The Republican Party vs. George Bush - Page 3

Good. I agree.

Now. One last question, because like you, I wish to go to sleep:

How can you agree to all of the above and have in your signature an ad for a presidential candidateand partythat desires nothing above a return to a political philosophy of the mid- to late-18th century?

Because I do not think that the size and scope of the Federal Govt is true to the Constitution. We have let the government become so powerful that it has disturbed fundamental freedoms, and is now in a quagmire of selective privilege and massive amounts of money that politicians are all fighting over how to spend. I advocate RP because he has a vision for returning this government to us, ending Iraq, and empowering individuals, not government. It gets to the heart of why I went Libertarian, never to identify republican again... I want the government out of my wallet, my bedroom, and my family. Regardless of political stripe, most Americans can get behind that. We simply want to be left alone.
The best way out of this mess- government dependence- is to empower individuals with their own abilities, not to constantly look to government to fix everything. Everyone from casual hippy weed smokers to bubba gun owners agree- get the government out of my face. I guess I am just an anti-federalist at heart.

I'm sure you have a Politburo meeting in the morning and I have sheets to iron and crosses to burn yet tonight, so I must be off. G'nite.

And I believe that current thinking about cholera is not true to the original theory that it is an airborne disease. The Constitution is a document created in the beginning of the last quarter of the 18th century. why should we ignore the fact that time has passed? Why should we ignore that the 19th century happened and that it proved, beyond doubt, that laissez-faire small government doesn't work?


I do not know what this means.


So does Hillary Clinton.


Please see the list I posted much earlier, which you did not address.


I, for one, like it when sanitary water comes out of my tap. I also like not having to keep a cesspool in my backyard, as Jefferson and Adams most likely did. Probably a chance it was close to their drinking water, too.


No. Those extremes agree. Do not mistake the politcal edges agreeing for consensus in-between. I like water coming out of my tap. I like my interstates. I like my nice roads.


Yes. You are.


That, sirrah, gave me a belly laugh. Nite.

glory be to the Father


indeed. The nation and most of the western world has moved to a blend of programs and ideas that were once quite far left communism, and very far right fascism. There are any number of examples. To move into modern society, the verbiage in the constitution had to be malleable; this is one of the fundamental elements of our democracy. W/o this ability to change, in an agile fashion, our government would require more speedy and more socially acceptable amendment process. Of course, we'll debate to the end, which specific sentences and phrases in the document are open for interpretation and which are rock-solid. But while we do our meaningless bickering, the USSC is the final word on which pieces are closed for interpretation, and a supermajority of the state legislatures is required to overrule them. It may be beneficial to have a very strict constitution, but that means we need a more amendable constitution, because shit's gonna change.

midwinter- you make interesting points... though I disagree with a few premises...

1. I cannot find any situation where Mrs. Clinton has supported a solution that does not favor more government and more bureaucracy and more spending. Hillary health care would have massively empowered the federal govt. Its not a slur against her- she simply sees central planning as better than local control.

2. The issue of your tap water can he handled by your state government. It's not just "the feds or anarchy."

3. Its things like the bastardization of the commerce clause that demonstrate how far we have come from the words in the Constitution. I believe it means what it says, and says what it means. You seem to prefer a "living document" - I do not. The states, out of fear of losing money, have ceded most of their power to the Federal govt.

Would you like to have the govt out of your wallet, bedroom, and family as well?

Care to support that? It seems to me that serious problems only started cropping up with the reintroduction of protectionism, and Europe only dipped its toe in to the free trade idea pool anyway.

Sure. I'm in a bit of a rush, so excuse any incoherence in this.

There was a tremendous amount of trade (free and otherwise) in Europe prior to the French Revolution (and, interestingly, prior to WWI). Look at Adam Smith's descriptions of the town and the country in Wealth of Nations (especially in Book 3, chapter 1: "Of the natural progression of opulence) where he describes the kind of unfettered interaction between the producers of raw materials and the refiners.

This is good, old Smithian capitalism—what we call "Classical Capitalism," and what the Libertarians want to return to. There were, in the end, very few (if any) restrictions on labor practices. Factories could employ whomever they wished to work for however long they wanted (until the 10 Hours Act reduced the number of hours small children could work) and in whatever conditions they desired. See Engels's Condition of the Working Class in England for descriptions of some of the rural working conditions (I realize he's talking about 1842, but the conditions of miners is particularly telling: naked women and children harnessed to coal carts, etc. His chapter on the Great Towns is particularly stunnning). See also Henry Mayhew's London Labour and the London Poor.

The primary means of government intervention that occurred in England between 1776 (Smith's publication date) and Victoria's ascension (just to pick a date out of a hat) was the enactment of the Corn Laws. This was unabashed protectionism in the wake of the French Revolution, but they continued on long, long after the Revolution and Napoleonic wars were over (in fact, the efforts to repeal these laws led directly to modern labor movements).

