Anarchist? Mainstream? He was the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate in 96 and 2000, and he’s dead right when it comes to Iraq, as well as many other issues. Being an anarchist myself, I can assure you that he is a true libertarian.
Are you actually saying that we would be better off emulating the present way of life in the Sudan or Somalia. Anarchy reigns in those countries and are controlled by criminal gangs.
Mr. Brown basically states that Bush was wrong because he did not follow the Liberterian political doctrine. Oh well.
Janoski- I guess it does take a true “bleeding heart liberal” to really ‘know’ what people don’t want, like their liberty, money, or even life.
If anyone needs a timeout to go and fetch some book learning it would be you. Go learn about Wahhabism, the House of Saud and the rest of Islam. There just might be a wee bit in there showing that Wahhabi ‘rage’ had nothing to do with our support of Israel or the Palestinians, who the rest of the Arab doesn’t really give a shit about anyway. Period. And DUH.
Nice try with Allende and Chile, but you are full of shit in your implications. Winning an election, albeit with a 36 percent landslide, doesn’t mean you get to make it the last non-Soviet style one. Allende, and his various cronies and thugs, were doing a great job of turning Chile into another Cuban style economic miracle, no doubt to impress “bleeding heart liberals.” Toilet paper as a bourgeois luxury and pre-teen prostitution for hard Yankee dollars OLE! Exotic e(con) theories that “hurt business interests,” even domestic ones, maybe just might prompt enough of the locals to straighten things out. So they did.
A couple of thousand vanquished? Whoa, that’s an afternoon’s work for those commies that “bleeding heart liberals” told people like me to quit complaining about.
You’re right though, if Iraq grew carrots we wouldn’t care about them. But neither would the Frogs, Krauts, or Ivans. They couldn’t sell them nuclear technology and mountains of weapons.
No wonder today’s youth don’t know any history. The “bleeding heart liberals” are too busy rewriting it to teach any.
PS- BTW, I just ran a few numbers and a couple thou dead equals a few hours work building a perfect, “bleeding heart liberal” approved society by culling those who may in fact want to vote or speak freely or create and keep wealth, not a whole afternoon. Of course for commies, ‘working’ half-time is pretty standard anyway.
PPS Are you going to spin yarns on the horrors to DDT, another “bleeding heart liberal” cause that cost how many dead? More than a few eagle chicks, deprived of calcium BTW.
Couple of observations.
Bush in 2004 was the first person since his father to have more people vote for him than against him.
That article is crap. Tell the Kurds they’re less free or have only maintained their freedoms.
Christ. Tell me I’m less safe or have just maintained my relatively level of safety in the last 5 years. I seen people on the plane there to protect me. People check my bags, and not solely for the purpose to steal my stuff. We’ve captured “bad guys”. Less “bad guys” equals “good”.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Are you actually saying that we would be better off emulating the present way of life in the Sudan or Somalia. Anarchy reigns in those countries and are controlled by criminal gangs.
Mr. Brown basically states that Bush was wrong because he did not follow the Liberterian political doctrine. Oh well.[/quote]
This country is also controlled by a criminal gang - two, to be precise, although there’s hardly any difference between them . But that’s beside the point, because this isn’t about anarchy. What Mr. Browne explicitly states is that Bush was wrong to invade Iraq because there was no Constitutional basis for doing so, not to mention the fact that it was illegal, immoral, unjust, and unnecessary.
Ok Al, thanks for clearing that up.
So… this country is controlled by a two man criminal gang. I am sure the basis for an intellectual debate lies somewhere in that comment but I don’t think I’ll waste anymore time trying to find it.
Yes Hedo I am serious. Yes he does lead, I would hope so as that is part of his job. I am just in the opinion that he is mediocre at best in doing so. No I do not think Kerry would be any better but I didn’t imply that in my first comment either. What I have implied over and over again in my posts, which is clearly missed when I see comments like that, is that because of the wonderful freedoms of this country we have more than two choices. However because of the party system and the media most people only look at the two major party candidates and some even feel like a vote for someone out of those two parties is a “waste.” That is what sadddens me. People like yourself take any criticism of Bush and say Kerry wouldn’t be better. No shit. I didn’t say he would. That is why I didn’t vote for either one of them. In my opinion they both have serious character flaws.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Storey
Mediocre leader? Are you serious? Like him or hate him he leads.
Under the present situation can you honestly say someone like Gore or Kerry would have been more effective?
A leader does what he thinks is right…regardless of what the pundits or intellectuals think. Even an ABB’er would have a hard time trying to argue Bush is not a leader.
By the way I don’t think forming a consensus or a coalition makes you a leader. At best it is a compromise.[/quote]
The two-party system is what we have here in the USofA. You may not like it but it is the only game in town.
