If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(cato.org)   When you add up the numbers, President Bush is less conservative than President Clinton.   (cato.org) divider line 561
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

10881 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Aug 2002 at 12:29 PM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



561 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2002-08-05 03:31:52 PM
WorldCitizen I agree that **pure** anything is impossible anywhere. I don't think anyone inclined towards libertarianism expects "pure libertarianism". That would be anarchy. But if I have to sway one way, I sway to the side of butting out and giving individuals a wide berth.

The LP platform calls for abolishing the DOE, not public schools. Schools should be under state/local control and funded with state/local funds. This is how it's set up for the most part, anyway. This is good for two reasons: 1) It's not the job of FEDERAL government and 2) Imagine the innovations in public education that spring from losing the yoke of Washington. Any time you give up some of your responsibility (as in the responsibility of a community to pay for the education of its youth) you give up some freedom (as in the freedom of a local school board doing what it deems best with its dollars).
 
2002-08-05 03:32:26 PM
He then went on to write a great short story about people who lived in SPPAAAARRRSEly populated "plantations" on a farm planet. Each person lived in a dome and had robots to do all their farm labor. The humans communicated by 3-d holograms and never met in person. One day all the technology went haywire... the people had to actually interact in person and work together to protect themselves from their homicidal robot workers. Yup.... Libertarian paradise, its kinda like that.

I remember that story... wasn't it Asimov?

thephil:

government spending isn't necessarily bad. look up john maynard keynes (most definately not a liberal economist).


Keynes was a genius. He figured out that the economy was staying severely depressed because people were applying principles that make sense individually but are incredibly destructive when everyone uses them during a depression. His solution was to massively deficit spend, even if it has to be incredibly wasteful to do so. This is because the problem is caused by not enough money in the economy. Nowadays, we have the Federal Reserve, which can increase the money supply as much or as little as it wants. Furthermore, we are not in the Great Depression by any stretch of the imagination. If Keynes were alive today he would probably be advocating a huge reduction in gov't spending so we can pay off debt and prepare for the time where we actually DO need to massively stimulate the economy.
 
2002-08-05 03:33:08 PM
Violetsareblue: You forgot "So I can vigorously defend the Bill of Rights (most especially the 1st) except for that inconvenient 2nd one, which was of course only intended to provide for state militias, and NOT an individual right, as as all the others" I think that would about cover it...
 
2002-08-05 03:33:50 PM
I'm getting a picture from Violetsareblue's post of a conservative utopia of a soccer mom chatting away on her cellphone while driving her Expidition over a newly-paved freeway running through where there used to be Caribou but not anymore because there may have been some oil in there at one point. Of course she's also got on her SPF 50 sunblock, and she's had to sell her beachfront cottage a few times, because of the rising sea levels, and it's kind of hard to drink a Starbuck's coffee through her brand new fog mask. But at least no one's infringing on her right to the highest possible quality of life.
 
2002-08-05 03:34:29 PM
Ash216....

Paranoid? I did my history senior thesis on the Japanese American internments.... Paranoid? Not paranoid ENOUGH!!!

Seriously though... Slippery Slope can often be BS, it can often involve a "logical fallacy" error of one sort or another. But, it also has much merit. Worrying about government taking away one's rights is as old as the wheel, and for good reason. Of the last 6000 years of human history we have maybe 500 years of relative freedom from oppressive government worldwide... much of those were under Pax Romana, the others under Pax Americana... The Romans lost their freedoms exactly when, would you say? Do you think they noticed?
 
2002-08-05 03:35:59 PM
"They did for the 1st 150 years of our history before the federal tax rate went from about 5% per person to 30% or whatever."