But other than the Corn Laws, the mantra—both economically and socially—of the entire nineteenth century in England was laissez-faire. And laissez-faire they did. Factories would often not allow literate workers to be hired. They would not allow clocks or watches to be taken into the factories so that workers didn't know how long they'd worked. And when people complained about these things, they were branded as radicals.

Now, certainly, we're also talking about a profoundly anti-democratic country here (democracy in a recognizably modern form would begin in England in 1832 but not really take root until 1864), and so often (such as with the Chartists) these labor movements are bound up in enfranchisement movements. The Utilitatrians/Benthamites/Liberals (the proper term for modern conservatives, btw), for instance, wanted complete laissez-faire in all things social and political (hereafter I'll just call it "political economy"), but one of their crucial requirements was also full enfranchisement. There are a number of problems with such theories, but when you get down to it, the kind of laissez-faire political economy advocated by folks like Smith, Mill, and modern libertarians is just as idealized as the political economy of communists like Marx (who emerges directly in response to the horrors of laissez-faire policies) and William Morris (whose theories I greatly prefer to Marx's). Despite the triumph of the Friedmans over Keynes, the fact of the matter is that people will make stupid decisions and enact stupid policies if left to their druthers. Slavery? Apartheid? Institutionalized racism? Sometimes, as Rousseau says, you have to compel a man to be free.

In practice, such laissez-faire policies result in death, famine, and disease. Period. Cholera killed thousands in a summer (read Steven Johnson's wonderful book The Ghost Map for a description of the 1854 cholera epidemic). If a blight happened, like in Ireland? Here's an interesting little factoid for you: we do not know how many people died in the Irish potato famine. It is likely around a million.

What if there's a fire that destroys a village or a town? What if there's a plague? Maybe an influenza epidemic? How, for instance, is Viter, TX supposed to deal with a cholera or influenza outbreak? How is Guthrie, OK supposed to? How is Mississippi supposed to deal with a catastrophic hurricane that causes billions in damage and destroys a large chunk of the economic infrastructure without federal assistance? How is OK supposed to deal with a tornado that takes out downtown OKC? How is New York City supposed to deal with a terrorist attack that shuts down downtown? Suck it up?

It doesn't work. It never did, and libertarians who believe that it ever did can only maintain such a belief by ignoring the simple fact that the 19th century happened.

Sorry for the rush job.

Again, it's not one or the other- anarchy or the nanny state. Government can do things well- roads, defense, tap water, agricultural policy, etc. But the current level of micromanaging that we have allowed Washington to do is over the top. The states can do things just as well, if not better, than the blowhards in DC.

It's our own fault. We've be conditioned to scream "DO SOMETHING" and look to the feds to make our worlds right. In the end, that means a bloated, out of control govt that is its own weather system. Anytime that anyone needs something, they ask Uncle Sam for it. And if there is say, a war spending bill on the floor, wishes may come true.

Who mentioned anarchy? Not me. I described a world superpower governed according to core libertarian principles. They might as well have quoted JS Mill's essays "On Liberty" or Utilitarianism, both of which are the crucial expressions of the ideas in the 19th century.


You just ceased to be a libertarian.


States totally kick ass at some things. Like recovering from massive earthquakes and rebulding after hurricanes.


You know, you're right. CONDITIONED BY NATURAL DISASTERS! WHY DO NATURAL DISASTERS HATE AMERICA?!?!

Duh, gays.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/....ap/index.html

Well now we'll see if Bush vetos it.

If he does he'll be putting yet another nail into the republican party. The vote reportedly was much along party lines. " Two brave republicans " joined the democrats.

The rest had better straighten up. The people just don't want this war anymore. Also I don't think they want one with Iran either!

now midwinter, we both know that Bush sent the hurricane using HAARP when he was drunk at the Bilderberg meeting in Davos with Hoffa and Elvis. Come ON! And he did it because he hates Kanye West.

Yep. Us Wingers got Bush to destroy the sin city of the south, New Gamorrah-orleans. Now its time to have a hurricane or tsunami hit Sodom, over'er in Neevada... Then we make Jim Bakker and Pat Robertson co-presidents and get all you commie unnatural types OUT!

Actually, as Jon Stewart brilliantly pointed out, everything EXCEPT Gamorrah (i.e. The Quarter) was destroyed. And on the eve of a gay pride parade. To quote Stewart, God clearly hates the "gay-adjacent."

Well, then, I better move out of the suburbs and down to Dean Keeton.

I don't know much about Austin. Is that the hip part of town?

mid:


What you're really saying of course is that the Constitution is pliable...a living document. I disagree. If changes need to be made due to the passage of time, they should be made. Otherwise, if the Constitution does not really mean what it says, then why have a Constitution at all?


and


Except the government is letting these priorties fall by the wayside as we spend hundreds of billions on entitlements (read: cash handouts), pork programs and bureacrocy. Everyone agrees that goverment should provide for the national defense, maintain the infrastructure, and pass laws that promote general order and civility. It's the regulation of our daily lives that I think Jubelum is taking issue with.

That's right in the middle of the rainbow-friendly part of UT.

I don't understand. First, you say that the constitution is not a living document, then you say that it should be changed if changes are needed. Which one is it?


