Well Jackson did want to cut off his nuts.

Perhaps this is the way he is going to do it... by convincing Obama to go along with a faith based tax-money giveaway.

/I am starting my own church and rehab center. Gimme money.

I would have thought the FISA issue would give Obama a leg up among the conservatives, they didn't seem to mind Bush's part in the whole thing. Since when do they value privacy over security ?

Mordant: Since when do they value privacy over security

They don't. Some of the people who support Obama do. Hence, the drop.

/Barr 08!

Y'know, for some reason beyond my ability to understand, my father sees any Obama setback - no matter how minor - as reason to jump around and celebrate.

My view is that we're nowhere near the conventions and it's a long way off 'till election season so any celebrations of any sort are premature (at best).

Paulistinian: /Barr 08!

Did you just make a comment about valuing privacy over security in the same post that you support someone that voted for the Patriot Act?

Mordant: I would have thought the FISA issue would give Obama a leg up among the conservatives, they didn't seem to mind Bush's part in the whole thing. Since when do they value privacy over security ?

Actually the conservatives started to ditch Bush about the time he started rationalizing warrant-less wire tapping. They weren't happy with tossing habeas corpus aside either.

All Obama's pro FISA vote has garnered among cons and libs alike is contempt. I don't understand why did it. I expect to see him move to center during the general but I don't see how this helped his candidacy at all.

Weaver95: Y'know, for some reason beyond my ability to understand, my father sees any Obama setback - no matter how minor - as reason to jump around and celebrate.


LOL - whatever makes the old boy happy eh?

btw weave - I responded to you in another thread but later read it and I sounded snarkier than I intended. sorry.

I didn't like the first word of the article. Who starts with "Gee?"

If Obama had 'game over' and this were declared a coronation now, how would there be any controversy to cover between now and november.

So find some minor stuff, spin the questions right, and voila. Drop in the polls.

Psst. Hey Obama. That FISA thing. WTF. Seriously.

I still don't understand Obama's FISA vote. I don't understand what he gained by voting yes". Was any group going to be less likely to vote for him if he voted "no"?

Obama should get credit for doing the right thing on FISA and all, but with him flip-flopping all around like he does, how can anyone be sure of where he really stands?

DamnYankees: I still don't understand Obama's FISA vote. I don't understand what he gained by voting yes". Was any group going to be less likely to vote for him if he voted "no"?

Should've just skipped the damn thing like the Maverick.

SkinnyHead: Obama should get credit for doing the right thing on FISA and all, but with him flip-flopping all around like he does, how can anyone be sure of where he really stands?

Since when you do come into politics threads? Shouldn't you be studying for your GED in thermodynamics?

robsul82: DamnYankees: I still don't understand Obama's FISA vote. I don't understand what he gained by voting yes". Was any group going to be less likely to vote for him if he voted "no"?

Should've just skipped the damn thing like the Maverick.

Like every vote the Senate's made since April 8th, in fact.

Mordant: I would have thought the FISA issue would give Obama a leg up among the conservatives, they didn't seem to mind Bush's part in the whole thing.

Most of the people who would be happy with that already consider McCain barely tolerable; even if Obama starts walking around on water they won't be willing to vote for him.

Whereas the young and dumb idealistic who are Obama's primary support base are... unhappy about the FISA immunity.

DamnYankees: I still don't understand Obama's FISA vote.

Has Obama started getting the Presidential briefings yet, or does that have to wait until he's the de jure Democratic nominee?

SkinnyHead: Obama should get credit for doing the right thing on FISA and all, but with him flip-flopping all around like he does, how can anyone be sure of where he really stands?

How was voting yes on FISA in any way doing the right thing?

bulldg4life: Did you just make a comment about valuing privacy over security in the same post that you support someone that voted for the Patriot Act?

Obama voted for the re-authorization of the PATRIOT Act. If it weren't for Barr, Obama would never have been able to get that vote in the first place. And then, when faced with that choice, he voted yes as well.