Oh, third-parties can have an effect on presidential elelctions (Anderson - 1980, Perot-1992, and what’s-his-name in 2000), but the day to day politics of running this country are bi-partisan. To change that would be to change the fabric of our government.
But what will witholding a vote do to help this situation? That’s like a spoiled little kid taking his toys and going home because he can’t have his way.
If you didn’t even bother to cast a vote, then what right do you have to bitch about who we have in office?
I think potentially the greatest threat is that the US will loose interest once things start doing well. Syria will pull out, Iraq will gradually become liveable and people will get bored and want to move on to something else. Then there is another attack.
[quote]schrauper wrote:
Janoski- I guess it does take a true “bleeding heart liberal” to really ‘know’ what people don’t want, like their liberty, money, or even life.
If anyone needs a timeout to go and fetch some book learning it would be you. Go learn about Wahhabism, the House of Saud and the rest of Islam. There just might be a wee bit in there showing that Wahhabi ‘rage’ had nothing to do with our support of Israel or the Palestinians, who the rest of the Arab doesn’t really give a shit about anyway. Period. And DUH.
Nice try with Allende and Chile, but you are full of shit in your implications. Winning an election, albeit with a 36 percent landslide, doesn’t mean you get to make it the last non-Soviet style one. Allende, and his various cronies and thugs, were doing a great job of turning Chile into another Cuban style economic miracle, no doubt to impress “bleeding heart liberals.” Toilet paper as a bourgeois luxury and pre-teen prostitution for hard Yankee dollars OLE! Exotic e(con) theories that “hurt business interests,” even domestic ones, maybe just might prompt enough of the locals to straighten things out. So they did.
A couple of thousand vanquished? Whoa, that’s an afternoon’s work for those commies that “bleeding heart liberals” told people like me to quit complaining about.
You’re right though, if Iraq grew carrots we wouldn’t care about them. But neither would the Frogs, Krauts, or Ivans. They couldn’t sell them nuclear technology and mountains of weapons.
No wonder today’s youth don’t know any history. The “bleeding heart liberals” are too busy rewriting it to teach any.
PS- BTW, I just ran a few numbers and a couple thou dead equals a few hours work building a perfect, “bleeding heart liberal” approved society by culling those who may in fact want to vote or speak freely or create and keep wealth, not a whole afternoon. Of course for commies, ‘working’ half-time is pretty standard anyway.
PPS Are you going to spin yarns on the horrors to DDT, another “bleeding heart liberal” cause that cost how many dead? More than a few eagle chicks, deprived of calcium BTW.[/quote]
Haha. you think what you will my man. Another conservative that buys into the lies, not to mention purveying the racism inherent in your own party…Krauts? Ivans? Thats educated right there. One day you will see that the Republicans represent the top 5% of the economic population, and that defines all their policies. I hope you’re in that, because if you aren’t, you are either ignorant or dumb, and I doubt that you are dumb.
[quote]Janoski wrote:
One day you will see that the Republicans represent the top 5% of the economic population, and that defines all their policies. I hope you’re in that, because if you aren’t, you are either ignorant or dumb, and I doubt that you are dumb.
[/quote]
WooooHooooo!!! I’m in the top 5%!! Thanks for cluing me in, Janoski. I didn’t know that it was possible for 95% of the population to be poorer than I am. I feel so damned superior now.
WTF is up with the numbers you are pulling out of your ass? Do you have anything other than the propaganda you’ve been snorting to support these charges? How is it you have come to sit in the judges chair?
You are a kool-aid sipping idiot.
Well storey it is what we have and it seems to be working better then just about any other form of government over the last 200 yrs.
I’ll disagree and say that Bush has done more in the leadership department then either Clinton or GB1. Mediocre…hardly.
Fair enough Hedo, thats the beauty of this country. We can disagree on the policies and/or character of this man openly on a public forum.
Rainjack–sorry you’ve got your panties in a wad today but I said I didn’t vote for either of those two not that I didn’t vote at all. I do like your comment though. Yes not blindly sticking with a party system would change the fabric of our government. Something I think is long overdue. The whole party thing has gone too far and created too much of a rift in our country as is. If I thought someone was a great man and he really wanted to help people and do good things for this country and not his business, then I would vote for him regardless of his party affiliation.
Did anyone see that South Park episode? They nailed it. This last elction was basically voting between a douche bag and a turd sandwich. I actually took the time to read the information on like forty five of the candidates and their platforms. Then I narrowed it down to five and really researched their background and what they were trying to achieve. Then I voted. I know that is alot of work for our fast food society to do but I think its worth it when we’re talking about the leader of our nation. Most people want to drive thru. Order a #1 or #2 and be on their way. The logic is well if these other guys aren’t all over the news and TV then they must not be as qualified as Bush or Kerry. Bullshit. They just don’t have the friends with deep pockets.
