"OMGOMGOMG! OBAMA IS TURNING AMERICAN ***SOCIALIST***!!!!!!"

(chirp chirp chirp)

"SOCIALIST!!! THAT'S LIKE COMMUNIST!!!"

(chirp chirp chirp)

"Psst! It's not working! Try something else!"

"OMGOMGOMG! OBAMA IS A ***FASCIST***!!!"

vygramul: "OMGOMGOMG! OBAMA IS TURNING AMERICAN ***SOCIALIST***!!!!!!"

(chirp chirp chirp)

"SOCIALIST!!! THAT'S LIKE COMMUNIST!!!"

(chirp chirp chirp)

"Psst! It's not working! Try something else!"

"OMGOMGOMG! OBAMA IS A ***FASCIST***!!!"

You forgot Nazi, Muslim, and "colored".

vygramul: "OMGOMGOMG! OBAMA IS TURNING AMERICAN ***SOCIALIST***!!!!!!"

(chirp chirp chirp)

"SOCIALIST!!! THAT'S LIKE COMMUNIST!!!"

(chirp chirp chirp)

"Psst! It's not working! Try something else!"

"OMGOMGOMG! OBAMA IS A ***FASCIST***!!!"

It is amazing. Just a few years ago, the right-wing noise machine was able to successfully convince a large number of the American public that a lowly Lieutenant Junior Grade, was able to deceive the Navy's Awards & Decorations system not once, not twice, but five times, even after Nixon's CREEPs grudgingly admitted he was a genuine war hero.

My, how things have changed.

vygramul: "OMGOMGOMG! OBAMA IS TURNING AMERICAN ***SOCIALIST***!!!!!!"

(chirp chirp chirp)

"SOCIALIST!!! THAT'S LIKE COMMUNIST!!!"

(chirp chirp chirp)

"Psst! It's not working! Try something else!"

"OMGOMGOMG! OBAMA IS A ***FASCIST***!!!"

Actually, using fascist economic policies was a Bush decision. And the Republicans were just fine with it prior to Obama taking the oath of office. Which makes me rather suspicious of them when they accuse Obama of socialism and/or fascism. I mean, Obama is largely continuing the policy set by Bush (at least for the moment). So that would logically mean that Bush - and by extention most of the Republican party - fascists as well.

Weaver95: Actually, using fascist economic policies was a Bush decision. And the Republicans were just fine with it prior to Obama taking the oath of office. Which makes me rather suspicious of them when they accuse Obama of socialism and/or fascism. I mean, Obama is largely continuing the policy set by Bush (at least for the moment). So that would logically mean that Bush - and by extention most of the Republican party - fascists as well.

That's just how they roll. What can you do?

/Sense, Rebublicans make none.

Is this a surprise to anyone? The US government has been embracing Fascist policies for decades, Dem and GOP.

The fact is that our current out-of-control isn't fascism, socialism, or any other -ism. This is human nature. Every kingdom, lordship, empire, business, conglomerate, church, administration and government naturally wants to expand its influence as much as possible. Government becomes "big government" if it can for the same reasons that business grows if it can--to further the power, wealth, goals and self-esteem of the people who run it. Growth can be good in any ecology or economy, but diminishing returns and harmful externalities can become overwhelming when any social entity gets too big compared to its neighbors.

The problem with our government is that it's growth is unrestricted because it has (1) a monopoly on force and (2) an overwhelming moral imperative that the decree of some stooges who conned 50% of the voting population into electing them has to be obeyed like a thundering voice on Mount Sinai. Our founders were wise enough to put checks and balances in government, but the check and balance against Government as a whole has been, as of now, entirely unused and ignored--namely, pissed off citizens with guns and the will to use them against people who want to confiscate their property and take away their rights.

That may change soon, and sooner than anyone would expect or hope. Either that, or we can all see ourselves reduced to ever decreasing levels of peonage by the powers that be. Neither scenario is particularly pleasant, but the first is at least more exciting.