Your argument against Barr doesn't hold much weight on that one. You can keep trying, but Barr significantly weakened the PATRIOT Act and now admits that he was wrong in voting for it in the first place.

robsul82: Should've just skipped the damn thing like the Maverick.

That's bullshiat. McCain was definitely in support of the FISA bill. To not hold that against McCain is disingenuous. He didn't have to vote because he knew it would pass.

sarcastrophe: robsul82: Should've just skipped the damn thing like the Maverick.

That's bullshiat. McCain was definitely in support of the FISA bill. To not hold that against McCain is disingenuous. He didn't have to vote because he knew it would pass.

I think he was being sarcastic.

DamnYankees: I think he was being sarcastic.

I'll have to get my meter checked.

sarcastrophe: Obama voted for the re-authorization of the PATRIOT Act. If it weren't for Barr, Obama would never have been able to get that vote in the first place. And then, when faced with that choice, he voted yes as well.

I wasn't really advocating my candidate over another candidate. I was just kinda wondering why you would make a pitch for someone that voted for it in the same post highlighting privacy over security.

If I made some comment about that same thing and then said Obama '08...I'm sure it would be pointed out that Obama voted for the re-authorization so it would seem I'm being disingenuous at best.

Your argument against Barr doesn't hold much weight on that one. You can keep trying, but Barr significantly weakened the PATRIOT Act and now admits that he was wrong in voting for it in the first place.

I know. Just like he was wrong about his vote for Iraq. Just like he was wrong about his support against medical marijuana. He's been wrong about a few things, it would seem.

bulldg4life: I wasn't really advocating my candidate over another candidate. I was just kinda wondering why you would make a pitch for someone that voted for it in the same post highlighting privacy over security.

If I made some comment about that same thing and then said Obama '08...I'm sure it would be pointed out that Obama voted for the re-authorization so it would seem I'm being disingenuous at best.

I thought it was a given that McCain doesn't give two shiats about privacy or civil liberties. Obama still has some semblance of it, so as far as civil liberties are concerned, Obama is the only candidate to challenge such a thing.

bulldg4life: I know. Just like he was wrong about his vote for Iraq. Just like he was wrong about his support against medical marijuana. He's been wrong about a few things, it would seem.

Nope. I'd even go so far as to say he was wrong on almost everything before 2002. But I haven't really studied his record and I can assure you I would never even consider pre-2002 Barr for anything.

I have been researching his "conversion" to libertarianism, and although I'm not convinced, he's certainly the lesser of three evils. He'll probably get my vote, but begrudgingly.

His record is absoultely horrible. I'll grant anyone that. His current message, if you can stomach it, best represents my views. Actually, his current message represents my views more than any Libertarian candidate since I've been able to vote.

Newsweek's previous poll was a pure statistical fluke 15-point lead for Obama. There's no need to explain coming back down to earth in Newsweek's new poll if he didn't leave the planet in the first place. If other polls drop for him, then we can start analyzing.

TheMothership: Newsweek's previous poll was a pure statistical fluke 15-point lead for Obama. There's no need to explain coming back down to earth in Newsweek's new poll if he didn't leave the planet in the first place. If other polls drop for him, then we can start analyzing.

If you look at these polls, theres nothing fluky in them. The reason they have such different numbers is the cross-tabs. The polls which have Obama leading tend to have more Democrats than Republicans in the sample. The polls showing them close tend to have an even number. And if anyone thinks there will be an even number of Dems and GOPers going to the polls in November, I have a bridge to sell.

Always look to the cross-tabs, and you can sort of predict if a poll seems right or not. For example, a lot of the polls in the primaries which showed Hillary winning much bigger were because those polls have Obama winning blacks 70-25 or something like that, when in reality he would win 90-10. That has a huge impact on votes, especially in the south. Think about how badly states like VA, NC, SC, and GA were polled in the primary season, and its because of stuff like this. The general election polls are the same.