This is where history came in. One, for the first 150 years of the United States we were a majority rural, agrarian society. We lived on farms in large family units. There was not much of a need for education. There was no health care of any real kind to fund. People lived short lives in large, family units that took care of their sick and elderly (who did not live long due to no health industry). The Federal Government of the United States until the early 20th Century was largely funded by the sale of public land. Then it ran out. Oops, need new funding means. So, unless you want to go back to living on farms, and can find millions of acres of productive land to sell to fund the Federal Government, we really can't go back to the good old days of the 17 and 1800s.
 
2002-08-05 03:37:12 PM
RJames, I apologize. I misunderstood what you said, didnt mean to sound like an ass. I read fast and sometimes miss key words and phrases, my bad.

That said, I agree with you that curtailing government spending is the only practical way to keep our money in the long run. I just think Bush is more likely to do that than anyone he's run against. The thing is, if he tries to cut spending, liberals jump all over him. Whatever he tries to cut, he gets branded an asshole for cutting it. He's trying to appease people and I think he has a master plan to do just what we're talking about: reduce government waste.

And to all you alarmists out there, the slippery slope argument is not an argument. Its a logical fallacy, you'll have to argue from a different angle to have a foothold. Slippery Slope especially doesnt work too well for conservative issue because most people are moderate and will only tolerate stuff so far to the right before they resist. You can see it now in these message boards. I'd rather cut close to "too right" and NOT DIE than make sure all our criminals have their freedoms so that they can murder my kids and I can say "God bless our freedoms in america! now let me bury my children!". My life and the lives of my loved ones come before criminals rights to... well anything.

And whoever thinks we're going to get nailed for talking crap on the government, you read too much Orwell.
 
2002-08-05 03:38:21 PM
The Federal Government of the United States until the early 20th Century was largely funded by the sale of public land. Then it ran out. Oops, need new funding means. So, unless you want to go back to living on farms, and can find millions of acres of productive land to sell to fund the Federal Government, we really can't go back to the good old days of the 17 and 1800s.

I dunno about finding new farmland, but I hear there's oil in Iraq...
 
2002-08-05 03:38:38 PM
Huh? romans? what are we talking about again?
 
2002-08-05 03:39:43 PM
Oh and so I can personally attack conservatives...
 
2002-08-05 03:40:13 PM
"WorldCitizen: I assume from this that you are a staunch supporter of the individual right to keep & bear arms?"

No, not really. I'm not as firmly against it as I once was, but I still lean toward the well regulated militia interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. If the government with its nerve gas, stealth bombers, fighter jets, bombers, nuclear weapons, tanks, special forces, etc, etc... decided to squash the civil population, my assault rifle is not going to stand in their way.
 
2002-08-05 03:40:31 PM
If they sold you tainted milk and you died a horrible death, they would have one less customer to sell milk to. If all of their customers died, then they would lose their customer base and go out of business and no longer sell tainted milk. Meanwhile, this would have led to the rebirth of a vibrant new gravedigging industry.

Now who's being utopian? :)

 
2002-08-05 03:42:17 PM
Allow me to pop your myths, Violets.

Myth: domestic oil production will free us from dependence on Arab oil.

Myth: all liberals are treehuggers

Myth: all liberals are vegetarians

Congrats on taking the Conservative chickenshiat approach: lump all fringes of society with liberals. It's so easy to make liberals appear ridiculous when you've got cultural hygiene on your side. Vanilla ice cream, everyone?
 
2002-08-05 03:42:30 PM
And if you really believe in your positions, wouldn't that attack on conservatives go down much better with the judicious use of some firearms? :) Nothing like bring a gun to a knife fight....
 
2002-08-05 03:42:47 PM
Macheath -if you died, one less customer to sell to... they wouldnt do that... the market is beautiful....

Contrary to popular myth... there are MANY parasites that kill their hosts in nature.

The myth of the Market is that the "owners" care if the company continues to be successful or not.

They do not.