PoopStain:
He's right. I've been saying this for years. It's not a function of either political party, but rather a function of increasing state control over every aspect of your life. The more the state controls your life, the more it can justify its own existence, right up until the point that you no longer have any real control over what you do.
It's the entire federal government machine. Political party is irrelevant. Prior to the New Deal, being a Congressman for your entire life was unheard of. Once the Federal government became large enough to "reward" constituents, four, five, or ten term congressmen became the norm. Both parties have been steadily gobbling up more control ever since, the only thing that changes is the side they hit you from.


I didn't realize they made tinfoil golf/cabbie hats. You should get yours replaced.

Henry_A._Cooper (new window) had 36 years and was dead before the New Deal.

A more likely explanation is that life spans have significantly increased. Congress people always rewarded their districts- that's why we have districts and a system of representation.

TheAbstractor: The fact is that our current out-of-control isn't fascism, socialism, or any other -ism. This is human nature. Every kingdom, lordship, empire, business, conglomerate, church, administration and government naturally wants to expand its influence as much as possible. Government becomes "big government" if it can for the same reasons that business grows if it can--to further the power, wealth, goals and self-esteem of the people who run it. Growth can be good in any ecology or economy, but diminishing returns and harmful externalities can become overwhelming when any social entity gets too big compared to its neighbors.

The problem with our government is that it's growth is unrestricted because it has (1) a monopoly on force and (2) an overwhelming moral imperative that the decree of some stooges who conned 50% of the voting population into electing them has to be obeyed like a thundering voice on Mount Sinai. Our founders were wise enough to put checks and balances in government, but the check and balance against Government as a whole has been, as of now, entirely unused and ignored--namely, pissed off citizens with guns and the will to use them against people who want to confiscate their property and take away their rights.

That may change soon, and sooner than anyone would expect or hope. Either that, or we can all see ourselves reduced to ever decreasing levels of peonage by the powers that be. Neither scenario is particularly pleasant, but the first is at least more exciting.

A whole bunch o' this, with some corporate feudalism thrown in for good measure.

TheAbstractor:
but the check and balance against Government as a whole has been, as of now, entirely unused and ignored--namely, pissed off citizens with guns and the will to use them against people who want to confiscate their property and take away their rights

Does this mean we can execute the Republican party? (And a few Democrats to go with it)

Weaver95: Actually, using fascist economic policies was a Bush decision. And the Republicans were just fine with it prior to Obama taking the oath of office.



PoopStain: I'll give up ten Republican representatives for an hour with Pelosi.

She would make you cry in under five minutes.

PoopStain:
Mr. Cooper notwithstanding (there would be a few exceptions), extended life spans as an argument simply doesn't work, because people aren't staying in Congress for a corresponding length of time. They're staying longer.

This paper makes the argument that a Supreme Court decision about federal regulation in 1877, not the New Deal, was responsible. He argues that income tax and social programs just added to a change that was already in progress.

Still, until the 1870's, average tenure in Congress was flat. It has been increasing ever since. By 1980, the average tenure of a Congressman went over 10 years for the first time. By 1992 it was over 11 years.

Again, the average life span has increased. This is significant.

Another reason is that health care has significantly improved one's ability to function in older age. Many of our earliest politicians stayed active- if not publically elected- even in their old age. It's also easier to start earlier.

The reality is that Congressman were always intended to represent their districts and states. That was part of the point. And they always have. The biggest major difference- in my opinion- is that modern Congressman are much less philosophical and truly capable of significant thinking. Many are simply electable (though I doubt many are truly stupid). Aides do a lot of thinking and work now. Washington set a precedent not only for the presidency, but for other politicians as well. That has changed- Americans now value working until they die. Retirement has been fading for years; save for the ridiculously wealthy. (And even then they continue to work).

I think the argument is much more complex than district politics. That is what our system is designed upon, and there is more to it than that.

PoopStain:
I'll give up ten Republican representatives for an hour with Pelosi.

I would do away with most of the Republican politicians. That party has become far to unified and centralized. (The midwestern ones still have some gall), but Southern politics is too influential and unified. And that is another reality with your previous thesis- politics is largely regional. People like to claim major partisan differences- but whip votes only make up part of the deal. The reality is that regions play a significant influence on a particular politicians beliefs and values. It is also why Democratic values from Cali are different than Democratic values from the Midwest or Northeast.