The more I know about Obama, the more it is apparent that he is just more politics as usual.

For example, his positions (many of them changed) on things like increasing faith-based funding, voting for immunity for telcos in FISA bill, supporting the death penalty, not fully supporting a woman's right to choose on abortion, support for NAFTA, support for handgun ownership, etc. go to show that no matter what bullshiat he spouts about "change" and "hope", he is just another Washington politician spouting bullshiat and saying whatever he has to to get in power.

Neither of the major candidates are doing anything to win my vote at the moment. Pity there are no better (realistic) options.

sarcastrophe: Nope. I'd even go so far as to say he was wrong on almost everything before 2002. But I haven't really studied his record and I can assure you I would never even consider pre-2002 Barr for anything.

Does someone really go from wrong on almost anything and not being vote worthy...to voting for him in 6 years, really?

I have been researching his "conversion" to libertarianism, and although I'm not convinced, he's certainly the lesser of three evils. He'll probably get my vote, but begrudgingly.

That's just it. His conversion somehow caused him to drop all his positions and pick brand new ones. I would've voted for a 2000 version of McCain, but he shifted damn near every major position over the past several years.

Even if I was still thinking about McCain...that would bug me a little bit.

His record is absoultely horrible. I'll grant anyone that. His current message, if you can stomach it, best represents my views. Actually, his current message represents my views more than any Libertarian candidate since I've been able to vote.

I don't like the fair tax and I think the DOMA is ridiculous and he wasted enough money trying to impeach Clinton. Changing some of his major positions over the past few years is just an annoyance (this is ignoring some of his other social policies that I don't agree with).

If the Libertarian party hadn't pushed hard during his re-election campaign in 2002 after the local districts had been redrawn...would he still be a republican? I mean, he would've had his position in congress for a few more years and would've been able to coast along without taking an abrupt left turn after leaving Washington.

GAT_00: How was voting yes on FISA in any way doing the right thing?

Obama realizes that he might actually become the President. Then it's going to be his responsibility to protect America from terrorists, so he's going need the necessary intelligence gathering tools for keeping track of terrorists.

And it just might happen that there could be a terrorist attack when he's in office. If that happens, he don't want people blaming him for opposing anti-terrorist intelligence gathering laws that could have prevented the attack.

After reading that back to myself, I see that I have done the same thing with McCain in 8 years. I guess it is hard to see if his positions actually changed or if he's just going after a different voting bloc. And, it is probably easier to be turned against a politician than it is to go the opposite direction.

bulldg4life: Does someone really go from wrong on almost anything and not being vote worthy...to voting for him in 6 years, really?

Like I said. He'll probably get my vote, but not with any enthusiasm. If you can believe what he says now (which is a LOT to ask, I'll admit), his message speaks more to my political position than either of the major parties. That's more than Libertarians of the past, even if he is a complete liar.

I don't like Barr. I don't like him one bit. But I dislike Obama and McCain even more.

This election sucks for libertarians. However, having voted pretty much extensively for anarchists that I think are patently retarded in the past, at least the Libertarians are on track towards some modicum of being moderate. That is a good thing in and of itself.

sarcastrophe: This election sucks for libertarians. However, having voted pretty much extensively for anarchists that I think are patently retarded in the past, at least the Libertarians are on track towards some modicum of being moderate. That is a good thing in and of itself.

Can I ask what modern society has come closest to being actually libertarian while being successful?

DamnYankees: Can I ask what modern society has come closest to being actually libertarian while being successful?

Sure. The United States of America before we became authoritarian.

Quoting a Red Sox fan (and God, do I hate doing that), "You can't blame Obama for losing a lead you claimed wasn't real in the first place."

sarcastrophe: Sure. The United States of America before we became authoritarian.

First of all, I asked for a modern society, which generally means post WWI at the very earliest.

Secondly, what year do you think we became authoritarian.

DamnYankees: First of all, I asked for a modern society, which generally means post WWI at the very earliest.