America is such an awesome place that the little guy with no money should be able to hang(media coverage wise) with the other candidates but it isn’t that way right now. America is kinda fucked up right now on several fronts and I’m for restoring us to the strongest nation in the world status. Change the fabric of our government? Absolutely because the status quo is driving our democracy into the ground.
Storey
Agree that is the beauty of arguing politics in this country…and it is fun!
In many countries having an open political debate means one of the participants gets shot at the end.
storey,
I wanted to tell you that I can appreciate your point of view. By researching your candidates you are making yourself an informed voter. That cannot be wrong.
Just make sure that you don’t become to rigidly anti-establishment in your quest for total objectivity.
You might miss a “mainstream” candidate that is actually worth something.
Some of us feel that about GWB.
I’m serious.
Some of us don’t buy the garbage spouted by liberals. Things like, “If he stutters or stammers in front of 6 billion people, he must be ignorant.” Comments like that are insultingly simplistic.
Some of us actually believe that a President should say what he means and then do it. I can give you plenty of examples of GWB doing just that.
Some of us appreciate that the President doesn’t take a poll to decide when and where he should vacation.
Finally, many of us agree completely that the best way to fight terrorism is to fight that idea with better ideas. Improving education and fostering freedom are an integral part of this global war on terrorism.
The nitwits on this board will chime in with all sorts of deragotory comments about “blind partisanship, naivety, ignorance, etc…” However, many educated people trully believe what I am telling you.
By the way, could the nitwits explain to me how Republicans could be described as being the “top 5%” of the population and simultaneously be considered “ignorant and un-motivated?”
How could the educated party=Democrats, have so much trouble with a butterfly ballot?
Thanks!!!
JeffR
From USD Law prof Tom Smith:
http://therightcoast.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_therightcoast_archive.html#111049905628607888
How to think like a leftist
By Tom Smith
You can’t make this stuff up: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20050328&s=klein
Still, as with any complicated story, it’s useful to review things that might otherwise fade into the background. So I need to have my memory refreshed about how and why the fall of the Soviet Union was a bad thing, and how that fits into the overall capitalist conspiracy. And while I see that Ukraine wanting to toss out Russian puppets is somehow just an exercise in “re-branding,” I’m having trouble recreating the story. While we’re at it, maybe just bring us up to speed on why the North Koreans and the Red (sorry) Chinese are much to be admired, or victims, or whatever. Otherwise, it so easy to get confused.
While it may too early for hawks, neo-cons and W lovers to gloat over Springtime in Arabia, it is not too early for America haters, especially of the left-wing variety, to start getting their story straight. The Nation provides some pretty good instruction. First, deny there has been any victory. The election in Iraq was a sham, just part of an elaborate plan to get our greedy hands on oil in the future independent Kurdistan. Say this, and it gives the impression you have some kind of inside line on the future of the region. You must be really smart and well-informed. If things don’t work out that way, well, we can worry about that later. Second, there is still plenty of room for hope that Lebanon will descend into a bloody civil war, which is much too be hoped for, as it is something we can blame on Bush and Brand Amerika. If it doesn’t, well, that will be because, the oppressed Shia’a or whatever they are are underrepresented. Keep that in mind-- it’s either civil war or a grossly unrepresentative government, both are bad, and both would be Bush’s fault. Third, just ignore Ukraine and maybe it will go away. Fourth, Iran has a very indigenous culture or something, and we’re plotting to blow up their peaceful nuclear weapons program, and who can blame them for being paranoid, and words to that effect. Fifth, however good things seem, it is always possible to claim it is all financed on borrowed trouble, and catastrophe is just around the corner. Just think of all those brave revolutionaries over history who have held on, in spite of how good things seemed, in the courageous hope they would soon get worse.
[quote]Janoski wrote:
Haha. you think what you will my man. Another conservative that buys into the lies, not to mention purveying the racism inherent in your own party…Krauts? Ivans? Thats educated right there. One day you will see that the Republicans represent the top 5% of the economic population, and that defines all their policies. I hope you’re in that, because if you aren’t, you are either ignorant or dumb, and I doubt that you are dumb.
[/quote]
Those damn elitist Republicans, representing that top 5%. The rest of the 46% who supported Bush are just stupid and ignorant and don’t know what’s best for them.
I hate elitist Republicans…
I think Krauthammer states the case a bit too strongly in terms of claiming triumph already – there is still a long, treacherous road ahead. He gives a caveat but his language later suggests events are already determined. Still, the current signs are good, and indicate we have been going in the right direction, and I think opponents of W’s policies are in the position of having to explain the apparent successes with more than “things could still go wrong.”