What this current Enron Era should be revealing to all Americans, and foreign investors, is the less that salutory truth that our corporations are NOT (as our legal system would have you believe) people. Nor are there any real "owners" in any functional sense. Shareholders do NOT care about their companies... they are invested today and divisted tomorrow, with the click of a mouse. Many people buy and sell shares of a company with in the month. Many institutional investors buy and sell by the minute. In any case, NO ONE cares about the overall success of the company... which is why lay offs are such a popular move by new and incoming CEO's.

Capitalism is NOT a social system, or a form of government, it is a form of market organization. It is fine, in and of itself. But a people must have more than just an economic system to organize their society. We must have MORE government regulation of the market... NOT, as the Soviet's tried, to ensure economic "equality", but rather to ensure some Social Justice or Corporate Social Responsibility. The businesses of America do not operate in a vaccum. There ARE winners and losers. Too much, lately, the US citizen has been the loser, losing the job and paying higherprices, so that they corporation can shield its income from taxes, lie about its profits, ship jobs overseas or destroy local efforts to protect economy and environment, buy out the competition, raise prices, threaten bacruptcy, and then demand a government bail out.

The Market... works, they way you allow it to. No regulation... uggly market... too much regulation... slow market.... something in between? Yeah, maybe we should try it?
 
2002-08-05 03:43:03 PM
Health Care: You would turn over our health care to the HMO's? Now that's a laugh. I remember once my grandmother-in-law bought health insurance in the 1960s. She paid the premiums dutifully until one day (a few years after she started) she needed a hystorectomy. The insurance agency refused to pay for it because her hystorectomy -- i.e. being a woman was a "pre-existing condition." They did have the class to refund her premiums, though.

Education: Read up on some of the private for-profit schools in Florida. We have staff turnover rates approaching 50% and higher, schools closing mid-year and the such. Art and Angel Rocker say hello.

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/04/14/Perspective/A_voucher_marketplace.shtml

The Poor: I would venture to say that the poor are better off today under gov't care than they were under "private" care. Child poverty, although up slightly over the past 20 years or so, is down significantly from the turn of the century.

There are many services which are simply not profitable to provide at a high quality.

Shawn Pickrell

Shawn Pickrell
 
2002-08-05 03:44:26 PM
ThePhil states:"And sorry, RJames, the market is NOT synonomous with the economy. Unemployment is down, consumer spending is up. Economy is good."
Well, I have a jpg of a chart I kept for handy reference from the Bureau of Labor that shows that unemployment has went UP from 4.5% to 5.9% from July2001 to July 2002. During that time it peaked at 6% in April 2002. I'll let everyone else's comments to you on other things, speak for them. But if you think unemployment is down, then it makes me realize you are probably wrong on many other things too. 2004 is getting close, can Bush turn the ship of state, around?
We'll see.
 
2002-08-05 03:44:36 PM
08-05-02 03:37:12 PM ThePhil
RJames, I apologize. I misunderstood what you said, didnt mean to sound like an ass. I read fast and sometimes miss key words and phrases, my bad.

That said, I agree with you that curtailing government spending is the only practical way to keep our money in the long run. I just think Bush is more likely to do that than anyone he's run against. The thing is, if he tries to cut spending, liberals jump all over him. Whatever he tries to cut, he gets branded an asshole for cutting it. He's trying to appease people and I think he has a master plan to do just what we're talking about: reduce government waste.


Ok, sorry for jumping all over you there; I'm sleepy. But I'll believe in a master plan for reducing government waste when I see it. All I've seen so far from Bush is increased spending, and a lot of the spending increases were initiated by him, not Democrats. He's got to cover a heck of a lot of ground to even get back to where he started, spending-wise.
 
2002-08-05 03:45:18 PM
Damn, Control, looks like folks are losing their sense of humor. I'm out.....
 
2002-08-05 03:47:45 PM
Rjames.... yes Issac Assimov

Keynes... James... maybe you want to reconsider your reasoning? You are correct that Keynes was a proponent of "defecit spending" to spur the economy. However, this was in response to a SPECIFIC type of recession...