Secondly, what year do you think we became authoritarian.

It's been a slow push for the past 100 years or so. We've continuously voted towards corporatist or socialist since then.

Post industrial, which I assume is what you're getting at, you can look at many countries and evaluate indvidual rights over the state's rights (federal in our case). A purely libertarian country is doomed to failure as is a communist, socialist, or fascist state. But to say that moving further away from libertarianism is wrong simply because the idea is wrong is the equivalent of saying that voting Democrat is wrong because socialism is wrong.

If you judge a political view based on the extreme elements, yes, you can always infer that their end goal is incorrect. In any society, it is about balance. Our current two-party system is authoritarian. Some shift towards libertarian is not only needed, but long overdue.

sarcastrophe: If you judge a political view based on the extreme elements, yes, you can always infer that their end goal is incorrect. In any society, it is about balance. Our current two-party system is authoritarian. Some shift towards libertarian is not only needed, but long overdue.

You didn't answer my question, though. What libertarian society has ever worked in the modern world? I honestly can't think of one. If you look at the functioning countries in existence today, which do you think actually has a good libertarian model?

I mean, human life nowadays is better than its ever been. So if libertarianism is the way toward a good life, wouldn't there be a correlation between quality of life and libertarianism in policy? I guess I'm asking you for some evidence of this.

DamnYankees: You didn't answer my question, though. What libertarian society has ever worked in the modern world? I honestly can't think of one. If you look at the functioning countries in existence today, which do you think actually has a good libertarian model?

The most accepted libertarian country, to my knowledge is Estonia.

Here is a list (new window), based on some manner of calculation, but my position has always been domestic, not international. If you're looking for a world model, I would say that the US (or at least a US state) should be the federal/world model.

sarcastrophe: DamnYankees: You didn't answer my question, though. What libertarian society has ever worked in the modern world? I honestly can't think of one. If you look at the functioning countries in existence today, which do you think actually has a good libertarian model?

The most accepted libertarian country, to my knowledge is Estonia.

Here is a list (new window), based on some manner of calculation, but my position has always been domestic, not international. If you're looking for a world model, I would say that the US (or at least a US state) should be the federal/world model.

That ranking doesn't make sense to me. The UK is ranked 7th in the world in terms of how libertarian it is, even with its nanny state and universal health care and CCTV?

What?

DamnYankees: That ranking doesn't make sense to me. The UK is ranked 7th in the world in terms of how libertarian it is, even with its nanny state and universal health care and CCTV?

What?

I didn't make the list. I don't know. You're asking for a model of something that doesn't truly exist in the modern world in any form of superpower.

I'll ask you this, when the United States was founded, did we look at the rest of the world to see what worked or did we pioneer a new form of government never seen before.

That government that we founded was libertarian and our nation flourished. We have since strayed from those roots for whatever reason we went back towards the very authoritarianism that we seceded from in the first place.

You ask what country is a model for libertarianism and I'll submit that the United States should be a model for libertarianism.... as it once was.

sarcastrophe: I didn't make the list. I don't know. You're asking for a model of something that doesn't truly exist in the modern world in any form of superpower.

Well, that's sort of the point I'm making. Life has gotten much better as government have gotten more involved in social welfare. It's not a perfect connection, but I think there's a higher correlation going that way than the other.

sarcastrophe: I'll ask you this, when the United States was founded, did we look at the rest of the world to see what worked or did we pioneer a new form of government never seen before.

We did both. We took pieces of the British system and pieces of the Roman system and hammered out some of the flaws.

We certainly didn't up our government from thin air.

sarcastrophe: That government that we founded was libertarian and our nation flourished. We have since strayed from those roots for whatever reason we went back towards the very authoritarianism that we seceded from in the first place.

