Of course, it helps that Guiliani, McCain, and (Fred) Thompson opted out. Full results here.
The big story is this: Huckabee takes second, besting a fading Brownback. To which I say, Huckabee?
Isn’t he the guy who wants to enforce junk food taxes and thinks one of the most important missions for a President is to combat the scourge of obesity?
Whatever. Maybe we can have national morning exercises. For our own good.
I do so love me a benevolent preacher king.
— Oh, and that “Ron Paul: True American Patriot” revolution being pushed by, among others, the crew at Reason? Evidently it needs itself a better Paul Revere: the “non-interventionist” egomaniac, who is quickly becoming the John McCain of contrived John McCain mavericks, finished a very distant 5th. Behind even Muslim and Hispanic eliminationist! Tom Tancredo.
The cynic in me would quip that Paul has been so successful in selling his “small government” message that his supporters won’t even participate in anything so Big Government-y as Iowa straw polls.
But that would be rude.
And, of course, no way to treat the last man alive who even cares about the Constitution.
See also, Byron York’s NRO roundup.
I had no idea that you so disliked Ron Paul aside from his opinions on foreign policy. Foreign Policy aside I find him to re rather ideal. While I know you were being sarcastic there in your post, but I think in a lot of ways it’s true. Paul is among the few in congress who think first when they receive a new piece of legislation “Is this accord with the constitutional limits on the power of the federal government.” I find that be be very refreshing and I respect him for it, I would have thought you would too. His vote against the Partiot act for instance was based largely on the fact that there was simply no time to read it between the time he received it and when the vote took place. It takes guts to vote no for that reason.
I hold the small government ideas of Paul in high regard. But I find him to be offputting and possessive of a messianic personality. His followers, frankly, frighten me.
And his foreign-policy ideas — at least as they were described by Scoblete in the linked piece — are entirely ego driven, it seems to me.
I think in many ways Paul is a bit of a poser — not much different in kind from limousine liberals who preach energy conservation from private jets, or try to fight poverty by charging $50k for a speaking engagement on why we need to fight poverty.
Just my opinion.
For what it’s worth, I was a big Phil Gramm supporter back in the day.
Similarly, McCain is the most adamant defender of the Iraq campaign (which I, too, support); but I can’t vote for someone who agitated (and succeeded) in undermining free speech. He strikes me as a statist in waiting.
[…] 2: Quote of the day: The cynic in me would quip that Paul has been so successful in selling his “small […]
“Rather ideal?” This is Ron “Let’s Return to the Gold Standard” Paul, isn’t it?
. Paul is among the few in congress who think first when they receive a new piece of legislation “Is this accord with the constitutional limits on the power of the federal government.â€Â
Paul is a phoney, pure and simple. Take earmarks for example. Paul has absoulutely no trouble at all submitting ridiculous local requests for money from the government teat, he gets them into the spending bill, and he then votes against the bill, know it will pass anyway, thereby preserving his conservative credentials.
If he were a true constitutionalist, he would tell his constituents that funding shrimp marketing is not in the Constitution.
Does anyone know if Ron Paul is a Bircher?
Is it just me, or are M.D.s just getting kind of weird, as a class?
Hmmmm…
I’ve read that he counts the Birchers among his followers. He’s certainly a graduate of the Dennis Kucinich School of Lunacy Enabling, especially with the Truthers. I’d rather a real lunatic than one that panders and enables merely to win votes.
Well, happyfeet, MD’s have long had a bad Messiah complex, worse in many cases than politicos. Just another reason I don’t support Hillary!care, or whatever the fuck she’s calling it this time around.
Does anyone know if Ron Paul is a Bircher?
Use your own judgement:
Asked about the John Birch Society Society by the author, Paul responds, “Is that BAD? I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. They’re generally well-educated and they understand the Constitution. I don’t know how many positions they would have that I don’t agree with.â€Â
RR – Dan’s this morning has a link to a John Stossel piece that’s a good healthcare read…
here
I think Ron Paul is correct in his assesment of America’s abysmal foreign policy in the last half-century. We armed and trained Osama Bin Laden, we supported Hussein. That shady business down in Panama. I’ve heard him say some Truth to Power comments but, honestly, I’ve heard stupid shit come out of all the Republican’s mouths.
I was exactly like Jeff is now a month ago; viewing Ron Paul supporters as migrant Libertarian whackos. And I still think that he has the personality of a wet mop. But when it comes down to it, Ron Paul’s message is almost entirely in line with my views, and I’m going to support the guy.
All the other Rep candidates…and I mean every single one of them…are not even close to being true conservatives. They have certainly departed from the role of defending my rights as an individual and the more I see the rhetoric coming out of Rep candidates mouths the more I think of Benjamin Franklins piece of wisdom: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
I heart Huckabees!
All the other Rep candidates…and I mean every single one of them…are not even close to being true conservatives.
Hey, how do I get a “true conservative” enforcement badge?
‘Cause I want to be able to label who is and isn’t a “real” conservative too…
Sideshow Ron pisses me off (for reasons very like Jeff’s and TomB’s), but the Birch connection, such as it is, is nothing.
The average Bircher’s political opinions, crazy as Birchers individually tend to be, are far less insane and dangerous and likely to be forced on us than the average Democrat’s — and the guy who’s a lock for the Republican nomination not only has “a lot of friends” among those psychos, he advocates somewhere around 90% of their ideas.
That’s fucked up.
I think of Benjamin Franklins piece of wisdom:
Isn’t there a Godwin’s Corollary for when that Franklin quote is used?
How about Thomas Jefferson:
“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
hmmmm?
“Hey, how do I get a “true conservative†enforcement badge?
‘Cause I want to be able to label who is and isn’t a “real†conservative too…”
I apologize. What I meant to say is that they are no longer representing the ideals that the Republican party has historically represented; indivual rights and limited government.
There’s a big empty space I feels it and Dr. Paul fills it up all betters. If only If only peas peas peas our only hope, he is.
“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.â€Â
hmmmm?”
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
I don’t intend to get into a Jefferson quoting war. In the context of your inclusion of that quote I assume you are interpreting Jefferson’s definition of tyranny to apply to the Russians when they invaded Pakistan or Iran’s overthrow which led to Hussein’s invasion….or perhaps you are generally speaking of islamofascism. At any rate, I’m not arguing the merits of waging hostility at these things, only the cost and the sacrifice of our liberty.
I think Huckabee is born-again thin. Never discount the manic energy of a convert.
So. What liberties have you lost under the current administration that weren’t already trampled by, say, the Carter administration?
No regular reader could accuse me of not being a supporter of individual rights. Hell, that’s why so many people called me a libertarian, until foreign policy began separating out the current libertarians from the 2001 libertarians.
But Paul’s non-interventionism is not the way to fight the current war. Which shows me that he is either unable to adapt, or else is looking to fill a niche.
. In the context of your inclusion of that quote I assume you are interpreting Jefferson’s definition of tyranny to apply to the Russians when they invaded Pakistan or Iran’s overthrow which led to Hussein’s invasion….or perhaps you are generally speaking of islamofascism.
No, I meant to point out how silly it is to use a single quote from a founding father to somehow legitimize a candidate. As I demonstrated, it took me 30 seconds to find a quote to make Paul’s isolationism look contrary to the Founding Father’s.
At any rate, I’m not arguing the merits of waging hostility at these things, only the cost and the sacrifice of our liberty.
I see it was asked already, but I’ll ask again; what liberties have we lost since 9-11?
They sure as hell tried to ban ephedra. Fascists.
That straw poll was like the National League. It didn’t have any real players in it
When exactly did Russia invade Pakistan?
What I meant to say is that they are no longer representing the ideals that the Republican party has historically represented; indivual rights and limited government.
I missed this earlier.
That’s nice to say, but at least at the national level, the republicans have never had much succcess at “limiting government”. Do you have anybody in particular in mind that accomplished that goal. And as far as individual rights go, there were at least some who fought McCain-Feingold, and there are many 2nd Amendment champions in Congress. Enough so that gun control is a completely dead issue.
Paul talks a great game, but what has he actually done?
When exactly did Russia invade Pakistan?
Forget it, he’s rolling.
I’m not speaking about this current administration, other than their failure to do anything to restore the constitution. I was absolutely thrilled in ’94 when the Republicans took the House and Senate. 60 years of liberalism was put to an end. And what did they do with it? They turned into frickin liberals.
Income tax was originally, and IMO, still should be, unconstitutional. The government has used the commerce clause to wield unlimited regulatory power over anything it deems fitting. Combined with excessive corporate taxes we are now in a country where it’s extremely difficult to start a business. As an aside, I’ve been up here in Alberta Canada for the last 3 years and am now about to transfer back to Los Angeles. I was horrified to discover that I will be paying MORE taxes in Los Angeles than I do in Canada. 5 grand more a year and I’m making under 80K.
I won’t be able to afford a house, and if I want to improve that scenario and venture towards starting my own business it’s going to cost me damn near 10 grand and endless bureaucratic hurdles.
I would like to think that there was someone there in Washington that not only recognized how hindered I am, and therefore many many other hard working and entrepreneurial people, but also that it’s not the governemnt’s right to essentially rob me of my livilihood.
So, to be honest, I’m not a big fan of The Patriot Act or Homeland Security or any of the other things Bush has done to expand the scope and power of the federal government, and I see his attempts not unlike the attempts of FDR; it’s just a different breed of government expansion. And the fact that it’s a Republican, supported by all the other Republicans….I just feel……..”disenfranchised”.
I meant Afghanistan. Sorry.
“That’s nice to say, but at least at the national level, the republicans have never had much succcess at “limiting governmentâ€Â.”
I see…..how quaint that this whacko Ron Paul supporter still believes in limited government. Now go back to your NAMBLA meetings and leave the country to grown-ups. Is that it? Have you ever believed in limited government?
I do. But I don’t trust Paul, to be honest with you — at least not now, with a war going on.
We armed and trained Osama Bin Laden, we supported Hussein
When you attempt to start a debate with such mendacity, why should anyone take anything further you have to say seriously?
I’m so friggin tired of having to counter the same “Truthiness” narratives …
If you won’t at least start with facts, why should I even consider your opinions!!!
meshugga schmuck
I’m not speaking about this current administration
Great, what the hell are you speaking about?
Your long rant is just typical greviances that we all have, and does nothing to answer the questions put to you.
I would like to think that there was someone there in Washington that not only recognized how hindered I am,
So Paul recognizes how “hindered” you are, but what has he actually done in all his years in Congress, beside deliver pork to his constituents? He’s a legislator. Does he legislate? Or does he just vote “no” to every bill to bolster his “maverick” credentials.
So, to be honest, I’m not a big fan of The Patriot Act or Homeland Security or any of the other things Bush has done to expand the scope and power of the federal government,
Why, how has that “hindered” you?
I see…..how quaint that this whacko Ron Paul supporter still believes in limited government.
Yes, we know that. Every time someone posts about Paul we are told that. But what has he done to subtantly limit government? And as president, how is he going to get anyting accomplished?
Now go back to your NAMBLA meetings and leave the country to grown-ups. Is that it? Have you ever believed in limited government?
Yes, but I’m, ahem, mature enough it takes more than “believing” in something to make it so. And I also believe that at this point in time national security is more important than limiting government.
We armed and trained Osama Bin Laden, we supported Hussein
Thanks for pointing that idiocy out Darleen, I missed it. And it does need to be addressed any time someone tries to bring it up.
Perhaps someone could explain to me how the federal government is responsible for California’s real estate market. Darleen?
Ron Paul is nice just where he is. Disneyland is fun, but I think everyone is glad it has boundaries.
Maggie – the feds own like a kajillion percent of the state. It’s not natural. Other than that, the state government does fine screwing things up all by themselves.
Perhaps someone could explain to me how the federal government is responsible for California’s real estate market.
Isn’t it obvious?
He cares.
Perhaps someone could explain to me how the federal government is responsible for California’s real estate market.
Isn’t it obvious?
He cares.