PoopStain:
Didn't I just say the numbers didn't correspond? Are you so wedded to government control over your own life that you're going to stick with this argument even though it's been studied and debunked? Did you read that paper? It actually explains why the life expectancy argument doesn't work.

There was one paper years ago that proposed a longer life span was the reason for extended congressional tender and it has been proven inadequate as a reason for the increase in tenure. At best it is a minor contributing factor, not an explanation.

We aren't talking about older people sticking around and skewing the curve. Tenure is increasing across all age groups. The likelihood of re-election once elected is almost a certainty for most elections. Life span has little to nothing to do with it. Gerrymandering is partly responsible, and the notion that your rep is going to "get you yours" is responsible for a larger part. A fundamental shift in the overall involvement of the government in your life has been taking place for over a century. You're complacent with it.

If you read my post, I talked about many, many factors. Nor did I say life expectency was the only factor. As your own paper mentions- declining rates of retirement matter.

Nor did I ever that politics or political representation had nothing to do with it. But, our system of representation is built around the idea of representatives serving their districts, so there is more to it than that.

Yes, seniority is significant. Among many other reasons. I know this is hard to realize, but many issues- especially among politics, are hard to clarify except with in ranges.

I would argue part of the problem is Americans pay much stronger attention to the role of president- which has also significantly increased- than members of Congress.

The reality is you're a tin-foil hat fool. I don't particularly agree with politicians holding long tenures. But you wouldn't know that. A major issue at hand is simply that their are significantly more issues that matter at the Federal level- which is why they have expanded. I certainly don't agree with all their expansion- but as the world has become increasingly global over the past century, the federal government automatically will as well.

But take off your tinfoil hat.

PoopStain: I cannot believe you are making this argument while trying to excuse a federal government that does exactly the same thing. Once a bureaucracy is in place, it's very hard to get it to go away. Both parties create more and more, and we suffer for it.

Well, I'm not a retard. We aren't all farmers anymore, and we deal significantly with the other countries in the globe. There are also many issues at the national scope that need constant attention. You're forgetting our founders realized we needed a strong federal government- and states' abusing their powers and human rights has only increased that.

Just because I want smart government doesn't mean I want a government that doesn't do anything. The reality is we can have strong states, strong federal, and strong cities. It's not my fault the Republican motto is "do nothing, that's the conservative way." Bringing in other conservatives into the mix doesn't help.

We have a whole generation of conservatives who doesn't understand government, power, or the state's role. They think any interaction or restrictions is an abuse of liberty. They are, quite simply, mentally incompetent.

Settle in, everyone.
The show's about to begin and there's plenty of popcorn for everyone.

Procedural Texture: The show's about to begin and there's plenty of popcorn for everyone.

many thanks, it'll be needed I'm sure ;)

"fascism" has long since lost its actual, historical, content; it's been a pure epithet for many decades.

It's just as true today as it was for the last few decades. Calling the current government fascist is less appropriate than it would have been in 1945, when certain people were told which water fountain to drink out of, hundreds of thousands of American citizens held in camps without trial or even probable cause, and Western Union was delivering telegrams to the government before their recipient.

In any endeavor, there are likely to be set-backs and mistakes made. The government's reaction to 9/11 was a set-back. But anyone who confuses the government of the United States with that of the Reich or of Franco or that of Mussolini has an extraordinarily poor knowledge of history.

Frankly, I'm long since exasperated with the ever-shrieking cry of "Wolfen SS" any time the government does something remotely interpreted as an assault on liberty.

PoopStain: I'll be in to inspect your cleaning habits

says a guy named poop stain

Not Fascist. It's more like crony authoritarianism.

PoopStain: vygramul: Frankly, I'm long since exasperated with the ever-shrieking cry of "Wolfen SS" any time the government does something remotely interpreted as an assault on liberty.