I'm confused as to your use of the term authoritarian. We didn't rebel from the British because they were choking us with stranguling regulation - though we put it in those words. We rebelled because there was no democratic accountability, and we were subjects to a crown with no voice of our own. In historical terms, the taxes and tariffs put on the American colonies weren't that high. The problem was we had no input.

You need to draw a line between authoritarianism in terms of political institutions, and authoritarianism in terms of policy.

sarcastrophe: You ask what country is a model for libertarianism and I'll submit that the United States should be a model for libertarianism.... as it once was.

Yeah, and the libertarian-style government was beaten in the marketplace of ideas, and our country became the most powerful and successful country in the history of the world. You act like we were living better and had a better place in the world in 1810 or something. I don't accept that as true.

sarcastrophe: Secondly, what year do you think we became authoritarian.

It's been a slow push for the past 100 years or so. We've continuously voted towards corporatist or socialist since then.

Wait...you think America was more libertarian before women even had the right to vote?!

TheOther: sarcastrophe: Secondly, what year do you think we became authoritarian.

It's been a slow push for the past 100 years or so. We've continuously voted towards corporatist or socialist since then.

Wait...you think America was more libertarian before women even had the right to vote?!

Well, that's certainly possible. There's no necessary relationship between how libertarian a country is and how much it disenfrachises its people. You could have a libertarian dictatorship, in theory.

DamnYankees: Well, that's sort of the point I'm making. Life has gotten much better as government have gotten more involved in social welfare. It's not a perfect connection, but I think there's a higher correlation going that way than the other.

Life for the majority has gotten better yes. The original libertarian society upon which we were founded was certainly not ideal. As we moved towards socialism, we saw that some socialism works, and continued to move in that direction. Socialism is a form of economic authoritarianism. A moderate socialist agenda is not inherently bad. However, that must be balanced. As we move further in that direction, we lose individualism.

At what point does one draw that line? Where do you think we cross from good socialism to bad socialism. In terms of Republicans, where do you think we cross from good corporatism to bad corporatism. If we continue down the path of ignoring the individualist aspect of these situations, we'll push the pendulum so far to the authoritarian side that the solution must be rebellion.

Rather than armed conflict, I find political conflict is much preferable. However, if you continue to ignore individualists, it must eventually draw to its logical conclusion of secession, rebellion, or outright civil war. Of course, we are no where NEAR this today, but continuing to push up the scale, as we have, will necessitate this. I'd much prefer to avoid it.

At this point, I think the only thing that could cause such a thing is complete economic collapse. Ignoring the warnings of the non-partisan Comptroller General of the United States GAO that this is the path upon which we're headed is simply willful ignorance. Pushing back towards individualism can help solve this problem.

TheOther: Wait...you think America was more libertarian before women even had the right to vote?!

Yes, although civil liberties were infringed upon with slavery and women, the people who were actually considered citizens were much more free than we are today.

DamnYankees: Well, that's certainly possible. There's no necessary relationship between how libertarian a country is and how much it disenfrachises its people. You could have a libertarian dictatorship, in theory.

The Ron Paul Dictatorship of the Minimalist Authoritarian Government of Individual Rights...Except for Women Who Want to Have a Voice in Making Laws or Have Abortions Party?

sarcastrophe: At what point does one draw that line? Where do you think we cross from good socialism to bad socialism. In terms of Republicans, where do you think we cross from good corporatism to bad corporatism. If we continue down the path of ignoring the individualist aspect of these situations, we'll push the pendulum so far to the authoritarian side that the solution must be rebellion.

There's no way to answer this question without looking at specific situations. In economic terms, you could do a cost-benefit analysis and see which way ends up saving more utility. The difficulty with doing this is not only do we have to monetize all aspects of capital, labor, efficiency, and all other inputs and outputs, but we need to monetize things like "liberty" and "self-determination" and balance those quantities into our equations. Is this easy? Incredibly not. But its necessary.