Sorry, I was answering the question of how Paul would fix the California Real Estate Market…
I have to cop to this as well; I used to weigh 130 pounds more than I do now, recently lost 40 pounds in four months, and still have some 40 or 50 to go before I’ll be satisfied with the project. All I did was decide I didn’t want to have to inject myself with insulin, so I paid very close attention to the nutritional advice I was offered. To me it feels like it should be this “easy” for everybody. Obviously it isn’t (and you see a lot of reminders of that in the South), but it doesn’t stop me forgetting, briefly, what it was like to once upon a time be casting an enormous shadow on the wrong side of 400 pounds.
<shudder>
(TW: President unopposed — in Venezuela maybe.)
Ron Paul is super-thin. Svelte even.
Ron Paul is a Rorshach blot. The nuts see what they want in him, as evidenced by how many Truthers are Ron Paul fanatics.
As Jeff said, his followers are scary.
His followers are like those people that go to that bar at the edge of town that the police are always busting for drugs and the ambulance is always showing up but it never gets shut down. Cause it’s a good thing that those people have a place to go that’s not where the other people are. No offense, frogster guy.
“When you attempt to start a debate with such mendacity, why should anyone take anything further you have to say seriously?”
Well did we or did we not arm and train Osama bin Laden to help combat the Soviets?
Countdown to Rumsfeld/Hussein handshake reference commencing…..
(Or not – I just really dug the TW: Salt Prosecuted)
maggie, happyfeet captured it quite succinctly.
re: how our state gov screws it up… Our state
AttorneyInquistor General, Jerry Brown, is lovingly revisiting his 8 year tenure of “if you don’t build it they won’t come” and is using taxpayer money to sue [conservative] counties for not adhering to the Church of AGW mandates (and they have to use taxpayer money to defend themselves).#45 froggy
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Let me know when you have the basic grasp of them.
The United States neither trained, nor armed, Osama bin Laden. Anyone who continues to peddle that nonsense deserves the ridicule that Paul supporters get. Legitimate criticisms of foreign policy are always entertaining and informative. Criticisms that come straight of the Liberal playbook of telling lies often enough that people believe them is just weak.
Well did we or did we not arm and train Osama bin Laden to help combat the Soviets?
Not quite.
However, assuming that it were true, was it wrong to support the mujhadeen against the Soviets? What would President Paul have done?
Also, going back a bit more, would President Paul have supported the Shah of Iran against the Theocrats?
froggy
While I still believe you should do your own research…you know, like pulling out some books that should the earth really ISN’T flat and you will NOT sail over the edge… here
Can we now officially declare the “we created Osama” canard dead now???
omment by hisfrogness on 8/12 @ 3:25 pm #
Well did we or did we not arm and train Osama bin Laden to help combat the Soviets?
We supplied arms and training to any Afghan group that was fighting the Soviets. This included the mujahadeen. Of which Osama Benladen was a member. Sophistry will only get you so far.
NPR has been going out of their way to pimp Ron Paul. They want to do their dead best to make sure he stays up there on those debate platforms.
Here’s my favorite bit so far:
NPR’s “mixed messages”… On the one hand, everyone LOVES Ron Paul, on the other hand, everyone LOVES Ron Paul to pieces, they do.
Jekyl is Hyde.
It’s an enigma.
On air, the NPR guy was like super-proud of the title of that piece I linked by the way.
Effin boomers.
Preemptive debunking here, before hisfrogness dredges up another cherished leftist myth: the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI, created the Taliban (who, taking a page out of Mao’s playbook, did nothing during the Soviet occupation, except recruit followers in the refugee camps).
Our man in Afghanistan was Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, a man dangerous enough that Al-Qaeda assassinated him just days before 9/11.
$&%*!
You guys are right. I’m totally wrong. We never directly aided Osama Bin Laden. I was trying to include some factual examples of how short-term diplomacy can come back to haunt you and apparently that one was completely wrong. My motivations for commenting on that was to legitimize Ron Paul’s isolationist beliefs. There is a balance that has to be found between pursuing national interests, maintaining good diplomatic relations and sticking to your principles. I am wrong on this count and I apologize for wasting anyone’s time who read it.
My reference to the California Housing market was only a suggestion that if over half my income wasn’t taxed that I would not only enjoy a higher standard of living but that the added freedom to individuals and corporations would lead to a better economy.
I still maintain however that Republicans have abandoned the principles of limited government. The fact that Ron Paul is the only one who’s talking about constitutional issues is frightening. I guess you guys see it differently.
Froggy, you’ll enjoy the weather in Cali better at least, or the lack of weather, however you want to look at it. Bush done good on the Supreme Court, and I’m pretty sure even Giuliani has affirmed that he’d take pretty much the same route for nominations. If you tell me you want a link I’ll go fetch. No concerns about Romney or Thompson in that respect, and really, it’s them Supreme Court guys who do all the real important talking about the Constitutional issues, no?
If Paul and I ever had a discussion concerning foreign policy we’d probably wind up in a fist fight. Based on his isolationist pacifism alone I won’t vote for him, but I did vote for him in 1988 for president. Make fun of him all you want, but the fact that he understands the war on drugs to be the stupendous policy failure that it is puts him head and shoulders above the entire field in a very non-trivial way.
yours/
peter.
Just curious… What is limited government? Maybe a short definition would be great. I’ve lived in California for 20 years. I don’t like to talk about numbers, so I pick a date a few years back… I remember in 2001 I paid over 20k in taxes (all together), but other that the pain in the ass of having to do all the paperwork, is not something I even think about too much. Yes, in general terms I want my tax monies to be used judiciously, and I do care about government waste (like the war now for example), but if its use for schools, roads, police, protect the environment, responsible defense spending, etc., it’s Ok with me.
“Make fun of him all you want, but the fact that he understands the war on drugs to be the stupendous policy failure that it is puts him head and shoulders above the entire field in a very non-trivial way.”
Peter: Yes, that’s my type small government approach: not to spend money on a bizarre “war on drugs”, especially if it focuses on low level drug users.
I still maintain however that Republicans have abandoned the principles of limited government.
And Ron Paul is, at least nominally, a Republican.
When you paint with such a broad brush, you tend to get covered yourself.
Yes, the Congressional Republicans as a whole have a lackluster legislative record. Yet they did manage to cut taxes, support Bush’s SC nominees (even going so far as to reject one the perceived as another David Souter), and support Bush’s war on terror both here and abroad. The Patriot Act and Homeland Security that you so blithely toss aside, I’d like to remind you, has prevented ANY terrorist attack on the US or its interests outside a war zone since 9-11.
Have they spent money like a drunken armadillo? Yep. And they were punished for that. Hopefully, when they get back into power in ’08 after Kos and friend reMcGovernize the Dems, they will have a new outlook.
But one of the main problems I have with Paul is that he hasn’t done ANYTHING! But he talks a great game.
he understands the war on drugs to be the stupendous policy failure
Spoken like a bumpersticker by someone who doesn’t work in the trenches
Decriminalization of drugs would make my job a hell of a lot easier…but it cannot happen unless you concurrently get rid of the welfare state.
Joey wants to drink/snort/mainline his life away? Sure, but not while having a roof over his head, 3 squares and all medical care provided to him by his taxpaying neighbors.
A functional limited government is one that PROVIDES for the common defense (ie police/military/lawcourts) and only promotes the general welfare (legislates minimally and has policies for proven societal good … traffic laws, zoning, food inspection, etc).
The Feds have no/should have no business in education/art/science.
Oh I see, and the drug war is preventing that from happening, right? C’mon Darleen. Compare how much it costs to keep someone on welfare for a year vs. incarcerating them for a year. And it’s not like getting drugs in our prisons is that much more difficult than getting them on the streets. But that’s why we still have a drug war, because too many people who should know better keep pretending that on some level, some how, somewhere, the drug war works.
It does not, and you know it.
yours/
peter.
Compare how much it costs to keep someone on welfare for a year vs. incarcerating them for a year.
That would be interesting to see.
But then again it would continue hijacking the thread.
Yes, Ron Paul opposes the war on drugs. Many on this board do too. But I don’t hear him talking a lot about it, so perhaps this isn’t the best place to beat that particular horse to death.
But hey, I could be wrong.
You guys are right. I’m totally wrong. We never directly aided Osama Bin Laden. I was trying to include some factual examples of how short-term diplomacy can come back to haunt you and apparently that one was completely wrong. My motivations for commenting on that was to legitimize Ron Paul’s isolationist beliefs. There is a balance that has to be found between pursuing national interests, maintaining good diplomatic relations and sticking to your principles. I am wrong on this count and I apologize for wasting anyone’s time who read it.
Isolationist= As in pre WW2 isolationist? With todays global markets, it’s impossible to be isolationist. look at n. Korea for isolationism and see where they are. Somebody has to police the schoolyard. If for no other reason than to let the bullies know we’re watching.
Luis. This may come as a shock, but it isn’t about you.
peter
mere addicts don’t go to jail. At least in Cali they don’t. (we have 3 drug rehab programs for people brought in on ‘under the influence’ in public or ‘personal possession’ charges: PC1000 Diversion, PC1201.1 Prop 36, and Drug Court)
and giving them welfare to do drugs is called “enabling”.
Addiction is a combination of brain chemistry and personality, and unfortunately a lot of addicts leave real victims in their wake (abused spouses, abused children)
It’s just facile to declare the “war on drugs” a failure, demand legalization then forget about it.
——————
Luis. This may come as a shock, but it isn’t about you.
——————
RUSTY: I’m not sure what’s this referring to, but I’m reading every post and I find it very interesting. Some posts are short, but I see some people like to elaborate on things, so my question about “small government” is genuine. Also, I like the discussion about taxes. Some people get really pissed off about paying them, and others not so much, so that’s an interesting discussion as well.
Happyfeet, I believe I will enjoy Cali a hell of a lot more. And if you’ve noticed how frustrated I am with the US, you can imagine what it’s been like in Canada. NOTE: I pay 45 bucks a month for my free healthcare and I have to go to a clinic because all the family doctors’ quotas are full!!!!!
And I am extremely happy with the SC. I hope we get one more appointment and we make him/her a constructionist!
Luis, My political leanings are more of a direct extension of my belief in right and wrong than a comprehensive analysis of what benefits or what works best for a society. I’m a fan of Ayn Rand’s capitalism. I don’t know if that’s even achievable anymore but I believe, for the sake of what’s just and right for man on earth, that we pursue that direction.
“The Patriot Act and Homeland Security that you so blithely toss aside, I’d like to remind you, has prevented ANY terrorist attack on the US or its interests outside a war zone since 9-11.”
TomB, Yes, I largely speak in generalities. I have the type of mind that knows 15% of absolutely everything!
I’m criticizing those because they are substitutes for real solutions that are just too overwhelming to the bureaucracy. It’s my opinion that the solution to mis-managed intelligence isn’t too create another agency but rather to restructure the already existing ones to meet the needs of the modern day. That is not what the DHS did. It’s created an even larger bureaucratic mess.
And as for the Patriot Act, I wouldn’t be so opposed to it except that it has vague definitions of what terrorism is. I had read in the paper not a month afer it was signed into law that the FBI or DEA was using it to go after drug traffickers. I am concerned about who, in the future, will be considered a terrorist.
Aside from my support of Ron Paul and my truthy slip-up I’m really surprised you guys are grilling me about limited government.
Just got here. This:
“Comment by hisfrogness on 8/12 @ 12:35 pm #
We armed and trained Osama Bin Laden, ”
Sorry, that is an out and out lie.
If anybody speak frog, could they translate that last post of his for me please?
I did get this much though:
Aside from my support of Ron Paul and my truthy slip-up I’m really surprised you guys are grilling me about limited government.
We’re grilling you because you really haven’t told us what limited government actually is regarding your candidate, and what he would do to “limit” it.
