Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,755 Responses
- luckyorphan0
Tea Party Pick Causes Uproar on Civil Rights
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/2…The case of Rand Paul brings up an interesting analysis. I think John Kyl said it well:
“I hope he can separate the theoretical and the interesting and the hypothetical questions that college students debate until 2 a.m. from the actual votes we have to cast based on real legislation here,” said Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Senate’s No. 2 Republican.
On one hand, I understand the Libertarian concept of government. I disagree with it and find it foolish, but I understand Paul's sticking by his beliefs. It's just tough to not see his positions as misguided and uninformed at best.
- Perhaps "foolish" is a little harsh, but certainly misguided and wrong-headed.luckyorphan
- define what is the libertarian setup your talking about and then say whats misguided. be interesting********
- Good crit, DB. I'll expound below.luckyorphan
- AWESOME!********
- luckyorphan0
^ On a related topic, David Frum (conservative former speech writer for George W. Bush) dealt with a user's comment on his site quite well:
- ukit0
The best part of this is that if you listen to them, Libertarians, tea baggers, far right, whatever you want to call them, actually believe they are intellectually superior to mainstream thought with their purist ideas. And its easy to drink your own Kool Aid when you are chatting with your friends on the Ron Paul forum or something.
But then their poster boy, Rand Paul gets challenged on this fairly straightforward concept that the government can't intervene to stop discrimination and - he folds like a deck of cards.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.c…
Now he's cancelling TV appearances because he's "exhausted." F*cking LOL
- ha i caught that surfing. he was a smart guy talking to an idiot chick(maddow). i felt exhausted after watching it.********
- he's gonna find out politics is much like advertising one part depth psychology/the other aestetic theory and no room for reason********
- ....reason. ha no room for reason either in these tiny boxes********
- They weren't difficult questions. He should have known better than to theorize on such a politically volatile topic. Especially on the so called voice of the liberal media MSNBC.IRNlun6
- Especially on the so called voice of the liberal media MSNBC.IRNlun6
- yes easy question. but no context. which makes it a trap. and he was smart to call it out as at.********
- Hey DB, you may disagree with Maddow's politics, but she's not an idiot (Rhodes Scholarships don't go to anyone).luckyorphan
- and the same can be said of liberal mongers, who think they are preaching the absolute gospel. BS BS BS********
- ha i caught that surfing. he was a smart guy talking to an idiot chick(maddow). i felt exhausted after watching it.
- dirgdss0
throw the jew down the well, so my country can be free
- ukit0
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/…
Historically, populist movements use the rhetoric of class solidarity to seize political power so that “the people” can exercise it for their common benefit. American populist rhetoric does something altogether different today. It fires up emotions by appealing to individual opinion, individual autonomy, and individual choice, all in the service of neutralizing, not using, political power. It gives voice to those who feel they are being bullied, but this voice has only one, Garbo-like thing to say: I want to be left alone.
A new strain of populism is metastasizing before our eyes, nourished by the same libertarian impulses that have unsettled American society for half a century now. Anarchistic like the Sixties, selfish like the Eighties, contradicting neither, it is estranged, aimless, and as juvenile as our new century. It appeals to petulant individuals convinced that they can do everything themselves if they are only left alone, and that others are conspiring to keep them from doing just that. This is the one threat that will bring Americans into the streets...
We are experiencing just one more aftershock from the libertarian eruption that we all, whatever our partisan leanings, have willed into being. For half a century now Americans have been rebelling in the name of individual freedom. Some wanted a more tolerant society with greater private autonomy, and now we have it, which is a good thing—though it also brought us more out-of-wedlock births, a soft pornographic popular culture, and a drug trade that serves casual users while destroying poor American neighborhoods and destabilizing foreign nations. Others wanted to be free from taxes and regulations so they could get rich fast, and they have—and it’s left the more vulnerable among us in financial ruin, holding precarious jobs, and scrambling to find health care for their children. We wanted our two revolutions. Well, we have had them.
Now an angry group of Americans wants to be freer still—free from government agencies that protect their health, wealth, and well-being; free from problems and policies too difficult to understand; free from parties and coalitions; free from experts who think they know better than they do; free from politicians who don’t talk or look like they do (and Barack Obama certainly doesn’t). They want to say what they have to say without fear of contradiction, and then hear someone on television tell them they’re right. They don’t want the rule of the people, though that’s what they say. They want to be people without rules—and, who knows, they may succeed. This is America, where wishes come true. And where no one remembers the adage “Beware what you wish for.”
- luckyorphan0
I was rightly called out earlier by deathboy for my jab at the libertarian platform:
"define what is the libertarian setup your talking about and then say whats misguided. be interesting."
That's a fair note. Allow me to elaborate:
On one hand, I applaud the libertarian value of individual liberty as a core political ethic. Individual liberty is one of the central tenets that led to the creation and preservation of modern democracy.
However, I find that the general libertarian outlook is to apply that concept of liberty so far as to absolve the individual of any responsibility to a larger community, be it local, national or global.