Arab Democracy:
Not Bad for a
‘Simpleton Cowboy’
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
The Washington Post
March 18, 2005
WASHINGTON – At his news conference on Wednesday, President Bush declined an invitation to claim vindication for his policy of spreading democracy in the Middle East. After two years of attacks on him as a historical illiterate pursuing the childish fantasy of Middle East democracy, he was entitled to claim a bit of credit. Yet he declined, partly out of modesty (as with Reagan, one of the secrets of his political success), and partly because he has learned the perils of declaring any mission accomplished.
The democracy project is, of course, just beginning. We do not yet know whether the Middle East today is Europe 1989 or Europe 1848. 1989 saw the swift collapse of the Soviet empire. 1848 saw a flowering of liberal revolutions throughout Europe that, within a short time, were all suppressed.
Nonetheless, 1848 did presage the coming of the liberal idea throughout Europe. (By 1871, it had been restored to France, for example.) It marked a turning point from which there was no going back. The Arab Spring of 2005 will be noted by history as a similar turning point for the Arab world.
We do not yet know, however, whether this initial flourishing of democracy will succeed. The Syrian and Iraqi Baathists, their jihadist allies, and the various regional autocrats are quite determined to suppress it. But we do know one thing: Those who claimed, with great certainty, that Arabs are an exception to the human tendency to freedom, that they live in a stunted and distorted culture that makes them love their chains, and that the notion that the U.S. could help trigger a democratic revolution by militarily deposing their oppressors was a fantasy – have been proved wrong.
As an advocate of that notion of democratic revolution, I am not surprised that the opposing view was proved false. I am only surprised it was proved false so quickly – that the voters in Iraq, the people of Lebanon, the women of Kuwait, the followers of Ayman Nour in Egypt, would rise so eagerly at the first breaking of the dictatorial “stability” they had so long experienced (and we had so long supported) to claim their democratic rights.
This amazing display has prompted a wave of soul-searching. When a Le Monde editorial titled “Arab Spring” acknowledges “the merit of George W. Bush,” when the cover headline of London’s The Independent is “Was Bush Right After All?” when a column in Der Spiegel asks “Could George W. Bush be Right?” you know that something radical has happened.
It is not just that the ramparts of Euro-snobbery have been breached. Iraq and, more broadly, the Bush doctrine were always more than a purely intellectual matter. The left’s patronizing quasi-colonialist view of the benighted Arabs was not just analytically incorrect. It was morally bankrupt too.
After all, going back at least to the Spanish Civil War, the left has always prided itself as the great international champion of freedom and human rights. And yet when America proposed to remove the man responsible for torturing, gassing and killing tens of thousands of Iraqis, the left suddenly turned into a champion of Westphalian sovereign inviolability.
A leftist judge in Spain orders the arrest of a pathetic, near-senile General Pinochet eight years after he’s left office, and becomes a human rights hero – a classic example of the left morally grandstanding in the name of victims of dictatorships long gone. Yet for the victims of contemporary monsters still actively killing and oppressing – Khomeini and his successors, the Assads of Syria, and, until yesterday, Saddam and his sons – nothing. No sympathy. No action. Indeed virulent hostility to America’s courageous and dangerous attempt at rescue.
The international left’s concern for human rights turns out to be nothing more than a useful weapon for its anti-Americanism. Jeane Kirkpatrick pointed out this selective concern for the victims of U.S. allies (like Chile) 25 years ago. After the Cold War, the hypocrisy continues. For which Arab people do European hearts burn? The Palestinians. Why? Because that permits the vilification of Israel – an outpost of Western democracy and, even worse, a staunch U.S. ally. Championing suffering Iraqis, Syrians and Lebanese offers no such satisfaction. Hence, silence.
Until now. Now that the real Arab street has risen to claim rights that the West takes for granted, the left takes note. It is forced to acknowledge that those brutish Americans led by their simpleton cowboy might have been right. It has no choice. It is shamed. A Lebanese, amid a sea of a million other Lebanese, raises a placard reading “Thank you, George W. Bush,” and all that Euro-pretense, moral and intellectual, collapses.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Ok Al, thanks for clearing that up.
So… this country is controlled by a two man criminal gang. I am sure the basis for an intellectual debate lies somewhere in that comment but I don’t think I’ll waste anymore time trying to find it.[/quote]
I never said anything about a “two-man” gang. Do the Democratic and Republican parties ring a bell?
[quote]Al Shades wrote:
Anarchist? Mainstream? He was the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate in 96 and 2000, and he’s dead right when it comes to Iraq, as well as many other issues. Being an anarchist myself, I can assure you that he is a true libertarian.[/quote]
God you don’t know how many times I wish that we could have a week or two of anarchist rule in this country…it would be so much fun to watch all the little pretend anarchy boys cry and whimper while their playstations and color tv’s are taken away from them.