Darleen, the war on drugs IS a failure. There is not one person who wants to do drugs who can’t get them. It isn’t even hard. Further, there are drugs with zero addiction potential that can land you a 20 year stretch (in NY, I don’t know Cal.) There is also no way that incarceration is cheaper than welfare, nor is it a given that everyone, or even a significant percentage, of people who want to get high would end up homeless. My suspicion is that you are immersed in a aberrant population. Is everybody who drinks a drunk? No. Are some of them? Yes. Are all of those homeless, hopeless losers? No. Hopeless loserhood is not found in a bottle or a pill or a plant and the restriction and threat of incarceration is an over the line over-reaction to what is essentially an utterly unsolvable problem, i.e. inherent loserdom. Eliminate welfare? Hell no, you’d need an enforced eugenics program to eliminate loserhood and that might not work either. Some people are always going to be losers. Why fuck the rest of us?
————-
“Luis, My political leanings are more of a direct extension of my belief in right and wrong than a comprehensive analysis of what benefits or what works best for a society. I’m a fan of Ayn Rand’s capitalism. I don’t know if that’s even achievable anymore but I believe, for the sake of what’s just and right for man on earth, that we pursue that direction.” – hisfrogness
————-
HISFROGNESS: I’ve read Atlas Shrugged, and I also remember listening to it on a book on tape on a trip I took with my wife from the Bay Area to Yosemite. It was very inspirational. You feel the outrage of how people with small minds want to get on the way of great achievement by people that actually DO something, and PRODUCE something, and build, and use their own ingenuity and talent. But where I have a little bit of a problem understanding is how do you apply that concept in a pure way to a hugely complex system, which is a society. You always are going to have compromises; things can be absolute one way or the other. Anyway, I’ll write a little something (no too long) about one issue: Regulation. Just to get your take on it.
I hope this is no too long, but I just wanted to get Frog’s (or others) comments on this. From one extreme (no government regulation), to the other too much (or what some would call socialism).
———————————-
Regarding Government Regulation: Some of government’s core functions are: National security; Monetary policy; Business regulation; Law and order.
One of those functions, business regulations, arose out of the need to protect consumers from fraud and abuse by unscrupulous businesses. Good government policy should produce a good balance between too much regulation (chocking off innovation and entrepreneurship), an too little regulation, causing untold abuses, thievery, fraud, and many other harms against consumers.
But overall, it could be said that the main purpose of regulation is to protect the consumer. If the level of regulation falls below a certain threshold, abuse and harm against the consumer will rise accordingly. It the level is too high, economic activity and innovation is chocked off, harming the society overall.
There is a constant tug of war between those who advocate more regulation, and those who advocate less regulation. As long as both sides have equal influence, you can maintain a certain level of regulatory equilibrium.
If the government falls in the pocket of businesses (political contributions, etc.), they will have a tendency to have more influence than the regular citizen. Then the regulatory equilibrium ceases, and as the advantage goes to business, the level of abuses against the consumer raises sharply.
———————————-
Regulatory equilibrium???!? Where to start? Have you even read the little Friedman one?
This is just depressing.
Further, there are drugs with zero addiction potential that can land you a 20 year stretch
Just out of curiousity…which ones?
Look, I admit that I’m looking at this problem from my own experience vis a vis almost 10 years in a District Attorney office. But what I see day to day has told me that most civilians really have NO CLUE what is going on in their own neighborhoods.
I mean that. I can STILL be shocked at the stuff I see coming across my desk on a day to day basis…banal, ordinary but still shocking in the degree of volume.
If someone is drinking/doing drugs in the privacy of their home, they are NEVER going to come to the attention of the law. What gets addicts in trouble is all the other stuff done in public (or that involves victimizing innocents)
do we ignore the drug connection between abusive parents and their children/vics?
so do we put them in a court supervised rehab program, or offer to have their case dismissed if they complete rehab … minimally trying to get to that percentage of addicts that WILL become sober… or just pat them on the head, hand ’em a syringe and a check for living expenses, and send ’em on their way?
See, I’m a hard-headed realist, so spare me the “people should be FREE to choose”… which loosely translated these days is “people should be FREE to choose to do really stooopid crap and others should be forced to rescue them”. The “war on drugs” may be a disaster in some respects, but taking by force the resources of responsible people to maintain irresponsible people is an even greater disaster and on many more levels.
—————-
#
Comment by happyfeet on 8/12 @ 6:51 pm #
Regulatory equilibrium???!? Where to start? Have you even read the little Friedman one?
This is just depressing.
————————-
I’m not kidding, that’s what I’m trying to get to understand. So there is an economic philosophy that advocates no regulation at all? And if that’s the case, I assume you see that as workable.
Luis
If the government falls in the pocket of businesses (political contributions, etc.)
The more realistic read on this is that much of the business community is scared shitless of politicos with the power to put them OUT of business…so they tend to give to every candidate with a little more to the ones that tend to be inclined to actually not demonize capitalism.
TW: provoke murderers ….. ummm, JeffG? your Captcha is just creeping me out here.
Luis, all due respect, the interests of corporations aren’t the only ones represented in the “political” processes resulting in legislation and regulation. Public-sector employees’ unions (e.g. AFSCME) are major contributors to one of our political parties. Politicians themselves have an interest in expanding the scope of activities within their control, because the more they can affect economic and other outcomes, the greater the value of their decisions and the correspondingly greater flow of resources that will be dedicated to influencing those decisions. Politics in money results in money in politics (not the only cause, of course, but one too big to be ignored).
Free minds, free markets, a muscular military and national security apparatus, policies that promote individual freedom and equality of opportunity that are blind to color, sex, ethnicity, religion (provided the religion doesn’t run afoul of the rule of law), and a thorough bitchslapping of nannystatists — regardless of their party affiliation.
Classical liberalism allows for some government regulation, but it generally frowns on any kind of overuse or overreach.
Classical liberals and libertarians both advocate for small government, I think — though classical liberals tend to be more pragmatic with respect to governmental intervention.
“If anybody speak frog, could they translate that last post of his for me please?”
You’re a real sweetheart aren’t you Tom? I’m sorry, what part of it did you not understand? I thought I responded very clearly to your comments. To recap, the DHS was a failed attempt at fixing the problems in our intelligence community and the Patriot Act is so vague that it can be used creatively to combat things that have nothing to do with terror.
“We’re grilling you because you really haven’t told us what limited government actually is regarding your candidate, and what he would do to “limit†it.”
Tom, now you’re just being combative. You know what Ron Paul’s agenda is. You must or you wouldn’t take such offense to people who support it. Ron Paul would try and set into motion an agenda that would transition the government, over time, towards deregulation (which would include abolishing many regulatory agencies like the FCC, EPA, FDA, etc) , sound economic policies which include eliminating entitlements, oversees spending and income tax, returning to a free market and a gold standard (or some other standardized commodity). Of course this would happen over many many years to ensure people were prepared and ready to deal with it.
Let me also say as an economist I appreciate your looking for an equilibrium in all this, but the current balance of forces is one that results in a growing share of the economy controlled by the State. Equilibria can certainly be suboptimal; keep in mind especially that the size and type of government are controlled by nonmarket institutions — I recommend anything from the Social Choice or Public Choice literatures on that point. Sandy Ikeda has a pretty good book on the inherent instability of interventionist economics, don’t recall the title offhand.
TW: tribune uber. Slowly backing away from the computer now.
You mean government regulation? Yes, it’s been posited, with exceptions made for trustbusting and some tragedy of the commonsy stuff, but yes, less regulated economies are more productive than regulated ones. I promise. You can write that down and tuck it in your Trapper Keeper.
I get really infuriated at times with the ignorant crap that gets posted about the PATRIOT Act. An example from the amphibian above:
The PATRIOT Act had some provisions in it that were keyed to actual terrorism but it had provisions that tightened things like money laundering with no restriction to terrorism per se.
The next most often used term in complete and utter ignorance? “Unitary executive”.
Um, my #82 was pointed at #76. Did I lose time there?
Oh, and froggie, the Dept of Homeland Security was not an attempt to fix anything about our intelligence services. It was to put several agencies like Border Patrol together under one head to theoretically do a better job of planning and coordination of efforts to defend the nation from infiltration and respond to emergencies such as but not limited to terrorism.
Is there anything you can speak accurately about? Anything?
Burge/Goldstein ’08!
Goldstein/’Dillo ’16?
This is our friend froggy. He already said he had the 15% thing going on. I don’t really have any trouble with the spirit of his argument, just not real big on the part where we abandon the goal of a Middle East policy predicated on representative government. Cause that’s kind of a big idea that you don’t come across every day. Like TiVo and those kooky lightbulbs that are all spirally.
Luis,
I believe that many of the regulatotions government has put in place are really the roots of the nanny-state. Take unions for instance. I believe that now they are an antiquated concept that does more harm to employees and businesses than good. They originated before the government made labor laws. If America actually deregulated industry you would see the return of union-like entities that would act as consumer advocates, environmental protectors and employee representatives.
It’s hard to imagine how society might get a long without government oversight. There would be challenges for sure but I believe it would be better for all parties involved. The commerce clause was never intended to authorize the regulation of the economy or industries. It’s hard to say how consumers would manage to protect themselves aside from relying on the courts. That’s only because the world looks so dramatically different than it did before regulations. There would definitely have to be a transition. But with all this technology and information sharing I think it wouldn’t be nearly the challenge that it was in the 19th century.
“Free minds, free markets, a muscular military and national security apparatus, policies that promote individual freedom and equality of opportunity that are blind to color, sex, ethnicity, religion (provided the religion doesn’t run afoul of the rule of law), and a thorough bitchslapping of nannystatists  regardless of their party affiliation.”
You just described every college freshman i’ve ever encountered. So that’s your constituency.
Forget it, frogness. You have committed the ultimate sin of irritating the PW thought police. Punishment? You get to be lectured by Darleen from “the trenches” of the DA’s office.
What exactly do you do there, Darleen? I bet it is very, very important.
good lord, cynn
what college are you haunting? please, I’d love to send my daughters there if that’s what the freshmen, en masse, are subscribing to …
funny thing is, at places like SFSU (where #4 begins her 3rd year), outside of “individual ‘free’ to do what they want’ most don’t give a wits moment to the rest of the list.
heet
I’ve never hidden what I do… I am NOT an attorney, I’m an clerk and there’s not much I haven’t done short of arguing cases infront of a jury
several of my attorneys urge me to go get my bar card
I’m not sure I want to shackle myself that way
Jeez Heet, don’t you have plenty of purging to do back at your own HQ?
heet, grow up.
DrSteve, I’m glad I’m talking to an economist. It was my favorite subject in college, along with philosophy. I started on Master’s in Economics two times, but had to give it up because I run a small consulting biz and could never find the time to study. Anyway, I’m not claiming that corporations are the only ones that influence politicians. Yes, there are unions, civil rights organizations, and a million others actors in the economy who are represented by lobbyists. One thing I do remember from my economic classes was the concept of market equilibrium, which basically says that prices are the result of supply and demand (available goods vs. demand for those goods). The word “equilibrium” in fact seems to permeate everything having to do with economics. So when there are imbalances, then usually that causes problems. So my contention is that in society there are many actors, and each has interests, and they compete in order to further their interests. If you can reach some sort of equilibrium where no actor has more (undue) influence than the other, then there is a better chance to achieve some sort of equilibrium.
Hi Robin. Welcome the internet. The coffee and donuts’re over there in the corner.
If you can reach some sort of equilibrium where no actor has more (undue) influence than the other, then there is a better chance to achieve some sort of equilibrium.
This worked well for The West Wing, but not so great for Firefly. I think it’s just a hit-and-miss thing essentially.
Cynn —
Looks like I’m describing some other folks, as well:
I suppose it makes you feel very adulty to assume that your political philosophy is so much more nuanced than that listed above, but I’m betting it’s not — though I have no doubt that you feel strongly that it is.
And your response, inasmuch as it was nothing more than a piss poor attempt to trivialize what are the standard beliefs of core liberalism, marks you as less of “liberal” than I a bet you always thought you were.
So tell me, cynn — what’s it feel like being less “liberal” than the conservathuglicans that you so clearly find beneath contempt?
Oh, and heet? Frogness can handle himself. Why do you feel the need to hop in and tell him how he should feel? I mean, is this really what you do? — wait around looking for people to commiserate with you, even if it means hanging around in the comments of a site that you hold in no regard?
Because that’s, like, sad, brother.
I bet you liked The West Wing, huh?