For instance, in terms of foreign policy, libertarians generally promote non-intervention. In other words, citizens should not be concerned beyond academic interest about what happens outside of the borders of this nation. If there is a despot killing millions of people, the libertarian stance is to not intervene whatsoever, until there is a direct threat to the nation.
We've seen recently how this overarching concept of absolute freedom can lead to the acceptance of discriminatory and racist behavior. The libertarian response to such mob rule or minority abuse would be to simply allow the chips to fall as they may.
I don't understand the libertarian stance on war, either. The general libertarian stance is that gov't can do no right. However, when it comes to war, libertarians seem to think that gov't can execute that just fine. Combine that with a non-interventionist foreign policy, and it's a head-scratcher.
But the Libertarian position is not all wrong. The Libertarian Party position on drugs is to repeal prohibition altogether—a stance that is at least consistent with individual liberty. They also were among the loudest critics of the USA Patriot Act.
I hope this explains where I'm coming from, deathboy. Please let me know if I got anything wrong.
- And feel free to respond in kind—unlike Fred McWoozy, who likes to call people out and then run when they respond.luckyorphan
- ********0
Lucky your response is awesome. For the fact it breaks it down better.
First off I should mention for context i have never given much credence to any type of platform as a whole, including libertarian. I do not believe in such classifications as fact, more just a general feel and the general types of philosophies and beliefs associated with them. Treating any political platform as a whole is very similiar to trading CDOs. Bad ideas combined with good ideas and sold as whole. This way the bad ideas gain value. if it was piece meal and treated individually(non-party/platform) it would be so much better. And also since party type platforms consist of so many various beliefs/values, most people make the assumption that what they believe a platform consists of the same thing the other person thinks it consists of. This where reason would help people understand each other so much better on politics instead of sellign it as entertainment with a team mentality. To think of all ideas mashed as a whole is ridiculous and worthless to bash the generalization or team.
With that said i hope you have a better understanding where i am coming from. and now i have a better idea where you are coming from and we can begin to try and understand each other instead of wasting time talking about large generalities without any substance (or posting stupid pictures, regardless if theyre entertaining).
And i agree with you about individual liberty. I hold it as the highest value among men. And i think what you are saying about libertarians beliefs absolving the individual of any responsibility to a larger community...is true and also a negative misconception. Yes the individual has no responsibility to a large undefined collective. Just as blacks are not to be slaves of the collective white man. In this instance look at the greater good achieved by having cheap labor to the whole of the american people(whole being whites and blacks not looked at individually). It allowed more profit and growth for a portion of the collective, at the loss of the other. And in this stance individual rights is important. Yes we can have more by taking away the rights of a few, but we refuse to because we value individual rights.Which the founders didn't quite understand or more likely chose to overlook becuase of types of social conditioning.... which allows societies actions to supercede logical argument and hypocrisy becomes ok. Which is why its so important ot be objective... But back to the main point you cant have individual rights and expect or demand individuals to be concerned with a collective. its sort of a catch 22. However with intelligence and the ability to acknowledge symbiotic relationships we could offer more community services without sacrificing liberty (google). But human intelligenc eand reason is important for peopel to figure out what is a symbiotic realtionship instead of gov deciding what they think is symbiotic for votes or money. Intelligence is key.
as far as foreign policy goes. that becomes political and the individualist or libertarian philosophy should be acknowledged as the base and reason and debate with a proper majority rule should happen.However majority rule could lead to denial of certain people individual rights. Like a draft. And a decision like that is to hard to talk about in generalities. It depends on peoples intelligence and so many other factors. That you cant blanket a right or wrong decision/view. You can only hope a intelligent populace will make the right free decision wether to fight or not. Every individual will have supproting or opposing views, becuase the fact that we are individuals. The democratically elected leader in such cases i hope is smart enough to evaulate and weigh out such a decision. War is hell and can only be conquered through objective reasonable understanding.
On drugs a libertarian view would be to let any man decide his own fate. And let drugs be freetrade. I see this as being a individual libery for sure and should be. But looking at the nature of certain drugs and peoples lack of knowledge of them and what they can do im split. Its a tough call. Does a government decide to protect people from what they do not know? I think certain drugs should be banned. I take this stance knowing fully well its wrong. It goes against the simple principals. However i would choose to state it as such. That it is a necessary evil. Which may seem contradictory to the belief.But those are the hard decisions politics demand. Its all about evaulation, reason, and objectivity. Just becuase it s hard decision doesnt make any reason right jsut through action.