I'll be in to inspect your cleaning habits, as it has a direct result on your health. ME. If I'm not satisfied, you pay.

Nice straw-man.

SweetHomeNowhere: Not Fascist. It's more like crony authoritarianism.

This. Throw some oligarchy in there while you're at it...

Crosshair: Is this a surprise to anyone? The US government has been embracing Fascist policies for decades, Dem and GOP.

This.

Weaver95: vygramul: "OMGOMGOMG! OBAMA IS TURNING AMERICAN ***SOCIALIST***!!!!!!"

(chirp chirp chirp)

"SOCIALIST!!! THAT'S LIKE COMMUNIST!!!"

(chirp chirp chirp)

"Psst! It's not working! Try something else!"

"OMGOMGOMG! OBAMA IS A ***FASCIST***!!!"

Actually, using fascist economic policies was a Bush decision. And the Republicans were just fine with it prior to Obama taking the oath of office. Which makes me rather suspicious of them when they accuse Obama of socialism and/or fascism. I mean, Obama is largely continuing the policy set by Bush (at least for the moment). So that would logically mean that Bush - and by extention most of the Republican party - fascists as well.

Very much so. The corporatist theme has been strong in the GOP, with a melding of corporate interests, and which led to corporations helping to write the very legislation that would regulate them, in the adoption of lobbyists as staff members. This is a trend that troubled Eisenhower, with his admonition of the Industrial-Military complex, and while it might be cool to point fingers, the primary architects of this wedding of government and corporate interest--and the chief architects of the initial plan to bail out industry--were all Republicans.

We cannot point fingers with any certitude, without implicating the current GOP leadership--and more importantly, their sponsors and backers.

So, please, point fingers. Some of us would like to jettison the flotsam from the party and get rid of your skanky asses.

vygramul: PoopStain: vygramul: Frankly, I'm long since exasperated with the ever-shrieking cry of "Wolfen SS" any time the government does something remotely interpreted as an assault on liberty.

I'll be in to inspect your cleaning habits, as it has a direct result on your health. ME. If I'm not satisfied, you pay.

Nice straw-man.

Dude, your straw-man used a Godwin.

the great "rescue" to which our governors are subjecting us will challenge our commitment to freedom in many dramatic ways. It's going to be a hell of a fight.

This may be true but what the author fails to mention is that this is not new, nor is it restricted to the "left." We recently engaged in "one helluva" of fight to maintain the balance of power and the scales from tipping all the way over to the Executive branch. We debated and fought fascist policies in the Patriot Act, we skewered Gonzalez for condoning torture in his writ to bolster Bush's position on the matter. We continue to hear from the Neoconservative Right, and their desire to dictate social issues that are "family" friendly, only if the family is made in their image.
Then there is the Imminent Domain issues supported by the previous administration, which allowed private business to take over citizen's property supposedly for the "good" of the community. Personal property rights be damned.
He is speaking of a recent start of a trend to fascism but he fails to point out the genesis of that trend was blatantly and arrogantly initiated by the right.

hubiestubert: Some of us would like to jettison the flotsam from the party and get rid of your skanky asses.

And some of us really wish you'd quit trying to "save the party" and start a new one.

Flush the carcass.

PoopStain: I haven't used the retard card yet, particularly not with our discussion. You have to earn the retard card, and it's usually making a broad assumption about something and not posting something to support an argument. Which is why I'm letting this go:

I'll give you a pass because my argument sounds tin-foil. It's certainly not on the level of the 9/11 idiots or the moon landing hoax idiots. If I live for another 50 years and I have the same representative, I'm going to go 90 year old man crazy on everybody.

You deliberately used the word smart instead of small, because you believe that control over your life is necessary. I do not. So I use the term "small government".

Seriously, the federal government, minus the military, employs over 2 million people. Here's an article criticizing the Bush administration for expanding the bureaucracy via contractors, but its only critical that more people aren't hired into the actual government job that is never going away.

Yes. Some control over life is necessary. Get over it teenager. Your parents get to make some rules. Congratulations on figuring life out- you live in a society, and that society gets to impose certain restrictions on its members. As a compromise, you have certain guaranteed rights, and you get to help pick your representatives.