I think I lost time again. Nothing feels probed.
Heet, emote with the scary brown man, why don’t you. And don’t forget to let us know how that works out.
Oh, and froggie, the Dept of Homeland Security was not an attempt to fix anything about our intelligence services. It was to put several agencies like Border Patrol together under one head to theoretically do a better job of planning and coordination of efforts to defend the nation from infiltration and respond to emergencies such as but not limited to terrorism.
Is there anything you can speak accurately about? Anything?
Robin, while it’s very clever of you to make a semantical difference about what motivated the creation of the DHS and use that to ridicule me, you are completely wrong.
From Wikipedia:
“It was intended to consolidate U.S. executive branch organizations related to “homeland security” into a single Cabinet agency. Tom Ridge was named secretary on January 24, 2003 and began naming his chief deputies……….
It was the largest government reorganization in 50 years (since the United States Department of Defense was created).”
And with that, I would just like to say that I have kept on with this debate even after making an ass of myself with the Osama mis-information because I was interested in examining the differences between the Goldstein fans (of which I am also one) and my own beliefs about where the Republicans should be headed. You guys have been a haughty, disrespectful, repugnant mob. You’ve not extended one single ounce of understanding towards my views and instead chose to use me as a punching bag. I was open to any truth or facts that you could’ve provided me. As a matter of fact, I was unaware that Ron Paul included spending provisions for all the bills he voted against. If that’s true I will certainly reconsider supporting him.
You guys were so interested in shredding my views as soon as you labeled me a Ron Paul supporter that you completely forewent any effort to understand my concerns and instead just opted to ridicule and disparage me. I deserved some of the ridicule, but not nearly all of it.
I’m reminded of some of the interesting points Mr. Goldstein has made about worldviews and I can’t help but see that they are also alive and well on the conservative side of the spectrum, and this thread is a perfect example of it.
“They originated before the government made labor laws.” – hisfrogness
—————————————
Frog, let me see if I can summarize my “concern” with this subject. There was a time that due to unspeakable abuse of working people, they decided that they needed to “organize.” They were met by batons, billy clubs, and lead. After the cracked heads, black eyes, and plenty of funerals, finally workers were able to organize for collective bargaining. You can say that about every single regulation: drugs and food; environment, etc. So that’s the namby-pamby stuff (but if I’m wrong, let me know). So my contention is that, let’s say you deregulate most of the economy, within a very short time you will see a very fast erosion of workers’ rights, and consumer protection. The 8 hour day will go out the window; over time pay; maternity leave; sexual harassment. Drug companies would release unsafe products that would kill people (by hiding test results). A company that does not like “Jews” or “Blacks” or “Latinos” or the “French”, or whatever, would simple not hire them, etc. I think you can see my point. So I think that people that advocate total deregulation understand this, but believe that it is up to “you” as an individual to protect yourself and compete in the raw and unregulated marketplace where the strong survives and the weak perishes. I’m not being sarcastic here; I am really trying to understand where they are coming from.
Scary brown man made me cry.
Perhaps you shouldn’t be so sensitive froggy. From my reading, what occured here was that you were given facts. What you choose to do with them now is entirely up to you.
It seems as if you have chosen to whine.
Me too.
I deserved some of the ridicule, but not nearly all of it.
65%?
Well, I didn’t treat you shabbily, frogness.
I think one of the dynamics that you have to keep in mind in blog comment sections is that its denizens are hypersensitive to perceived trolls.
This leads to an overreaction at times — largely because they’ve become so used to dealing with people who appear in bad faith (see, for instance, heet, or cynn’s condescending reaction to what it turns out were the cornerstones of classical liberal thought).
I responded very cordially to semm’s concerns, which opened this comment thread. And I linked to a piece that makes it clear why I believe Paul’s foreign policy is simply ego, renamed.
I apologize on behalf of the commenting community here for the way you’ve been treated, because it seems to me like you are interested in discussing these issues in good faith. So please continue, and in turn, please forgive those who were quick to jump down your throat for misreading your end game.
As to individual apologies, I can’t offer them for any of the individual commenters.
Jeff, thanks for that response. I had a sulphuric rejoiner all ready to deploy, but I deleted it. I wish I could get behind the liberal sensibility, but it’s diluted and impotent. Like wide-eyed newbies, we always get smacked down by reality.
heet, I was using the Internet before Al Gore heard of it, and while you were in diapers.
Frogness, Jeff suggests I have overreacted to you. For that, I do apologize. Nonetheless, you are wrong about DHS, and the Wikipedia entry does not relate to reform of intelligence services at all.
I just got reminded of that. It’s from a movie called Plenty. Loved it.
Jeff,
My comments are in bad faith? Not even hardly. I’m quite open about my attitude. I used to comment sincerely until I was realized it is pointless to make good faith arguments here. Your comments section is a rah-rah section with no room for debate. Frogness proved that quite clearly. Think about what kind of person would read his comments and believe he was trolling? He apologized, hat in hand, for making an error.
Capitalism: Just to refresh on the concept, I just read a good summary of it at Wiki, and to me it looks that there are so many philosophies involved, and so many pros cons, that the word “equilibrium” keeps coming back to me. So it goes from an efficient use of resources, labor, capital, to “seemingly unfair and inefficient distribution of wealth and power; a tendency toward market monopoly or oligopoly (and government by oligarchy); imperialism, various forms of economic exploitation”. So extremes seem to cause problems, imbalance. Just my opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
How to tell when you’re bullshitting yourself, but no one else, 101:
I’m sure you are trying to make a point, Pablo. Maybe read up on how tense works in the English language and try again.
Heet: hear, hear. Jeff: you can’t afford to lose honest voices like this.
Yeah, have a fucking look at the present tense, heet. The past, your past here, is not going to help you.
“help me”? With what, bucko? Would you like me more if I apologized for being mean to you? That’s cute.
And here I thought debate involved making a hypothesis and backing it up with facts. Apparently, we need to broadedn the definition to be more inclusive, all you need to do is make snappy one liners.
Are we supposed to just feel your intellect cynn? heet?
Because I’m willing to play along if you think it will help.
Oh, cynn, I’m pretty sure I can afford to lose voices like heet’s. His every comment these days is to remind us how, if only we would have argued with him in good faith, he wouldn’t try to derail every thread by telling us how lockstep we all are.
In a thread that begins with a disagreement and contains other disagreements among the regulars, as well.
Heet’s is not an honest voice. It is a predictable voice uttering the same message over and over again: this place sucks.
Yeah. Hear hear.
I knew a kid once who had an honest voice like that. Today he’s 27 and still taking Ritalin.
Help you with not being so obviously arguing in bad faith..help you with establishing yourself as anything other than a shrieking douchebag.
Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, heet’s gotta be a strawman chucking, ad hominem flinging, reality ignoring asshole. Which, I must say, has exactly no impact on me, my mindthoughts or my soulpatterns, so you can keep your bullshit apologia to yourself and concentrate on the bile production.
As it ever was. Of course, if you’d like to dissuade me and/or the larger readership with some links to your good faith arguments, you may feel free to do so.
Be careful, too much of that debate style will make you go blind.
Or so my mother tells me.
God, Pablo, you are the soul of vitriolic. Will you deploy already?
Cynn, you almost had me feeling snuggly there for a minute. I’m sure heet will keep you warm.
And here’s the deal with me and links. I have practiced them and understand the html code involved. However, I have decided they they are external rhetorical devices; i.e. an appeal to authority, and I don’t find them necessarily credible. So make your best argument on its own terms; I prefer the old-fashioned way.
Maybe you would do better with lonks.
TW: logik,” Grouchy – You know we’re getting close to Monday.
Links are bad, Mmmmkay?
Pablo, why am I responbible for your hingey feelings? Hang off the edge as long as you want; someone will always disappoint you.
Interpreter! Stat!
tw: disheveled how?
Links are internet bling. How they shine!
cynn
I prefer the old-fashioned way.
As I recall, it’s called a MLA and includes a “Works Cited” page and one references it with internal citations in one’s piece of writing.
I believe links within a post or comment serves the same purpose.
No?
I still think you should prevail or not on your own power, and not rely on ephemeral references. Just me, I guess.
Cynn,
Many long dead ancient Greek philosophers would agree with you. They were called Sophists and insisted that reason was superior to experience and that all existence could be understood through individual contemplation. There were various consequences.
You seem to misunderstand “appeal to authority.” (Argumentum ad verecundiam) An appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority cited has no expertise in the area being discussed.
The use of the experince of others is not a weakness of argument. In fact, I doubt very much that all ideas and thoughs you have and have expressed are wholly original to yourself. It is no great imposition to expect that someone show the source from which their knowledge was gained, or at least to cite a source. In this way the reader/listener may judge the reliability of that source for themselves.
This being the internet, it’s very unusual to not find a corroberating source for nearly any given thought, idea, story, or proposition.
In fact, by requiring citations in scholoarly work, the actual fallacy of appeal to authority is to be avoided, unless a very great sham job has been done.
– Ron Paul?…. ok, was there some sudden decision to start a campaign while I was gone, to come up with a Rep Pres. candidate as hopelessly un-electable as the current crop of Dem socialism whores…I miss all the fun….
RTO Trainer, that was a brilliant note to Cynn, even thought I also see where Cynn is coming from… One recurrent theme I see in these pages is the futility of trying to backup an argument with any type of corroboration using any outside source, since presumably you can find any source to back you your own argument, no matter what your position may be about anything. So one is left to basically express ones’ opinion in the strongest term, even if it’s just the act of shooting one mouth’s off without knowing what the fuck your talking about (the term not intended to anyone in particular.)
Since doing so is relatively easy, here go I, shooting my mouth off as well. What I see is a bunch of very strong guys, real macho bad assess who talk about Paul Revere, and talk about the losers who support the so-called nanny-state, who like to watch videos of bad-ass warriors talking about how they going to kick somebody’s ass to protect the country, who talk about the fucked up system that will dare take their money, as they see that money going to the welfare losers and parasites of societies. Those who see themselves as having a clear understanding of the necessity to eliminate a sick system who would dear to regulate the machinations of the high-and-mighty market system, since they know that if left unmolested, the almighty market will take care of itself, of the true worthwhile individuals, as well as the losers who will get what they deserve.
They get a hard on when they sports their decals and imagery showing bad ass guys holding weapons, pointing menacingly, with camouflage clothing redying their forces for the eventual confrontation with the fascist left-wing nuts who want to, God-forbid, help the poor, or the struggling mother, or for that matter anyone needing help, as if they weren’t such losers, they wouldn’t be in that situation.
They see themselves as the true patriots and use the true patriots’ words like the Homeland, support the patriotic sounding name for legislation, The Patriot Act, wear flag lapels, attach flags on both side of their car windows flying their colors as they drive down Market street, are ready–not, eager–to support the deployment of mighty weapons and get another hard on when they see the mighty jet dropping 500 pounds on the enemy, but never for a second think about what such weapon does when falls nearby innocent people, with a mighty force that rips through concrete and steel, and flesh and bones, and decapitates the head of the guilty as as well as the head of the innocent child.
But alas, it is just a description of classic jingoism (speaking of definitions), of those who would be more prompt to practice such a thing, and would not know that what they claim to be doing: protecting the country; standing up for what is right; defending our way of life, including democracy, and capitalism. Instead, what they do is exactly the opposite, and it wouldn’t even cross their mind about the possibility that they may be actually helping in destroying their own democracy, and propping up an-honest-to-goodness classical TYRANT in the name of country.
Nice cartoon you’ve got in your head there, Luis. You know that’s what it is, right?
Another perfectly good thread, shot to hell.
They get a hard on when they
Pictures. We need PICTURES!
As proof I mean. We need pictures as proof. What’d you think I meant?
We need PROOF!
Wow, Luis. You need to stop taking bong hits and watching Michael Moore movies — you apparently believe that crap’s for-real.
(Pablo, I wonder how much realization there is among the Luis of the world that the image he’s described is not just a cartoon, but a vicious cartoon fed to them by propagandists.)
Got any video?