This the balance you speak of again and again. I agree with you that the balance is necessary. The problem is trying to frame it in terms of "libertarian" and "socialist". When you introduce those terms, you are skewing the goal away from maximum utility and towards ideological purity. Why can't we just work towards policies which enhance total utility without having to invoke some ideological standards? Everyone likes freedom, and everyone likes fairness. So lets just do the best we can in each individual situation.

sarcastrophe: Rather than armed conflict, I find political conflict is much preferable. However, if you continue to ignore individualists, it must eventually draw to its logical conclusion of secession, rebellion, or outright civil war. Of course, we are no where NEAR this today, but continuing to push up the scale, as we have, will necessitate this. I'd much prefer to avoid it.

I guess I don't see the urgency, though. We have a functioning political system, and I don't see us throwing individualism away at all, at least not as a theory. So when this FISA thing comes up, do we need to raise the banner of "libertarianism", or is it smarter to say "this does more harm than good". I tend to find the latter a much better way to go, since then you can convince people to join you without requiring them to hitch themselves to a political ideology. Convincing someone a law does harm is much easier than convincing someone a harm is anti-libertarian.

sarcastrophe: Yes, although civil liberties were infringed upon with slavery and women, the people who were actually considered citizens were much more free than we are today.

If you restrict enough peoples' rights, it's easy for the favored few to be free as hell. It's called aristocracy.

sarcastrophe: Yes, although civil liberties were infringed upon with slavery and women, the people who were actually considered citizens were much more free than we are today.

Again, even ignoring the disenfranchisement, I don't think I can agree with you. I think of MLK's words when he said "Peace is not the absence of war, but the presence of justice."

Similarly, freedom is not the absence of shackles, but the presence of choice. And many people, including me, think we have many more choices today than people did 200 years ago, even the free ones.

DamnYankees: There's no way to answer this question without looking at specific situations.

Of course not. It's completely subjective.

DamnYankees: In economic terms, you could do a cost-benefit analysis and see which way ends up saving more utility

Economic liberty does not directly correlate to personal liberty. In fact, they have almost nothing in common. Making such a suggestion is silly. The idea that capitalism and civil liberties are somehow linked more than socialism and civil liberties isn't fair at all.

DamnYankees: This the balance you speak of again and again. I agree with you that the balance is necessary. The problem is trying to frame it in terms of "libertarian" and "socialist". When you introduce those terms, you are skewing the goal away from maximum utility and towards ideological purity. Why can't we just work towards policies which enhance total utility without having to invoke some ideological standards? Everyone likes freedom, and everyone likes fairness. So lets just do the best we can in each individual situation.

You're wrong here. Just because they are politically charged terms doesn't mean they aren't accurate terms. If you want to give me new words to describe socialist and corporatist, I'll be happy to use them, but using PC approved terms doesn't change the underlying meaning.

Socialism, Corporatism, and Individualism are all methods of guaranteeing freeodm. To say that they aren't isn't realistic. There are differences in how the "freedom" is provided, but they all have the same end goal, even though they may seem diametrically opposed.

DamnYankees: I guess I don't see the urgency, though. We have a functioning political system, and I don't see us throwing individualism away at all, at least not as a theory. So when this FISA thing comes up, do we need to raise the banner of "libertarianism", or is it smarter to say "this does more harm than good". I tend to find the latter a much better way to go, since then you can convince people to join you without requiring them to hitch themselves to a political ideology. Convincing someone a law does harm is much easier than convincing someone a harm is anti-libertarian.

That's the thing. You draw the line of acceptability somewhere different than me. Let's take a look at this graph, which, I'm sure we've all seen before:



Now look at my position in my profile and you'll understand why I think there is a serious problem. I *DO* think the 3rd parties are silenced. I *DO* think that the libertarian voice is pushed aside and I *DO* think that many people, if they knew there was other options wouldn't vote Democrat/Republican. The minority opinion being silenced is inherently undemocratic.

The further the individualist voice is pushed under the rug, the more authoritarian we will become. You're right, it is not currently urgent, but when it becomes urgent, it's already too late.