"Small government" is just a term used by retards. Seriously. Most of the American left, including me, wants government to be just as large as it needs to be. But since "small government" whackjobs never define the term other than to say they don't want the government controlling them. Oh, and they want to be able to own machine guns and rocket launchers.

So yes, I have a problem with retards. If you don't think that some government control is necessary, you don't think that many government programs are beneficial, if you think taxes are robbery, if you don't believe that while government programs have certainly expanded- government has really become less fascist, if you think what has become regarded as "conservative economics" is okay, if you're a racist, if you come in threads and make every Republican point- but claim to be an independent, among other things: then yes, I think you are a retard.

But one of the biggest collection of retards: people who think all government activities are permanent, there is no opportunity to change them, and that the government hiring workers is worse than the obvious failure of contractors- they never hold rallies, build political support, run for office, write their representatives, or actually try to change anything. Because guess what- there have been lots of people who have changed their governments, and lots of liberals who have protested policies that affected them. The reality for most conservatives and their complaints- they only care on paper. They believe they shouldn't be bothered with running their country. SO when I see liberals fighting to change the sex laws, fighting illegal imprisonment, rallying about the war, I hardly see conservatives make an effort. So yes, people who claim that government and its programs are permanent- lazy retards.

I'm sorry if you're in that group, but I already have you in troll pink. I understand the issue with representation is complex- and I would support a constitutional amendment limiting terms. I would also like to see significant business contact limited. You may classify me as a "big government statist liberal," but the reality is most liberals see a lot of problems with how the government operates as well. But we're not going to go full retard and claim "small government" is the only government, because it makes it sound the most ineffectual.

smeegle: the great "rescue" to which our governors are subjecting us will challenge our commitment to freedom in many dramatic ways. It's going to be a hell of a fight.

This may be true but what the author fails to mention is that this is not new, nor is it restricted to the "left." We recently engaged in "one helluva" of fight to maintain the balance of power and the scales from tipping all the way over to the Executive branch. We debated and fought fascist policies in the Patriot Act, we skewered Gonzalez for condoning torture in his writ to bolster Bush's position on the matter. We continue to hear from the Neoconservative Right, and their desire to dictate social issues that are "family" friendly, only if the family is made in their image.
Then there is the Imminent Domain issues supported by the previous administration, which allowed private business to take over citizen's property supposedly for the "good" of the community. Personal property rights be damned.
He is speaking of a recent start of a trend to fascism but he fails to point out the genesis of that trend was blatantly and arrogantly initiated by the right.

I just want to point out one thing, the Imminent Domain part. It was upheld by the Supreme Court before Bush jr. was able to put anyone in. So blame for that goes to Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton.

Don't you love it when Republicans are screaming like Eric Cartman in fat camp?

Cartman: Yes! I've lost almost ten pounds now. You see what I mean?? I totally know how it felt to be a Jew in the Holocaust now!

This thread is a shiat storm 35 posts in.

/My beagle smells like corn chips.

vygramul: Calling the current government fascist is less appropriate than it would have been in 1945, when certain people were told which water fountain to drink out of, hundreds of thousands of American citizens held in camps without trial or even probable cause, and Western Union was delivering telegrams to the government before their recipient.

Some historians refer to the 1930's as the "Age of International Fascism", point to Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Owsley in the UK, etc etc.

I once pointed out to one of them that there was more than a whiff of Fascism in FDR's four terms, the New Deal and there way we prosecuted the war.

He got very uncomfortable and didn't say anything.

Procedural Texture: Settle in, everyone.
The show's about to begin and there's plenty of popcorn for everyone.

Orville was a fascist.

vygramul: "Wolfen SS"

I now really want to see a painting of a wolf on its hind legs dressed up as a member of the Waffen SS while holding an MP40.