Luis – Thank you for describing your vision of us. Since you are so utterly and completely wrong in your description of your audience, it is no surprise that your arguments miss the mark by miles as well.
the fascist left-wing nuts who want to, God-forbid, help the poor, or the struggling mother, or for that matter anyone needing help, as if they weren’t such losers, they wouldn’t be in that situation.
Well now we come to the crux of it, don’t we? The problem isn’t that “fascist left-wing nuts” want to help the poor. The problem is that they do not actually help the poor. Rather they want to use the Government to give things to the poor. And then to the middle class. And then to pretty much everyone who would like to have a shiny benefit from the Government.
(Reference the SCHIP proposal wherein families can be considered “rich” with respect to paying the AMT, and “poor” with respect to getting health insurance through the government at the same time.)
If you would like to help the poor… go out there and do it. It is the very best thing you can personally do. Maybe Luis already does, and good on him for it.
Sadly, the Government doesn’t do it very effectively or efficiently.
How much have we given to the poor since LBJ? Dammit, those poor sure are persistent in staying poor, no matter how much damn money we try to shovel their way.
BTW – The Ron Paul supporters scare me more than a little. Anytime one’s ideas are in confluence with the Truthers, you really need to step back and question just what in the hell you are thinking.
Yes, the War on Poverty is indeed a quagmire. “The poor will always be with us.”
As long as poverty is defined as the lowest income 10%, we’ll always have poverty.
I’m reminded of the story of a reporter in an Indian slum talking to gentleman who expressed his fervent desire to emigrate to America. The journo began listing all of the horrible things about America and asked him why he would possibly want to come here, to which the man replied “I want to live in a place where the poor people are fat.”
The problem isn’t that “fascist left-wing nuts†want to help the poor.
For folks like Luis the problem is more fundamental than that. He apparently believes that only those who wear badges looking like his (liberal, leftist, progressive, democrat, etc.) want to help the poor. He cannot seem to grasp the concept that the fundamental difference exists only in the method of solving the problem. Instead, he just makes the blanket claim that those on the right don’t care for the poor.
I think it’s because he’s an pretentious, arrogant, elitist, small minded partisan hack, but then again, maybe he just doesn’t think things through.
Rob,
I wonder how many people like that Luis actually knows. And how many of them are into interactive political discussion.
I’m guessing it’s few to none, and yet we get this imaginary caricature, offered with sincerity as if there were an abundance of truth in it.
Ron Paul: Messiah…
This is not the first time I’ve seen Jeff Goldstein mention a messiah complex with regards to Ron Paul. To a certain extent, most physicians probably have some element of that simply due to the nature of their jobs. Save a life or two, or bring 4…
Luis,
You’re right in tune with those ancient Greeks yourself. The problem was that for them all authority was equal (or could be) and all truth was relative.
The stength of this position is that though I disagree that all authorities are equal and all truth is relative, there is no way to prove those premises to you.
The charicature you present of the “right-wing” is ample evidence.
TW: Ah, the weakened rule of rationality over the minds of men.
Instead, he just makes the blanket claim that those on the right don’t care for the poor.
And yet, oddly, the states whose inhabitants donate disproportionately more to charity (compared to their own income) are all red states. California ranks 29th. I guess in Luis-land “caring” only counts if the money is extorted from you in the form of taxes, not when it’s given of your own free will.
Luis is a simple moonbat, but with good manners.
Patterico posted that the WSJ is reporting that Rove’s resignation is imminent, much more so than Leopold and truthout’s reporting that Rove’s indictment is imminent.
That sounds familiar, but ISTR that it was called something ugly like DARPANET, once upon a time. And it didn’t have Google back then, so it couldn’t have been da innnernets.
– Now that the Dark Lord is on the move again, we all need to shift a portion of our investments back over to Reynolds….
I feel your pain, froggy. I really do. I have been reading up on Ron Paul (last time I use his whole name as the truly nutty ronbots seem to always be saying, “Ron Paul ‘walks on water’, Ron Paul ‘can out eat that Japanese guy, or Ron Paul ‘makes Ronald Reagan look like Jimmy Carter’) Those people (The Lew Rockwell camp) do scare me. However, almost everything that Paul supports, I support, too. But, the BIG deal breaker, for me, possibly is his foreign policy. As I have stated quite a bit on this site, I wasn’t for escalation in Iraq, but not for the reactionary left’s bullshit reasons. I just don’t think that democracy will take. I am not sure if it is culturally compatible with traditional Islamic values. I, also thought that Afghanistan was the appropriate theater.
I, too, didn’t really get excited with the creation of DHS. They had all the same capabilities before that re-organization. And it wasn’t just a re-organization, they bloated that bureacracy during its creation. Make the damn agencies work the way they are supposed to, by eliminating bureacratic barriers and other accompanying governmental bullshit. More beauracracy wasn’t the answer. My problem with Bush, while completely understanding and empathizing with the fact that his was quite possibly the most unique set of issues a president has come into (stock bubble bursting, recession, and most notably 9/11), is that he is not a conservative at all. Yes, socially, but for me at least, this is where I am NOT a conservative. His biggest fuck up, and the first time I second guessed him BIG TIME, was the NCLB bullshit. This guy collaborated with Teddy Kenendy! He increased federal spending on education by more than all the previous presidents combined. As a federalist, I found that to be a punch in the gut. Hardly conservative.
But back to Paul’s foreign policy. It’s so hard for me, as I think that Bush’s goal of democracy building is futile, but I know he understands the threat of islamofascist jihadism. Whereas, I like the idea of only defensive wars, while increasing the defense capacity of the nation by utilizing our intelligence agencies much better (undoing the bad that Clinton levied) and at least trying to undo the bureacratic mess that is our already sound intelligence apparatus. But, I don’t buy into Paul’s continued insistence that they hate us for reasons strictly pertaining to our policy in the middle east. They hate us because we are liberal. They are most decidedly not. Of course, our policies are used as excuses. I don’t think that Paul understands traditional Islam, and the jihadist fucks it spawns very well. And in this climate, I’m not sure that’s a good idea. We need a president that understands the threat.
First of all, I sincerely want to apologize for the sloppy spelling and typos in the post. So far you guys have been gentle. I got the biggest scolding from my wife, as she know the level of intellect demonstrated in this blog.
Second, I’m not accusing everybody here of these things, as I can’t imagine many of you guys flying those big flags on each side of your BMWs, and, for that matter, even your Camrys. I know that there is a diverse bunch here when it comes to political views, even though the tendency is to lean to the hard-right, Bush-is-God camp.
Luis
Unless you want to give some concrete examples what you are engaging in is a nasty moment of pure demagoguery.
You don’t think we hear enough of that from the putative Dem candidates for Pres?
Luis – BMW? Not a chance. Saab, gas-guzzling Expedition, and Mercedes in our garage.
You appear to be a good-faithed misguided moonbat, which is a break from the norm, but a moonbat nonetheless.
Luis
another thought, most of us, even those that voted for GW, have been sorely disappointed by one thing or another that he’s done (expanded Fed investment in ‘education’, attempting illegal alien amnesty, etc)
but one thing that GW does “get” is that Islamism is as dangerous to Western civ in the 21st century as fascism and communism was in the 20th.
Seriously, guys – do we care who wins a straw poll the year before an election year?
I’ll wait for 2008, myself. Until then, all these jerks can piss off, Dems and Repubs both. And ESPECIALLY the independents.
mojo – I share in your contempt for the high-minded “independents”. If you are not able to identify which platform best represents your interests, then why should anybody care which way you are leaning? I have always felt that much like the liberals that called themselves centrists, that independents were liberals in sheeps clothing.
Close, better, but not quite there.
I think you will find that the average commentator here is a conservative, limited government, individual liberties, supportive of an aggresive GWOT, kind of person. Within that general framework are Libertarians, Classical Liberals of the Kennedy ilk, Reagan Conservatives, Social conservatives (including religious, both Catholic and Protestant/Evangelical) and happyfeet who is kind of a reactionary Henny Youngman (heh!) That would align the vast majority of this blog along the opposite wing of politcal strategies from your stated positions. (Not counting our small cadre of progressive commentators like cynn and SEK as well as the usual ranting trolls and occasional Matt Sanchez stalker.)
Within that loose framework is a diversity of lifestyle, cultural preferences and strategies. My problem with your broad brushing above had nothing to do with your spelling (pot, meet kettle) and everything to do with the intellectual bankruptcy of cultural characterization because of political strategy and social doctrines. I refuse to have you slot me into an gel strip from Loony Tunes just to satisfy your need to demonize the “enemy.”
We’re not the enemy. We merely disagree.
Those disagreements, for the most part, reflect strategic divergences. While many liberals complain about the Religious Right and their love of Dogma, many of us feel the same way about liberal’s presentations of social issues. We tend to see much of the same fervent gospel spewed from the left as “revealed truth.” Your description above is reflective of something we have seen before with others who make an attempt at reasonable, spirited debate.
Eventually, the characiture comes out as a way of venting the frustration that they feel at the members of this community still clinging to their “cancerous” views. Indeed, one lefty refered to all Republicans and conservatives as a “cancer.” Nothing reflects this more that your cute little “Bush-is-God” phrase. Spend some time reading comments and you will see a variety of criticism about the President, including comments quastioning his leadership, strategy, postions on immigration and spending, not to mention Harriet Miers and the signing of the McCain-Feingold piece of crap.
One commentator comments frequently about his bad haircut but it’s known that he/she drinks to excess.
You will not achieve a real engagement if you persist in allowing your frustration at our “obstinate refusal” to color your remarks with a Pixar pen.
like above…
——————
#
Comment by JD on 8/13 @ 8:43 am #
Luis – BMW? Not a chance. Saab, gas-guzzling Expedition, and Mercedes in our garage.
You appear to be a good-faithed misguided moonbat, which is a break from the norm, but a moonbat nonetheless.
——————
JD, that is heartwarming! If we can start with the premise that I may be acting in good-faith, there may be hope that one day I will be a moonbat no more; once my views become balanced. We’ll get there, I promise.
BJ – Why do you have to go an be all nice and everything? In the end, despite being well mannered, Luis is going to see us as some comic book depiction of modern Nazis.
Luis – Good faith should not be a quality to be praised, it should be a default position for people with a modicum of intellectual honesty.
Heartwarming? I thought all of us Rethuglikkkans were cold blooded immoral captialists?
JD:
I can’t help it. I’m a political peacemaker by nature which tends to drive many of my conservative friends crazy.
Except for squirrels. I hate fuckin’ squirrels and will kill them without remorse.
Does that make me bad person? Let’s ask Luis!
tw: from flows the peace, man, from my very soul, man!
BJTexs: I read your post very carefully (No. 164 # Comment by BJTexs on 8/13 @ 8:58 am). First, I want to thank you for taking the time to write it. It is obviously written in good faith. As you say, it is obvious I lean left in the political spectrum, and as a self-respecting liberal, we claim we don’t “judge” people, or like to make broad characterizations. My post is real and is meant to for some people. However, I would never say that Republicans and/or Conservatives are “cancer.” In my liberal mind, what concerns me is what appears to be an effort on the conservative right not to only practice their beliefs as they see fit, but to impose many of them on the entire society, such as the issues of school prayer, ten commandments in public places, right-to-choose, etc. But I can understand how people on the right see it exactly the same way; of how the left wants to impose their beliefs on everyone else when it comes to taxes, public education, tolerance of different lifestyles, etc.
Where I claim to be right, and will not budge is in my believe that religion should never mix with government, as I see it as one of the most dangerous things for a democracy. That doesn’t mean I am hostile to religion at all. As I’ve said before, I think that the principles of a secular government, as practice in the U.S., guarantees freedom of religion for all, and that is why the U.S. is one of the most religious countries in the developing world.
Hmm. I agree about the linking thing – I had argued with someone who would ‘in reply’ just post links to a bunch of uber-verbose works that supposedly refuted me, though I would have to search through them to find where. It got annoying really, really quick. This is why a good education is indispensable – you know, spread the suffering over time…
That being said, a good concise source (which wikipedia, when correct, is) is an important part to an argument. I think it is also important to point out WHAT PART of the link that you just dispensed proves your argument or disproves theirs’. It displays a level of decorum that’s polite without being coddling and shows your desire to debate rather than just puff your ego or wage war against the other person. You know, to have a good, clean fight.