Today he would NOT advocate "belt tightening" to pay off the debt, as you suggested. He would likely suggest the same thing as with our last Depression, increased defecit spending... putting the laid off back to work; bans on further workforce reductions... giving people the confidence to spend again; and decreased tarrifs, allowing other countries to buy up our surplus production.

And we ARE heading into our second Great Depression. Just wait. And recall that it took a decade for the last one to become apparent and to fully kick the sht out of our economy. Wait.
 
2002-08-05 03:48:03 PM
ThePhil:

Follow along, this will get a little tricky and there will be a test at the end.

You stated "All I advocate is slack for our law enforcement. Big deal. Dont do illegal stuff. Freakin' alarmists over here."


Based on the usa patriot act and the amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Booksellers are... Under the new law, the director of the FBI may seek an order "for any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." The request for such an order is made to a judge who sits in a special court that is sometimes called the "spy court." The judge makes his decision "ex parte," meaning there is no opportunity for you or your lawyer to object in court. You cannot object publically either. The new law includes a gag order that prevents you from disclosing "to any other person" the fact that you have received an order to produce documents.

Now, the question I have for you is: You buy book "A". While currently legal and not on any watchlists for possible terrorists links,in five years after your purchased the book is found in a terrorist traning compound. The book is now on a watchlist and your name comes up in a records search. You are now a cannadate to be surveiled, questioned (without representation), and detained.

ThePhil, do you find this acceptable?



FISA
 
2002-08-05 03:48:26 PM
DoubleG:
16 year-old drivers are more dangerous than terrorists.

Ah-HA! You Neal Boortz listener!
 
2002-08-05 03:51:44 PM
Those "fringes of society" definitely aren't conservative.
You forgot the biggest myth:
Gobal Warming!
 
2002-08-05 03:51:47 PM
Zounds! Irasible unleashes a sneak attack on The Phil....
 
2002-08-05 03:52:22 PM
Freakin typos............drat.
 
2002-08-05 03:52:57 PM
Who's Gobal & why does he need warming?
 
2002-08-05 03:54:52 PM
DoubleGGuy - It's not that good education, medical care, etc. couldn't be done privately, but that it won't be, because private business does not operate under the premise that well educated, well cared for, well off people are more productive for most positions.

Macheath - Almost, but you forgot that it's the guy who just made a killing in the milk biz that invests in the gravedigging industry. He doesn't care that he can't sell milk any more.
 
2002-08-05 03:55:38 PM
The beauty of being a liberal is I can be a liberal and accept the fact there are other fringe (nutcase) liberals I disagree with.

But I'd rather party with the nutcases than burn books with the conservatives.
 
2002-08-05 03:55:44 PM
Someone shoulod forward this article to that kid who wrote last week about how Liberals were all for passing laws and increasing goverment.

And ThePhil you're dangerously stupid for swallowing the party line without questioning. That shiat will get us all in trouble.
 
2002-08-05 03:56:30 PM
Good one, PressedRat.

Gobal was a nazi propagandizer, I think.
 
43%
2002-08-05 03:58:08 PM
And we ARE heading into our second Great Depression

Easy now, chicken little.
 
2002-08-05 03:58:20 PM
The biggest problem i have with libertarians is not their ideals, it's that they don't seem to understand anything about humanity, history, or lawmaking.

You say in this beautiful minimalist government we would be protected against fraud -- well, look at the Enron/Worldcom accounting scandals. Even with all the intrusive accounting rules we had, we still didn't protect people from this fraud. Punishing someone after the fact who injures several million people through fraud is hardly effective.

Depending on "the market" to punish the wrongdoers is pointless when the criminals make off with enough money to finance 100 generations of their offspring. They don't need you anymore once they have your money, there is no market-based penalty that makes any difference to someone with 650 million dollars in the bank.

And if you suggest that a criminal penalty is appropriate, then you are just telling people what to do "at the end of a gun".