There is hard decisions but all should be based on recognizing the philosophy of individual rights, and then those in power i hope make right decisions even if personally i don't beleive are right and let a objective future decide wether it was. to make honest objective decisions based on reality is what its all about while using individual rights and reason as the base. there will be arguments, and disagreements but hopefully theyre based on logic and people acknowledge and understand the basis of disagreement.
and in the case of rand paul id say let him have his way. destroy the portiions of the civil rights act that debase peoples individual rights. see if the people have finally become inteliigent enough to understand why the laws were placed. see if man has evolved enough to treat each other respectfully. of course 100% percent likely will not have evolved enough. but if 90% percent have that is great progress. the civil rights act was a necessary evil to change social conditioning of a period of time. think of it as training wheels. after all what is the point of a necessary evil in a free society if it must be enacted forever. if it was enacted forever then we can give up on any such idea of a free society. quit with the illusion and see if this necessary evil was successful in implementation.
and i apologize if i trailed off on tangents. im not very good with such broad topics.; libertarian and such topics as a whole or maintianing individual liberties in broad military type situations or drug scenarios. Especially since in my mind i give peoples intelligence far too much credit. im better in more direct instances of giving objective reasons.
and i admit the question was super loaded about defining your views on libertarian platform and what you thought was wrong. I asked becuase i really didnt beleiv eyou to attempt to define such a large view. especially in this type of medium. but im happy you did try. and i tried to address mine, but unfortunately i dont think i did them justice and i dont think you got your reasons fully expressed either. guess the medium defines the quality and content.
- TEABAGGERS UNITE®utopian
- db, this is now my favorite post in this entire thread. You've eloquently described the aspects of libertarianism that I agreemathinc
- with.. as well as the aspects I find difficult (i.e. full-scale drug legalization). Bravo sir, bravo.mathinc
- Gotta disagree with most of this, but I'll work on a worthy reply. Thanks for taking the time, db.luckyorphan
- luckyorphan0
Closing Tax Loopholes for Billionaires
by Robert Reichhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ro…
Who could be opposed to closing a tax loophole that allows hedge-fund and private equity managers to treat their earnings as capital gains -- and pay a rate of only 15 percent rather than the 35 percent applied to ordinary income?
- luckyorphan0
Payback Time
Crisis Imperils Liberal Benefits Long Expected by Europeans
By Steven Erlanger
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/2…PARIS — Across Western Europe, the “lifestyle superpower,” the assumptions and gains of a lifetime are suddenly in doubt. The deficit crisis that threatens the euro has also undermined the sustainability of the European standard of social welfare, built by left-leaning governments since the end of World War II.
- ukit0
- ukit0
http://openleft.com/diary/18821/…
Ramussen's junk polls distort House outlook
Rasmussen's polls have come under increasing scruitny and criticism lately. When it comes to polling on the national congressional ballot, however, there's really nothing to discuss. Over a period of more than a year, the trend of Rasmussen's polls bears only a weak relationship to that of other pollster. There are some vague similarities, to be sure, but Rasmussen shows a clear, simple narrative of Democrats going from popular to unpopular, with a very modest reversal of late, with Republicans in virtual mirror image, while other pollsters show a much more nuanced picture, sometimes even showing both parties moving together, and with Democrats only briefly falling below Republicans in March and April.
In short, Rasmussen's polls are not just biased by a few points in the Republican direction, as are its polls of Obama's approval rating (shown for comparison below), they reflects a strikingly different multi-month narrative, which is easily shown using Pollster.com's ability to filter pollsters.
Here's what Rasmussen's polls look like for the congressional ballot:
And here's what everyone else's polls look like:
- ********0
David Cameron Exposed. To bad people just can't be themselves anymore.
- ukit0
If nothing else, Rand Paul still has the support of the American Neo Nazi Twitter community
- I guess Rand Paul is the
closest thing to a Nazi skin
head in office that the
KKK will ever have...utopian - im sure plenty of douche groups support obama. hell the unions do more damage then stupid skin heads.********
- but more importantly what is the value of this post and your motive?********
- Come on, db...unions are hardly comparable to skinheads. Let's not get too extreme here.luckyorphan
- all depends on extent of damage. wether its physical, financial, and who it all effects. but that wasnt the point. it was an example.********
- simply an example, displaying easyiness of flipping such a thing. the point is this is a playground teasing.********
- paul is the cool kid, skins the nerds. the skins are sitting at the same table, and ukit is saying look pual is a nerd hes sitting with nerds.********
- sitting at the same table as nerds. in other words he trying to make associations that dont exist. but simply giva an impression********
- impression. which i jsut dont see much point in doing.********
- I guess Rand Paul is the
- ********0
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/wat…
"There's no doubt that we have had some problems with BP's lack of transparency: We asked that a video feed be made public, and that took 10 days. We have sent letter recently in order to get them to post their air-and-quality data."- I'm a little confused as to your point, JazX. I thought you preferred the gov't to stay out of the way of business.luckyorphan
- ********0
Bam's daze of the weak - Obama threatens friends and bows to enemies
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nat…
- ********0
Iranians shout for jobs during Ahmadinejad speech
* Hecklers rare at president speech
http://www.reuters.com/article/i…
- ********0
Syria: Obama has failed in peace efforts and lost influence in Mideast
http://www.haaretz.com/news/dipl…
- ********0
Congressman accuses White House accused of bribing Sestak to sit out race against Specter
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/…