Anyway. If Ron Paul actually did anything that he SAID he did, or COULD there might be some substance to it. I recall being asked by some friends what I would do about the immigration problem if I were president or a congressman. In some cases there would be little I could do. For instance, local enforcement is a big part of handling the problem, which is something that as president I would have little effect on. If I were a local police chief I would be in the correct position to make those moves.
That’s my problem with Paul (as well as with most ideologues.) They talk a lot about what they will ‘do’ or what ‘should be done’ but never address what they will actually be ABLE to achieve. Logrolling and porking are important methods for a candidate to get elected – they build support from important donors and demographics. That is, if anything, the biggest problem here. I take Paul with a grain of salt across the board because of it.
And the Bircher/Truther association doesn’t help much either.
Indeed, neither does the nutted out foreign policy.
But, I’m going to agree about ‘democracy’ – democracy is like a container; and whether it holds has as much to do with the container as with the contents you put in it. I’m concerned that – not that Islamic cultural values don’t support democracy – whatever the flying F that is supposed to mean – but rather that they do not have the necessary civic and social virtues to benefit from democratic processes. Democracy is like a vaccination/antidote – a near-death patient may be killed by it, since it is a form of diluted poison or pathogen.
For instance, democracy will never work in Palestine, simply because they do not have the social capital (or so to speak) to build a working democratic system. Yes, their cultural values are effecting this. But most important is that they DON’T HAVE AN ELECTABLE PARTY OR CANDIDATE who will do what is necessary to protect individual rights, reform laws, make rational foreign policy decisions, etc. It doesn’t matter if ‘they’ elected their own, all of their own are as of yet total crap. So in a vote between fascist and theocrat everyone loses whether they vote or not.
But, if that’s what you meant about your questioning democracy ‘sticking’ then I agree. The Kurds have it different; but that is because they seem to understand necessity’s role in shaping law – they may use Islamic principles to decide morality, but law is decided by in large by necessity. Your enemies don’t give a damn what Mohammed said in 700 AD about battle, what matters is what will win the battle. Your principles either allow you to remain human while attaining victory, or they fail on either the first or last part.
Jeez, is this still alive? :-)
Seeing one side or the other as monolithic is an artifact of perception. You’re familiar with the effect in optics — a football field is two-thirds as wide as it is long, and generally has about half that distance between sidelines and stands; but, when the camera focuses on the other side of the field, it looks as if the cheerleaders are scraping the wall and in imminent danger of trampling the players on the bench. In baseball, the camera looks over the batter’s shoulder, and to all appearances the center fielder is a few steps behind the pitcher and the second baseman is engaging in sexual harassment.
We do it, too, sometimes — it can be tempting to force Moulitsas and, e.g., Yglesias into the same plane, just for the simplification it accords. Jeff doesn’t, and makes it clear that he doesn’t. Some commenters do, but as with any comment section it’s the variety of commenters rather than the views of any single one that form the valid view. In general, if you see any group of three or more people as being a single entity “marching in lockstep” you are tending to oversimplification at best, and if you see any group of political opponents as being of one mind what you are really doing is demonstrating how far away you are and how long a lens you’re using. If you only see one side as lacking in variety, while the other seems to you disorganized and heterogeneous, it says you’re a long, long way from the center.
Regards,
Ric
No, we don’t.
I can’t relate, never having had sex with a squirrel.
TW: Julia effect
Slart;
You leave the squirrels and peacemaking to me and finish the frackin’ fjords already!!!!! (heh)
I hate fuckin’ squirrels and will kill them without remorse, brought to you by BJ.
Slart – good one.
BJ – How do you catch them so you can fuck ’em? I lured one into my garage once, and closed the door behind it, and that demon possessed rodent went all Beetlejuice on me, the likes of which I had never seen before, nor since. Crazy little fuckers, I tell you.
My experience has been that usually when I talk to (or hear) a person that is a self-described conservative Republican, I see and hear a lot of anger, very deep; railing against taxes, and the welfare cheats, and the parasites of society. One day I was walking in Downtown San Francisco talking to this guy who is a VP at small bank, as we were going to an extremely luxurious and expensive restaurant he proceeded to spew all this vitriol against the homeless, as we passed them by. I’ve many similar experiences. To me it is shocking; I mean this guy has everything he could want: A great job; a very nice car; a nice home; eats at the most expensive restaurants, etc; and yet all this anger. I see a homeless, and only have one reaction: compassion. Yes, sometimes they piss you off if they get too aggressive asking for money, but it’s a temporary thing (for me). Yet, what gets me going (hopping mad with the same fervor) is when I see a war veteran coming back physically and mentally damaged, and his own government stabs him in the back further by all of the sudden saying that he had a preexisting personality problem and therefore he is out of luck when it comes down to benefits. That sort of thing. Injustices like that is what gets me going. So the dichotomy: on the one hand my well-off republican friend living the life, but pissed off to the max, I don’t know about what. On the other, the namby-pamby (in the view of many) liberal worry about injustices against veterans, and in general. Again, not trying to generalize. I’m just making an observation of my experiences.
JD, you ever seen this tale?
So your experiences just generalize by themselves, is that it?
– Mondays News Leaders:
– Mitt takes Iowa Straw pool….promises to give it back, now that he’s been elevated to third tier….
– Rove goes underground…Moonbat collonies frantically tryingto devine his next great conspiracy to make them crazier than they already are….
– NASA finds hole in space shuttle…blames it on global warming….
– Kos shows his centrist bonofides by saying “centrist” 43 times on Sundays Meet the Press….
– Obama challenges Hillery to an “Irresponsible things I can say” contest. Hillery calls him a naive pussy. Kucinich says we ought to get out of Brooklyn…..
I’ve many similar experiences
Luis, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”.
heartliy would
I think not.
Holy Jeebus, Pablo. I always wondered what happened to that little mutant. Apparently, it migrated to the residential streets of Texas. A Harley rider myself, that article had me in tears. Priceless.
“My experience has been that usually when I talk to (or hear) a person that is a self-described liberal, I see and hear a lot of anger, very deep; railing against the rich, and the religious, and the builders of society.”
Both versions are about as accurate.
———————–
So your experiences just generalize by themselves, is that it?
———————–
Robin, no is not that. Is that that is usually what I perceive in my limited experience as just one person. If I turn on FoxNews I see the hate and the yelling and screaming; the same with Hannity, Rush, Bill O, and other commentators considered to be right wing. If I turn to the National Review, they want to bomb Iran, yesterday, etc. When in family gatherings (diverse group of people they are), I’m usually the one people call on to engage in debate with the Conservative Republican side of the family, and I see on the other side similar things: Church, but no compassion for the poor or homeless, etc; Ready to kick anybody’s ass (militarily) if they just look at you the wrong way; moral certitude. I also see a readiness to raise the voice and insult (although it doesn’t happen to me; I guess I’m lucky) and call names. All that stuff is highly subjective, I understand. Finally, regarding military belligerence, I see a readiness to approve of it too easily. I don’t think people think about what war really means until our soldiers start dying and communities start getting affected by it. I’m not talking about being a pacifist (I served in the Navy), but about being judicious with the use of force. Anyway, that’s just my take on things. And again, I know those are based on limited personal experiences.
Dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t! If I look for “data” showing trends on the republican right, it is dismissed since in these internets you can find any data to back your position. If I express my opinion, it is dismissed as the loony opinions of a liberal moonbat. Here’s a little something from what I believe to be a pretty reliable source, The Economis magazine. This is from a previous post about the media (see the link to the article at the bottom):
——————-
“Overall, the Democrats are much more confident: 40% of Republicans believe that the Democrats will win, but just 12% of Democrats believe that the Republicans will win.â€Â
“The Democrats are also likely to keep Congress. The tide that enabled the party to pick up 31 House seats and six Senate seats in 2006, along with six governorships and 321 state-legislature seats, is still swelling. The Republicans will be defending more vulnerable Senate seats than the Democrats in 2008, and they are losing the race for cash. The public favours Democratic control of Congress by a margin of 10-15 points. Off the record, Republicans use words like “catastrophe†and “Armageddon†to refer to 2008.â€Â
“The issues that people care about are also tipping the Democrats’ way. A Pew Research poll in March discovered growing worry about income inequality combined with growing support for the social safety net. The proportion of Americans who believe that “the government should help the needy even if it means greater debt†has risen from 41% in 1994, at the height of the Republican revolution, to 54% today.â€Â
“In 2002 the electorate was equally divided between Democrats and Democratic-leaners (43%) and Republicans and Republican-leaners (43%). Today only 35% align themselves with Republicans, and 50% with Democrats. The Republicans are doing particularly badly among independents (the fastest-growing group in the electorate) and younger voters. The proportion of 18-25-year-olds who identify with the Republican Party has declined from 55% in 1991 to 35% in 2006, according to Pew.â€Â
“Republicans have also whipped up a storm of opposition among middle-of-the-road voters on social issues. The religious right’s opposition to abortion has always been an electoral liability: only 30% of voters favour overturning Roe v Wade. But in the past few years social conservatives tested people’s patience still further over a federal marriage amendment and Terri Schiavo. Fully 72% of Republican voters opposed the Republicans’ attempt to use the might of the federal government to keep the severely brain-damaged woman alive.â€Â
“Why the conservative crack-up? The obvious cause of the right’s implosion is the implosion of the Bush presidency. Mr Bush has the worst approval ratings since Jimmy Carterâ€â€29% according to Newsweek and 31% according to NBC News. Only 19% of Americans think that America is headed in the right direction under Mr Bush. An astonishing 45% of Americans, including 13% of Republicans, support impeaching Mr Bush, according to the American Research Group.â€Â
“Under the weather†– The Economist Magazine, August 11th, 2007, Page 20
Link: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9619083
I don’t think it ever even occurred to Luis that the homeless he sees in SF are a result of the uber liberal town having priced out everyone not a legacy or a millionaire.
Plus, it seems the “conservative Republicans” he’s been talking to are holdovers from the cartooned conservatives that were being trotted out during the Reagan years.
You know, the angry white male shibboleth.
You know, that strikes me as odd, because I see churches doing an enormous amount of outreach and assistance to the poor, the hungry, the hopeless, etc… I see The Salvation Army and the St. Vincent de Paul Society. I see missionaries of many different stripes going to very dangerous places to do very difficult jobs for very screwed over people because they believe it to be in the service of their God.
And I don’t even go to church. I just have my eyes open.
If I turn on FoxNews I see the hate and the yelling and screaming; the same with Hannity, Rush, Bill O, and other commentators considered to be right wing.
Do you not see the same on the other side of the political spectrum, say on Air America, DU, or Kos?
OK, Luis, I see partly where you’re coming from. I will remark, mildly, that San Francisco is not the ideal vantage point from which to view conservatism — you need a Hell of a long lens to see it — then come back to you in much the same spirit.
What I, at least, see in modern self-declared “liberalism” is a set of proposals that will not accomplish their stated aims and have horrific side-effects that rapidly come to swamp the original intent, coupled with an obstinate refusal to discuss the matters on those terms.
SF’s street people are an excellent case in point. The “liberal” solution is to declare the solution obvious — they’re homeless; give them homes! That philosophy has been ascendant, especially in San Francisco, for half a century. The actual result visible today, as opposed to the theoretical Utopia being espoused, has been an increase in the number of homeless — I am old enough to remember San Francisco as a place where street people were only encountered in a few places, rather than being a universally-encountered blight on the city.