Socialism rests on a firm theoretical bedrock: the abolition of private property

I don't "own" my car, I have to pay a tax on it every year to be able to continue using it. I don't "own" my income, I have to pay a tax on it when I get it, and and more tax on it if I try to give it away, and God forbid I try to leave it to my family if I die. I don't "own" my land, I have to pay the government every year on it or they'll take it away from me. I don't own my house, just like my land, I have to pay the government every year or it gets taking away.

So, explain to me, how is it that you can claim at all that private property still exists in any meaningful manner? You'll let me claim some toys, but anything of any significant value is only mine as long as I keep paying for the "privilege" of using it.

So if the right goes further right, it's not fascism.

But if the left goes further left, it's fascism.

Got it.

All we have to do, in any situation, is go further to the right. There's no fascism there! That makes a lot of sense. You would think that extreme leftists become communists and extreme rightists become fascists, but you would be totally wrong. That's not how it works at all! The left will go through socialism, wave at the tourists, and then become communists. Then, after they tire of this socialist utopia, they will reinvent the world of Brazil -- fascism! All terrible political systems are the fault of the left! Their political ideals are the downfall of all America!

FarkinFarker: vygramul: "Wolfen SS"

I now really want to see a painting of a wolf on its hind legs dressed up as a member of the Waffen SS while holding an MP40.

What are you, some sort of furry?

FarkinFarker: I now really want to see a painting of a wolf on its hind legs dressed up as a member of the Waffen SS while holding an MP40.

who doesn't

"Post-Bailout America, in its political economy, is more akin to literal fascism than socialism"

thats right JEWZ! you heard the man. the third Reich is moving back in. so you best be leavin now, lest you want another lesson in concentration

PoopStain: I did you the respect of reading all of your proposals.

You wrote this response simply to find the same end: the government needs to be bigger.

I disagree.

/I'll throw this in because you showed me disrespect: retard.
//your missive lacked any new thought, posted links to better thought, or intelligence.
///You are the kind of person the US doesn't need right now.
////Seriously, Obama is trying. Your post celebrates idiocy and puppetry. To win an argument.


And I read your posts too. We disagree.

AS for the rest of your post:

1. Ahhh yes, I'm a puppet because your clown talk of "small government" and American fascism because we tenured congressman who employ 2 million civil servants indicates that you are a pillar of modern intelligence. I mean, clearly, government shouldn't make rules.

2. What the hell does "Obama is trying" have to do with my belief that government should not be regarded in foolish partisan and idealogical terms such as "small government"?

3. Oh I know, the US clearly needs more conservatives, more people who reject the stimulus, more people who government is evil. Yes. That has been working sooooo well for us. Grow up teenager.

I'm changing my name to Chrysler,
I am going down to Washington, DC.
I will tell some power broker,
What they did for Iococca.
Is perfectly acceptable to me----

When they hand a million grand out.
I'll be standing with my hand out.

God I love that song, Any chance to work in Arlo, I take

Sgt Otter: It is amazing. Just a few years ago, the right-wing noise machine was able to successfully convince a large number of the American public that a lowly Lieutenant Junior Grade, was able to deceive the Navy's Awards & Decorations system not once, not twice, but five times, even after Nixon's CREEPs grudgingly admitted he was a genuine war hero.


Why does a Lieutenant Junior Grade with nine months' experience and a track record for plea bargaining get assigned to a murder case?

Wraithbane: Socialism rests on a firm theoretical bedrock: the abolition of private property

I don't "own" my car, I have to pay a tax on it every year to be able to continue using it. I don't "own" my income, I have to pay a tax on it when I get it, and and more tax on it if I try to give it away, and God forbid I try to leave it to my family if I die. I don't "own" my land, I have to pay the government every year on it or they'll take it away from me. I don't own my house, just like my land, I have to pay the government every year or it gets taking away.

So, explain to me, how is it that you can claim at all that private property still exists in any meaningful manner? You'll let me claim some toys, but anything of any significant value is only mine as long as I keep paying for the "privilege" of using it.

cant tell if you're libertarian or socialist, but big WIN.

From the comments:
A fascist political economy is inherently hostile towards entrepreneurs and small business owners. It is deemed preferable to interact with large corporations that are set in their ways and disinclined to introduce new disruptive technologies and management techniques. In other words, a Bill Gates is not to their liking.