Face it, there are no Utopias where XYZ will make every person happy and nobody will ever take advantage of another human being. The best we can hope to do is come to a consensus on what is bad enough to be punished and what the punishment should be -- everything else is just dickering over the details, not a major ideological difference.
 
2002-08-05 03:58:20 PM
Right.....and no doubt toasting his nuts right now with Heydrick, Himmler, and the rest of his pals.
 
2002-08-05 03:58:47 PM
And going back to what we've learned (should have learned) from history. The US once had a very decentralized, weak central government. It gave almost all economic and political power to the states. It had no power to tax. It had no power to regulate the economy. It failed. It failed so miserably that the great minds of the nation felt compelled to gather together and recreate the government of the US into one that actually could function. This weak, largely libertarian government was called the Articles of Confederation. The great minds were the Founding Fathers and the new, more centralized, more powerful government was the government of the Constitution of the United States. It gave the government the ability to function while trusting no individual human being (or even one group of human beings) to exercise complete control over that government.

Anyway, the point being is that we tried a libertarian government even back in the agrarian era. It failed even in that extremely simple time.
 
2002-08-05 03:59:43 PM
Iracible... Yup! AND the USAPATRIOT Act allows you to be bugged, servieled, and to have someone enter your home and search your things, your underwear drawer, your harddrive, looking for anything incriminanting... then put everything back neatly and leave... AND NEVER TELL YOU!!!!????!!! They can do this every week, every month, every year... UNTIL YOU SLIP and buy that book by Molly Ivans called Shrub... then they try you in a secret court and put you in jail AND NEVER TELL YOUR FAMILY!!!

All legal.

And USAPATRIOT ACT is an acronym... it has nothing to do with "patriotism", although they would smile and be happy if you thought it did....

"Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism"

and if you wanna cry out that your Representative or Senator would never let something like that pass... they had one night to read over 300 pages before voting... no one did.

After it passed 8 major US cities revolted and refused to enforce it.

"There ought to be limits to freedom"
-George W. Bush
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/newflyer.pdf

More on the act:

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_eff_usa_pa triot_analysis.html

http://www.ala.org/washoff/patriot.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/usapatriot020701.html

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/HR3162.htm
 
2002-08-05 04:00:23 PM
OKay I buy book A, it ends up in a training ground, government sees me as a purchaser.
What are they going to really do? They'll maybe come to my house, maybe ask me to come in, maybe they'll research my life. I dont have anything to hide and I can say with absolute certainty they arent going to arrest me for buying a book. I'm willing to sacrifice some time for the safety of my loved ones and myself. I have a pretty impecible record and any investigation will reveal me to be a good citizen.

And unemployment has been down since april. So i was not incorrect. It has stabilized and gone down since april. Consumer spending is plenty up either way. Its not like 8 pts down, but it is down.

Well, to be honest, RJames, G.Dub has me worried too. But one thing I like about W. is that I have faith in him. I trust him. I never trusted Clinton or Gore. Never had faith in them. So while I share your dubiousness, I still have faith. If he lets me down tho, I'll be right there with you.
 
2002-08-05 04:01:34 PM
Yeah I remember that last book burning I attended where we burned the homosexuals right along with the books...
Don't be stupid Control.
 
2002-08-05 04:05:09 PM
K-jack:

Liberals supported Lenin over the Czar
Liberals supported Hitler when he was elected (uh oh, is that Godwin?)
Liberals supported Mao

the list goes on and on. liberals foster change period, and not always for the better. Just because you're "fighting for the common man" doesn't mean you're fighting the right fight.
 
2002-08-05 04:05:35 PM
The idea of having faith in a politician is far sillier than having faith in an invisible man in the sky. The whole basis for faith is the idea that God is infallible, but then to put faith in a politician? One must have very low standards to do such a thing.
 