There are clearly a number of mechanisms at work to produce this effect, but I will mainly mention the one that has your banker exercised: the wherewithal to give people homes has to be gathered from somewhere. The obvious place (if one is a “liberal”) is to tax the “rich people”. But your banker knows well what you are clearly oblivious to, which is that rich people in general are that way because they buy and sell; the apparent wealth is temporary — what they live on is the balance between income and outgo. If you tax them (increasing their expenses) they respond by increasing prices, which makes it harder for poor people to make ends meet. In the specific instance of the bank it’s even worse. If you tax the bank, it must increase its income to match, or cease to exist; it does so by increasing the cost of borrowing, and (since most housing is built on credit) that increases the cost of housing, thus raising the amount a person must have to obtain a place to live and increasing the likelihood of people becoming homeless. When you add to that the “liberal” criterion that the homeless must be housed in favorable circumstances — clean, well-ventilated and lighted, provided with running water, electricity, and 24/7 high-speed Internet access — you increase the amount that must be taken as taxes, thus raising the bar for having a home even farther. The whole thing ends up as a nasty exercise in positive feedback that makes the problem worse rather than solving it.
Now please stop, take a breath, and try to avoid making my point for me by characterizing the above as “…not caring about the plight of the homeless.” Whether or not the mechanism I describe above is in fact operational, it is at the very minimum plausible; and if it does work that way, your “compassion” is revealed as cold-heartedness beyond anything I could possibly muster. If I’m right, in order to be satisfied with yourself as a kind, generous person you must make the situation of your supposed beneficiaries worse rather than better, and that appears to be the situation on the ground; if you won’t discuss it in those terms, it leaves me perfectly free to regard you as a particularly selfish asshole, and perfectly content to see myself as at minimum neutral and at best helpful. See how that works?
Regards,
Ric
——————-
I see The Salvation Army and the St. Vincent de Paul Society. I see missionaries of many different stripes going to very dangerous places to do very difficult jobs for very screwed over people because they believe it to be in the service of their God.
——————-
Pablo, yes I agree; many of these organizations tend to be liberal and align more with Democrats (not all). I’m specifically talking about hearing people say that the poor is poor because they lack character, because they are lazy; that the homeless is homeless because he wants a handout, and that he could get his ass off the street and go get a job. Maybe I’m talking to the wrong right wing Republican middle class person. I need to broaden my horizons. That’s clear.
Uh, sure they do, Luis. You just keep telling yourself that, and it will be true before you know it. Why, they’ll be funding abortions and passing out condoms in no time.
Oh, and they’re big on preventing school prayer and keeping those nasty commandments out of public places. Uh huh. Yep.
I think Luis uses “liberal” to mean “anti-war” and pro- “mean people suck.”
Ric, regarding your post (# 187) I read it twice to make sure I’ll be able to say that agree with almost all of it. There are a few things here and there that we could discuss further, but I think it is right on the money, as it were. I think I’ve help you make your point, and you’ve helped me make mind.
A democratic market economy is all about incentives. People need to know that if they want to succeed, they are going to have to work hard, study, make the right decisions, and compete. In order for that to work, failure has to be there as an option, so if there are not serious consequences to your actions because you know you are going to be bailed out by the state, then that creates a degenerate society in every sense of the word. This of course applies to all the issues you discussed: the poor; the homeless; the hard-working person.
However, I believe in some sort of a social safety net, but I agree that in order to keep a vibrant market and economy, that net probably needs to be low enough that when you fall you may hit the hard floor with your elbow, as it stretches down.
So going back to my initial point, you can’t have extremes. In a democracy is all about negotiating, give-and-take. We sit down on the table: you tell me what yo see as paramount and important; I do the same; then we try to reach middle ground (where I believe the optimum situation is).
——————
passing out condoms in no time.
——————
Pablo, when I see this happening, I’ll know we’ve grown and got over our sick and unhealthy puritanical obsession with sex as a country. And by-the-way, you’ll get added benefit of preventing unwanted pregnancy and the spread of disease.
———————
You know, the angry white male shibboleth.
———————
JeffG, where have you been? No way, you’ll never see me using the race thing. I never write about categorizing anybody as anything because of their race. You will never see me do that. Issues? Yes. Trigger-happy right-wingers? Yes. But nothing about race.
“I don’t think it ever even occurred to Luis that the homeless he sees in SF are a result of the uber liberal town having priced out everyone not a legacy or a millionaire.”
They’re doing a very good job of bleaching SF while they’re at it, too. Check here and flip between the 2005 and 2000 tabs. Note the decline in total numbers of blacks and Hispanics. Lester Maddox would be so proud – 42% of the folks the progs drove out of town were melanin enhanced. Driving 23% of the blacks out of town in just five years is something he could only dream of.
Ah, but you see, that’s the fundamental difference between your viewpoint and mine.
You can have extremes; in fact, they occur more often than not. The Law of Gravity is not subject to negotiation, nor can pi be changed by plebiscite, no matter who is disadvantaged or advantaged by the current values. Social matters are less clear-cut and more complex, but even there some things work and some don’t — and if you persist in purblindedness on the ground of “justice” even in the face of mounting evidence, you deserve the “moonbat” sobriquet.
Regards,
Ric
TW: renounced reform. Well, not yet, but we’re working on it.
Luis
As has been pointed out before, conservatives…especially church-going conservatives are a demographic that gives more to charity per capita then do leftists.
However, leftists sniff at charity (and sneer at faith-based charity) as Not Important. They measure “compassion for the poor” as how many Government programs one proposes.
Also, I guarantee you that Nifong is not a conservative, nor the DA in Oregon trying to jail a couple of 13 year olds for “Slap Butt” day at Patton Middle School.
And just who is out there trying to bring back “The Fairness Doctrine”?
Totalitarianism, thy contemporary name is Progressive.
Luis
Also you seem to have a weird POV about The Poor(tm)…as if one is talking about a segment of the populace locked into place.
Um….no. I’d say most people have been “poor” sometime in their life …young adults in their first entry-level job/or still in college living in a crappy apartment and eating ramen … young married couple with their first kid trying to decide between mom working parttime or tightening their belts so she can stay at home …
People who are “poor” chronically fall into two camps… the mentally ill (and you can thank the ACLU that they end up living on the streets) or those who, yes, have a lack of character. Usually people who have made poor choices. Drug addiction, gangbanger, petty thief, etc.
Poverty doesn’t cause crime…crime causes poverty.
Luis; I know that the idea of ‘preventing unwanted pregnancies’ is supposed to feel like a good thing. However, there are a great number of people alive today who were ‘unwanted’ and have made a great impact on the world.
Before it is asked if ‘isn’t that like saying we shouldn’t have the death penalty because some innocents will be killed…?’ Prevention of pregnancy by election does not discriminate. The woman with child has no way of knowing what her son or daughter will become. If you’re on death row, chances are it is true you committed the crime.
So the equation would be closer to putting every criminal up for execution, no matter how great or small their crime.
But regardless, ‘preventing unwanted pregnancies’ (such a ‘pregnant’ euphemism coming from those who often seem to want nobody to be ‘unwanted’) is not a universal good. First of all, like all social services, it is not those who need them the most that take most advantage of them — the ignorant rarely know what is available — but rather those who naively seek to better their condition without regard for the consequences. We are all naive about relatively new things, and easy, cheap, effective birth control is certainly something we are mostly naive about the impact of.
Stop the spread of disease by abstaining from sex. Just like you kill rats to stop the bubonic plague, don’t use dirty syringes to avoid AIDS, don’t eat dairy products from questionable restaurants to avoid food poisoning, etc. When we assume people cannot control themselves we automatically lower the bar.
And God forbid, maybe some of those kids will have to have the children they impregnated each other with and actually be forced to grow up and face the real world.
Nah, ain’t gonna happen.
(apologies for divergences from topic.)
———————-
Ah, but you see, that’s the fundamental difference between your viewpoint and mine.
You can have extremes; in fact, they occur more often than not. The Law of Gravity is not subject to negotiation, nor can pi be changed by plebiscite, no matter who is disadvantaged or advantaged by the current values. Social matters are less clear-cut and more complex, but even there some things work and some don’t  and if you persist in purblindedness on the ground of “justice†even in the face of mounting evidence, you deserve the “moonbat†sobriquet.
Regards,
Ric
TW: renounced reform. Well, not yet, but we’re working on it.
———————-
An there you have it. Conservative-Right-Wing-Ideology = Law of Gravity. Therefore, you are absolutely correct. And here I thought the words compromise and equilibrium were about to become part of the Conservative lexicon. No need for me to come up with a colorful name for that. But there were nuggets at least.
Darleen,
The felony counts in the slap butt fiasco were dropped last week – looks like the rest may go today.
This was very challenging. I know you guys are good people. We’ll “clash” again soon.
Luis
An there you have it. Conservative-Right-Wing-Ideology = Law of Gravity
Did you actually get a high school diploma with reading comp skills like that?
Or… how old ARE you? Shouldn’t you be shopping for a new Bob the Builder backpack for school?
Rick
It would be nice if those boys were out of the criminal system entirely; however, I’m not holding my breath that the new DDA on the case is going to let it go completely. She wants the boys to undergo “counseling” via the juvie system.
I find that problematic. Nice thing is, that Prager’s listeners have raised almost $38,000 towards the boys’ defense.
Ah, hit your limit, I see, and the elastic recoil (a.k.a. “knee-jerk reaction”) yanked you right back into moonbat land.
Think about it a bit, especially the sentence beginning “Social matters…”, and get back to us.
Regards,
Ric
———————–
“You can have extremes; in fact, they occur more often than not. The Law of Gravity is not subject to negotiation, nor can pi be changed by plebiscite, no matter who is disadvantaged or advantaged by the current values.”
———————–
This statement so clearly demonstrate the value of how the democratic process work in the U.S., that I’m not sure how I missed it.
Darleen, yes, it’s clear that my illogical arguments don’t even come close to those that would come from a clear and illuminated mind. I will find myself a set of beliefs from the assortment of superstition man has been able to come up with for the last 5,000 years, put my faith in it, and pray that one day I will see the light. At that point I’ll be worthy of a real intellectual discussion.
Oh, and Luis, while you’re mulling, consider the following:
1) A problem exists.
2) Measures are proposed to solve the problem.
3) Some object, saying that the measures as proposed will not solve the problem and may make matters worse.
4) The proposed measures are adopted.
5) Time passes.
6) It is observed that the problem has not been solved, and in some ways matters have become worse.
Your options are then:
A) Accuse the objectors of villainy, obstructionism, mopery, dopery, and skullduggery in the spaceways; or,
B) Assume that the objectors may have been at least in some part correct, and seek new or modified measures to solve the problem.
Regards,
Ric
Luis
You claim to be struggling with “good faith” then you viscerally react to a disagreement with your Revealed Truth and claim something that was never even alluded to.
Now your hysteria is such you make screechy assertions that appear to resemble a claim to self-superiority because you’re an athiest.
Not attractive, Luis.
Calm yourself.
Or is this an act because you can’t substansively answer those who disagree with you?
——————–
#
Comment by Ric Locke on 8/13 @ 12:27 pm #
An there you have it. Conservative-Right-Wing-Ideology = Law of Gravity.
Ah, hit your limit, I see, and the elastic recoil (a.k.a. “knee-jerk reactionâ€Â) yanked you right back into moonbat land.
Think about it a bit, especially the sentence beginning “Social matters…â€Â, and get back to us.
Regards,
Ric
——————–
My point was that in a democratic society different “camps” negotiate with each other to try to reach common ground which usually happens through compromise.
I take this statement…
—-
The Law of Gravity is not subject to negotiation, nor can pi be changed by plebiscite, no matter who is disadvantaged or advantaged by the current values. Social matters are less clear-cut and more complex, but even there some things work and some don’t
—-
to mean that yes, in social matters clearcut issues are harder to agree on, but nevertheless that are going to be things that will clearly work, and others that will not, so compromise will not work in those situations. I interpret that as saying that there are things that are so demonstrably right, and some that are so demonstrably wrong, that the “laws” that guide societies will tend to favor the right positions, which I assume (a huge leap, I know) are yours.
As you see, I’m trying to get to understand how your mind works, honestly. It’s a fascinating exercise. But anytime you prove me wrong, I’ll admit it readily; it’s a capability I have, even though I haven’t shown too many others. Thanks for the lesson.
Ric,
You left out:
C)Repeat original measures in detail with the full expectation that this time the correct result will obtain.
I know that C is very close to one definition of insanity but that’s never stopped it from being used. Over and over and over and….