Actually I think Bill Gates would fit there, Steve Jobs...not so much.

sloppy shoes: 3. Oh I know, the US clearly needs more conservatives, more people who reject the stimulus, more people who government is evil. Yes. That has been working sooooo well for us. Grow up teenager.

I know I'm not the first to say this (by a longshot), but what does anyone expect when you put people into office who openly proclaim how worthless they think that office is? If government is the problem, why do republicans run for office?

In a weird way, the US does need more conservatives-- people who are interested in conserving things. Like the environment, local economies, some semblance of a future-- but the people who call themselves conservatives (who have proven themselves to be anything but) are hell-bent on undermining any possibly useful function of the government or any possibility of anyone accumulating any meaningful wealth other than themselves.

LOLOMGWTF: Wraithbane: Socialism rests on a firm theoretical bedrock: the abolition of private property

I don't "own" my car, I have to pay a tax on it every year to be able to continue using it. I don't "own" my income, I have to pay a tax on it when I get it, and and more tax on it if I try to give it away, and God forbid I try to leave it to my family if I die. I don't "own" my land, I have to pay the government every year on it or they'll take it away from me. I don't own my house, just like my land, I have to pay the government every year or it gets taking away.

So, explain to me, how is it that you can claim at all that private property still exists in any meaningful manner? You'll let me claim some toys, but anything of any significant value is only mine as long as I keep paying for the "privilege" of using it.

cant tell if you're libertarian or socialist, but big WIN.

Libertarian, I'm guessing. And, YES, huge win!

This shiat isn't Pajamas Media. It's Bed-Wetting Media.

mctom: I know I'm not the first to say this (by a longshot), but what does anyone expect when you put people into office who openly proclaim how worthless they think that office is? If government is the problem, why do republicans run for office?

In a weird way, the US does need more conservatives-- people who are interested in conserving things. Like the environment, local economies, some semblance of a future-- but the people who call themselves conservatives (who have proven themselves to be anything but) are hell-bent on undermining any possibly useful function of the government or any possibility of anyone accumulating any meaningful wealth other than themselves.

Because being conservative half the time is really about being racist, or sexist, or nationalist. One of the conservative's, Libertarian's, or Republican's complaints is that the federal government has tried to promote racial unity and advancement. They don't believe government should have the power to break up institutionalized discrimination, but they claim to believe people should be free. For far too many people, being conservative is really about protecting the social status quo- and not just enforcing Jesus.

LOLOMGWTF
cant tell if you're libertarian or socialist, but big WIN.

I don't know what I am. Some stuff I think the Democrats have the right idea on, some stuff I think the Republicans have the right idea on. But even when I agree with the basic idea, they both tend to take it way too far. Some stuff from the Libertarians sounds pretty good, but when you look closer you start to wonder how far off their meds they've gotten.

A while back there was a splinter movement in the Libertarian party that was sounding pretty good, but I don't know how far that ever got. It was a mix of the concept with a heavy dose of acceptance that some government was a necessary evil.

If Lewis Black ever runs based on his comedy, I'm voting for him.

sloppy shoes: Because being conservative half the time is really about being racist, or sexist, or nationalist.

The people who stand up on issues like that aren't really conservative. It's a shield they use to deflect complaints.

"I'm not racist! I just believe in small government."

"I'm not sexist! I just believe that government out of our lives!"

Calvin Coolidge: This shiat isn't Pajamas Media. It's Bed-Wetting Media.

They slid a little further right as of early '08. I used to read Instapundit regularly, until Glenn started pretty much parroting the latest talking points.

Wraithbane: I don't know what I am. Some stuff I think the Democrats have the right idea on, some stuff I think the Republicans have the right idea on. But even when I agree with the basic idea, they both tend to take it way too far. Some stuff from the Libertarians sounds pretty good, but when you look closer you start to wonder how far off their meds they've gotten.

Lemme guess: socially liberal / libertarian, fiscally conservative? Yup, no party exists for such as us until we create it or force the Republicrats to shift.