us?? There has to be a corrupt politician to accept being purchased from a corrupt corporation (also "us").

Here's his blogger profile.

http://www.blogger.com/profile/03401840945694159288

Take a quick look at blogs he follows...

Maybe you were joking with this piece?

Untold millions owe it to the corporate world that they have been utterly destroyed, with their appalling corporate methods. That's the truth.

 

[redtreviso]

Untold millions owe it to the corporate world that they have been utterly destroyed, with their appalling corporate methods. That's the truth.

and the corporate fanboi is the politics of obedience and submission,.

 

[Anonymous]

Untold millions owe it to the corporate world that they have been utterly destroyed, with their appalling corporate methods. That's the truth.

Untold millions owe it to the form of government you advocate that they have been utterly destroyed, with their appallingly corrupt bureaucratic methods. That's the truth.

Instead of (just) my opinion, I will give you another...

Walter Williams interviewed by the WSJ;

Even in the antebellum era, when slaves often weren't permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. "The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do," Mr. Williams says. "And that is to destroy the black family."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704881304576094221050061598.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

 

[Anonymous]

and the corporate fanboi is the politics of obedience and submission,.

The Klink Streak continues.....

Unable to contribute to the dialogue. Shocking...

 

[redtreviso]

The Klink Streak continues.....

Unable to contribute to the dialogue. Shocking...

just being efficient

 

[Oldman]

Untold millions owe it to the form of government you advocate that they have been utterly destroyed, with their appallingly corrupt bureaucratic methods. That's the truth.

Instead of (just) my opinion, I will give you another...

Walter Williams interviewed by the WSJ;




http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704881304576094221050061598.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

Scott-the jump from slavery to "welfare" state and the accompanying statistics are a leap, don't you think? Smarter people than anyone here have debated the levels and causes of family break up. It's as likely to be more regional and economic than racial.

 

[patricknd]

That you holding the mic?

You look good with a flat top.

red must have an interesting family photo album

 

[Anonymous]

Scott-the jump from slavery to "welfare" state and the accompanying statistics are a leap, don't you think? Smarter people than anyone here have debated the levels and causes of family break up. It's as likely to be more regional and economic than racial.

Milton Friedman spoke at length about incentive. Williams suggests the incentive that the govt has provided through welfare and various other govt programs have destroyed the family structure particularly with the American Black Culture. Now, feel free to disagree but his argument is pretty strong.

The facts led Williams to conclude that "minimum wages caused high rates of teenage unemployment, particularly among minority teenagers."

" . . .In 1982 he published his first book, "The State Against Blacks," arguing that laws regulating economic activity are far larger impediments to black progress than racial bigotry and discrimination. Nearly 30 years later, he stands by that premise."

More:

"Racial discrimination is not the problem of black people that it used to be" in his youth, says Mr. Williams. "Today I doubt you could find any significant problem that blacks face that is caused by racial discrimination. The 70% illegitimacy rate is a devastating problem, but it doesn't have a damn thing to do with racism. The fact that in some areas black people are huddled in their homes at night, sometimes serving meals on the floor so they don't get hit by a stray bullet—that's not because the Klan is riding through the neighborhood."

Another insight;

Walter Williams, a veteran black economist at George Mason University, has written a new autobiography, "Up from the Projects." The 75 year-old Williams wasn't always conservative (or libertarian), but facts and evidence took control of his thinking: "I learned that you have to evaluate the effects of public policy as opposed to intentions."

This guy's not new to the scene.

I'm suggesting, mostly for Rhubroma's benefit, that the state system he so longs for is as dangerous as anything "corporate methods" will ever do.

 

[Anonymous]

red must have an interesting family photo album

Well, we know his family tree has no branches. So there's that.

 

[redtreviso]

Scott-the jump from slavery to "welfare" state and the accompanying statistics are a leap, don't you think? Smarter people than anyone here have debated the levels and causes of family break up. It's as likely to be more regional and economic than racial.

That is not a jump for scott.. he was raised to levitate that one with ease..when scott was 4 he was the first kid on the block to use the n word..he was so cute!!!!

 

[Oldman]

Milton Friedman spoke at length about incentive. Williams suggests the incentive that the govt has provided through welfare and various other govt programs have destroyed the family structure particularly with the American Black Culture. Now, feel free to disagree but his argument is pretty strong.



Another insight;



This guy's not new to the scene.

I'm suggesting, mostly for Rhubroma's benefit, that the state system he so longs for is as dangerous as anything "corporate methods" will ever do.

Again and 'cause I'm lazy...I wouldn't be surprised if the increase in illegitmacy, unemployment, etc. has increased in other races at the same rate in regions of chronic poverty. Beverly Hills for instance; how many single-family or non-married families exist and how many illegitmate kids as a percentage of children? There is probably an increase even in that region more related to overall social issues. Mixing old statistics and the claim that a "minimum wage" is somehow directly correlative to illegitimacy or unemployment is nonsense. Washington State has one of the highest minimum wages in the country and an unusually high amount of unemployed, white realtors and mortgage brokers. Does that suggest that the high minimum wage provides a disincentive for these folks to sell and finance real estate?