2002-08-05 04:05:35 PM
The Phil counters with lack of capitalization, and total lack of faith in Clinton/Gore, who actually could always be counteed on to lie their asses off even when caught red-handed, much like the Richard Pryor skit when he's caught in bed with another woman by his wife, who he then asks, "Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?"
 
2002-08-05 04:06:03 PM
Rjames.... yes Issac Assimov

Keynes... James... maybe you want to reconsider your reasoning? You are correct that Keynes was a proponent of "defecit spending" to spur the economy. However, this was in response to a SPECIFIC type of recession...


Right.

Today he would NOT advocate "belt tightening" to pay off the debt, as you suggested. He would likely suggest the same thing as with our last Depression, increased defecit spending... putting the laid off back to work; bans on further workforce reductions... giving people the confidence to spend again; and decreased tarrifs, allowing other countries to buy up our surplus production.

I don't think Keynes would say we're in a Depression right now. Bans on workforce reductions is always a bad idea (would YOU work hard with a guaranteed job?) and, of course, I'm all for dropping tarriffs.

And we ARE heading into our second Great Depression. Just wait. And recall that it took a decade for the last one to become apparent and to fully kick the sht out of our economy. Wait.

Fine. Maybe you're right. But it's far from obvious that we're in a depression right now. Keynes, who had seen 25% unemployment, would look at 6% and laugh.
 
2002-08-05 04:06:09 PM
ThePhil - You trust Bush, eh? Here's a little something just for you.

The Bush Family
 
2002-08-05 04:06:44 PM
ThePhil:OKay I buy book A, it ends up in a training ground, government sees me as a purchaser. What are they going to really do? They'll maybe come to my house, maybe ask me to come in, maybe they'll research my life. I dont have anything to hide and I can say with absolute certainty they arent going to arrest me for buying a book.

Let me guess: You're white, right?
 
2002-08-05 04:06:52 PM
HappyDaddy - I seem to remember from my history lessons that people were screaming about centralized power right from the beginning... Adams vs. Jefferson yeah?
 
2002-08-05 04:07:38 PM
I need to make a list of "Liberals are..." sentences that I have seen used by conservatives. From what I can tell, liberals are responsible for everything that is bad on the planet, starting with the cavemen. If it's bad, it's liberal. If it's good, it's conservative.
Ahh, if only I could convince myself that things were really that simple...
 
2002-08-05 04:09:09 PM
 
2002-08-05 04:10:02 PM
And, not unexpectedly in any poticical debate, MysticJackal plays the race card. Let me guess, MysticJackal, you're a liberal right?

This is all so predictable.
 
2002-08-05 04:10:15 PM
Phil- "I can say with absolute certainty they arent going to arrest me for buying a book. "

Under the McCarran-Walter Act (1981) you can be deported or barred from entry to the US if you have a book the US government doesnt like.

List of banned books:
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/banned-books.html
 
2002-08-05 04:10:50 PM
ThePhil:

OKay I buy book A, it ends up in a training ground, government sees me as a purchaser.

Okey dokey, I'm with you so far....

What are they going to really do?

Read the FISA link I provided, it clearly explains what they will do.

They'll maybe come to my house,
Guaranteed

maybe ask me to come in,
They wont ask and the Feds dont have to let you know they have searched your house.

maybe they'll research my life.
In a way you never thought possible. More through than a TS/SBI for the military.

I dont have anything to hide and I can say with absolute certainty they arent going to arrest me for buying a book. Never fudged a tax return, somked pot, got a girl pregnant and paid for an abortion, unpaid parking tickets? Think carefully on that one

I'm willing to sacrifice some time for the safety of my loved ones and myself.
If by "time" you mean personal liberties, I weep for you

I have a pretty impecible record and any investigation will reveal me to be a good citizen.
Seig Heil.


yowzers...............
 
2002-08-05 04:11:52 PM
Pressedrat counters with hideous misspellings...

er, "political"
 
Displayed 50 of 561 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report