Darleen, hey, hey, yes let’s calm down here. I never said I’m an atheist. That’s a huge leap.
Luis, you’re still arguing against the cartoons in your haid. Try reading what people are writing, rather than what you want them to write.
Seriously, it’s almost like the Far Side cartoon about what we say to dogs vs. what dogs hear. As an example, you said: “Church, but no compassion for the poor or homeless, etc”
How are you defining “compassion”? How are you defining “poor”? When we’re talking about “homeless” — are we talking about the family who lost their home due to a string of bad circumstances, but are still trying to make it on their own, or about the guy sleeping under the overpass who’s refused help from all his relatives because they won’t let him use drugs while he’s in their homes?
I never said I’m an atheist
it’s clear that my illogical arguments don’t even come close to those that would come from a clear and illuminated mind. I will find myself a set of beliefs from the assortment of superstition man has been able to come up with for the last 5,000 years, put my faith in it, and pray that one day I will see the light. At that point I’ll be worthy of a real intellectual discussion.
Not that huge a leap. I’m certainly open to your disabusing me of perception, of course.
When we’re finally done scoring points off of each other, I’d like to revisit squirrel-fucking.
So, anytime you’re ready…
Ok, Ok, I give up. I’m only one guy here, and not even that smart to take on your well thought our points. My last attempt to see if there is some common ground anywhere: My only point is that excesses from both, the liberal-minded let’s-all-get-along (extreme) left, and the God-fearing, gun-totting, I-kick-your-ass (extreme)right are bad for democracy. Those who get in the “trenches” and work together to resolve issues (politics) usually do so by compromising and trying to find common ground. Which is how I started my discussion, comparing it with the concept of equilibrium in an economic sense. But, I guess that may not make sense either. I’ll keep reading your thoughts and will keep learning …
I think you’ve got it backwards. First you see the light, then you pray, then you believe the ‘superstitions’, hopefully followed by intellectual enlightenment. But that all depends on the quality of the superstitions.
We are still waiting for BJ to explain the squirrel fucking to us.
Which sounds considerably more fun than reading Luis arguing with the Caric(atures) in his head.
——————–
Not that huge a leap. I’m certainly open to your disabusing me of perception, of course.
——————–
Life and existence are unexplainable, regardless of whether you choose the big bang or creationism. Therefore, it is impossible to deny the existence of God (or first cause) regardless of the scientific explanations. Since the mystery is so great (to me), then I choose to say that “I don’t know” how to explain it, and leave it at that.
That’s my Slarti.
tw: Abram augmented – we can build him faster, more powerful …
Ok, since squirrel-fucking eludes us:
Look: you sound as if you’re attempting to dismiss extremes as being bad for democracy. I say that the very act of dismissing them in this way is bad for democracy. What’s better, to my way of thinking, is discussion.
That, and you make it sound as if there are only two extremes; as if there aren’t any gun-toting, ass-kicking atheists, or any God-fearing, ass-kicking Right who just haven’t gotten around to purchasing an arsenal. HUGE excluded middle, here. It’s as if you’re doing battle with an entire army of strawmen.
Well, since we are discussing Mendoza’s stereotypes, I will say that in my little case of stereotypes these people are typical of liberals.
Try telling Kipling that, in whatever version of the afterlife you favor. Or tell me in the here and now; I can come up with all sorts of explanations for life and existence.
“A) Accuse the objectors of villainy, obstructionism, mopery, dopery, and skullduggery in the spaceways;”
Ric, you forgot Barratry. It’s always the barratry.
—————–
#
Comment by Slartibartfast on 8/13 @ 1:19 pm #
Life and existence are unexplainable
Try telling Kipling that, in whatever version of the afterlife you favor. Or tell me in the here and now; I can come up with all sorts of explanations for life and existence.
—————–
By my guest; really. I’m all ears.
It’s all about you, isn’t it, Slart? Intentionalism weeps as the fucking squirrels die in agony.
JD:
My fucking squirrels are dressed as midget clowns.
————–
Look: you sound as if you’re attempting to dismiss extremes as being bad for democracy. I say that the very act of dismissing them in this way is bad for democracy. What’s better, to my way of thinking, is discussion.
That, and you make it sound as if there are only two extremes; as if there aren’t any gun-toting, ass-kicking atheists, or any God-fearing, ass-kicking Right who just haven’t gotten around to purchasing an arsenal. HUGE excluded middle, here. It’s as if you’re doing battle with an entire army of strawmen.
——————
Extremes are there for a reason. That’s why they are call extremes. There is one to everything. Yes, I agree, people are very complex; all kinds of people with all kinds of beliefs. Somebody my love their gun, and also be very compassionate and help their fellow man through their church, etc. You (I) can make generalizations about anybody. Fair enough. Sometimes for discussion, it could happen that people create constructs to illustrate their point (me included, not you of course), but if it’s taken too far, the quality of the conclusion tends to be weak. I agree.
Ok, got to get some work done to try to survive in this darn expensive SF Bay Area.
—————
Extremes are there for a reason. That’s why they are call extremes. There is one to everything. Yes, I agree, people are very complex; all kinds of people with all kinds of beliefs. Somebody my love their gun, and also be very compassionate and help their fellow man through their church, etc. You (I) can make generalizations about anybody. Fair enough. Sometimes for discussion, it could happen that people create constructs to illustrate their point (me included, not you of course), but if it’s taken too far, the quality of the conclusion tends to be weak. I agree.
—————
Ok, le me fix a few things here:
Extremes are there for a reason. That’s why they are called extremes. There is one to everything. Yes, I agree, people are very complex; all kinds of people with all kinds of beliefs. Somebody may love their gun, and also be very compassionate and help their fellow man through their church, etc. You (I) can’t make generalizations about anybody. Fair enough. Sometimes for discussion, it could happen that people create constructs to illustrate their point (me included, not you of course), but if it’s taken too far, the quality of the conclusion tends to be weak. I agree.
Me, O’Racle? I’m not even Irish.
To the extent that “laws” exist, yes, that’s correct. But I don’t like using the word “law” in that context — there are things that simply are, that we can observe; the “Law” of Gravity is nothing but a codification of things that people have seen happening over the centuries. Scientists like to delve for first principles, and that’s a worthwhile endeavor — sometimes it reveals things we’ve missed through lack of observation, such as quantum mechanics — but it isn’t important to you, me, or Rosie O’Grady. If the sun rises in the East every day, and never comes up in the West, we don’t need astronomical theories to assume that it will rise in the East tomorrow, or at least that that’s the way to bet.
And that’s the essential characteristic of a conservative: to concentrate efforts on things that are known to work, and to deprecate things that are known not to work, or can be expected (in the sense of a betting proposition) not to work based on observations of analogous things that didn’t work.
“Liberals” like to claim that they are “breaking the paradigm”, that their proposals are brand new and untested and should be tried. Well and good, but when the proposal has been implemented and tested, and proves not to work and perhaps to make matters worse, it is neither liberal nor conservative to insist upon redoubling efforts to implement that proposal; it is simple insanity. And all too frequently, the “new and different” proposals are nothing but old, discredited ideas dressed up in a brand new suit of rhetoric; we here at Goldstein’s like to flatter ourselves that we’re good at spotting those, and pointing out the underlying archaisms. (That begs the question of whether we’re as good at it as we think we are, of course.)
And yes, democracies try to find common ground, and that’s also a worthwhile endeavor. But also, sometimes the “common ground” is a quicksand trap. If my example, above, regarding the homeless is in fact the case, there is no nonzero amount of help that can be granted the homeless that won’t make the problem worse — a compromise between advocates of help and promoters of laissez faire can do no better than to limit the damage, and any limit that exists will be strictly to the account of the Right. (Note: It Ain’t That Simple; there are other forces involved, as there almost always are; this is strictly a simplified issue extracted from the welter.)
Regards,
Ric
OT, but interesting: M. Night Shamalan is filming in the building I work in here in Philly.
What a complicated process.
Mark Wahlberg is starring, apparently.
Ric, I’m beginning to get faith here. Maybe Darleen will help in my conversion. That’s is the most f**ing intelligent rebuttal (228) I’ve seen in this debate. But again, I don’t know if is of much value coming from me. All I can do, is “lift” my cup of coffee, take a sip, and think “he has a point”, and not say anything else.
Ok, heading to SF now. I hope that freking bridge holds. Now I’m afraid every time I drive in it; I think somebody said something about being in very bad shape. Hold on, now, don’t wish me anything bad … I’ll see you guys around.
Luis:
You’ve just discovered what the rest of us already knew:
ric locke brings teh clear contruct every time.
Yea, it pisses me off just a little bit…
Yes. Why Ric’s name is not orangey, this is an enigma. I would click and click.
Luis – Come back and visit, real soon now, ya hear? Hopefully you can bring back an anecdote or two of Republicans acting badly.
I keep slapping “@deprecated” in front of “socialism”, but it never seems to take. It’s like people expect it to be supported forever.
Most people never get to Stage 1 of that process, never mind even considering Stage 2. Congrats on your ascension to a higher plane of Enlightenment.
Not that I’m giving the lion’s share of the Buddha to Ric. I mean, aren’t we all the Buddha?
TW: vote Northerner.
Interesting. I’ve been in font-shot of some folks who maintain, steadfastly, that capitalism has killed untold kajillions, and that real communism has never been tried.
At which point I have to conclude that not only are we talking past eac other, but that we’re doing so unavoidably.
Well, just as long as you pass on the right.
Plus, Jeff, Luis just likes the sound of his own voice.
tw; sensuous Miriam. God. I hope so.
Luis, if it’s the Golden Gate you’re talking about, rest easy. It was built back in the days when engineers weren’t nearly as sure of their analyses as modern ones are, so their philosophy was that if there was any question about strength, put a little more “meat” in the part. A conservative approach to bridge design, if you will :-) The Bay Bridge is a little more problematical in that respect, but please note that only a little piece of it actually fell in the earthquake — it performed pretty well considering all, especially compared to the elevated structures along the Nimitz, which were put up in a later period when the designers had sharper pencils, better calculators, and tighter budgets. (Note: I lived in the South Bay, mostly in Milpitas, back in the Seventies.)
As for the argument — faith isn’t the point. Conservatives do tend to be people of faith, but not in that sense; one doesn’t “believe” in conservatism in the same sense as belief in God or the Perfectibility of Mankind. As I said above, it’s enough to prefer results over intentions, with the rest following more or less logically from that. Indeed, from our side of the debate it appears to take a great deal more blind faith to adhere to modern “liberal” concepts in the face of reasonably clear evidence than it seems to me a sensible person would accept.
Do be careful how you discuss this with your fellows, though. You may be in the process of slipping over the line, so to speak, and there are several of us who can recount in sad detail the pain of being excommunicated.
Regards,
Ric
Luis Mendoza
THAR SHE BLOWS !!!
The conversation with Luis reminds me of the old adage: Conservatives think Liberals are misguided while Liberals think Conservatives are evil. Nice to see everyone living up to their stereotypes! Whatever.
I heartily concur with the “Free minds, free markets, a muscular military …” sentiment. I’d thought of that as “libertarian” until the Reasonoids threw out the “Free minds” and “muscular military” bits and started out-liberaling the liberals in their enforcement of a Libertarian Orthodoxy that brooks no disagreement. Go over to Reason.com and search the site for the terms “no true libertarian”, “no real libertarian”, etc., and you’ll see what I mean. It certainly saves a lot of work in convincing people of the truth of your proposition if you simply excommunicate anyone who dares disagree, but it’s so lazy. I suppose “classical liberalism” is as good a name as any for my political phylosophy, but damn it’s getting lonely out here.
Now me, I love squirrels. Bake ’em up in a nice corn pudding with some smoked oysters and that’s good eatin’.
These “Conversations with Luis™” are a wonder. It’s one thing for two sides to be talking past each other. It’s another thing for one side to shift continuously so as to avoid not talking past the other.
Isn’t there a word for that?
Oh yeah: actus!
phylosophy? Okay, that’s enough whikey, I’m gonna bed.
I was going to go with alphie, but actus works pretty well to.
Where, oh where, is PIATOR ?
Right below the Mendoza Line.