No it's not. Water still comes out of your tap. You still have roads.


No, everyone doesn't. That's part of my point here.


What regulation of our daily lives? Am I only allowed to get water out of the tap at certain times?

Seriously. What regulation of your daily life is so onerous that you sit around and think about fomenting rebellion on a daily basis?

I have no idea what that means.

That's the part of UT that believes in Noah's Ark and the Great Flood.

The Constitution can be amended through the process we have. It should not be interpreted in a way completely contrary to what it actually says just because the "times have changed."

Infrastructure: Not sure I see your point. Certainly not all infrastructure is in disrepair, but take a look at the condition of bridges, a good portion of the roads, the electric grid, inner city schools, etc.

Who doesn't agree the government should fund those things?

Regulation: The government tells me how fast to drive, that I have to wear a seatbelt, that I can't smoke a cigar pretty much anywhere in Philadelphia regardless of what the free market wants, that I can't use or buy certain drugs because it says so, that I can't buy restaurant food with trans-fats in NYC, that those under 21 can't drink a beer.....and barrages me with "public service announcements" telling me not to eat things that are bad for me, how to raise my daughter, teaching me
(and her) about "intolerance" and generally doing everything except getting the fuck out of my way and letting me live my life. Oh, and it takes 50% of my money too. Did I mention that?

Dear lord it's much like Soviet Russia. First they take your cigars, then the secret police come in the dead of night.

I guess better than our troops terrorizing women and children in the dead of night, eh Sen. Kerry?

Yeah! Ha! Wait, that makes no sense whatsoever.

You are exactly correct. We should make sure we attend to what it actually says. But what, precisely, is the point of being able to amend the constitution if not to change the meaning? It used to say one thing about black people voting. Now it says something else. We changed the meaning because times changed.

Again: it's a document written in the beginning of the last quarter of the 18th century. Times have changed.


Any bridges in particular I should go poking around on? I know ours around here get awfully weedy in the summers; elsewhere, I don't know. I'd be willing to travel, though, if you thought that there was a bridge whose disrepair was such a threat to our nation that we need to rebel against the government or something. I'm with Jefferson on that. I think we need a good rebellion every generation or so. Oh shit. Jefferson is a founding father! And he thought every generation should create its own social contract?! WHAT DOES THAT DO TO THE CONSTITUTION?!?!

/me swoons

But yeah. I think conservatives and Jubelum (who, despite his(?) best efforts, ain't a libertarian) have it right: the way to fix all these bridges is to take in less tax revenue.


Well I, for one, want big government off my back. I'm tired of my fancy-schmancy highways. I'm tired of my protected hiking trails. I'm tired of my clean air (and believe me, the air here SUCKS). I'm tired of my schools having money. TAKE IT ALL BACK, BLUE STATES! WE RED STATERS DON'T WANT YOUR STINKING MONEY!!! I WANT TO PAY $7 FOR A FRIGGIN' POTATO! STOP SUBSIDIZINGI THOSE FARMERS WITH SDW'S TAX DOLLARS!!!


I totally fucking hate that, too.


assholes. I WANT TO BE HURLED FROM A CAR IN AN ACCIDENT ON ONE OF MY FEDERALLY FUNDED ROADS, YOU ASSES!!!


I'm with you, man. I hate it that the US government made a law outlawing smoking in Philly. You know what else you can't do anywhere else in Philadelphia regardless of what the free market wants? SHOW PORN ON A BIG ASSED TELEVISION IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SIDEWALK AND HIRE A COUPLE OF STRIPPERS TO DANCE AROUND ME WHILE I WATCHED IT. Bastards. Oh, you think I'm kidding. Can you imagine how stunned I was when I wanted to open up an all-ages strip club? DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH MONEY I COULD RAKE IN JUST BY ALLOWING 16 YEAR OLD BOYS IN? DO YOU?!?!


You can't shoot heroin on the courthouse steps, either. Assholes. GET BIG GOVERNMENT OFF MY BACK!!!


ASSHOLE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAKING LAWS ABOUT NYC!


Yeah. That one is stupid.


Oh man. I hate that too. Everywhere I turn, GIANT BILLBOARDS TELLING ME WHAT TO EAT. Ugh. Drives me nuts. And especially considering the free market CLEARLY DOESN'T WANT THOSE GIANT BILLBOARDS.


I hate it that the federal government of the United States made laws about how you should raise your daughter and teach her about "intolerance." I HATE PEOPLE WHO ARE INTOLERANT OF INTOLERANCE!!!


Damn. That's pretty specific.


Nice tax bracket. Maybe you should move? Or make less money? Have you considered those options?

Maybe, though, SDW, since you've compiled a nice little list of grievances here, you should consider whether they amount to the bullet-point rant that is the Declaration of Independence.

Quartering troops in your homes? Convening governments in distant places? Ignoring please for representation?

SCREW THAT, MAN! I HAVE TO WEAR A FRIGGIN' SEAT BELT. A SEAT BELT!!!

Oh man. I can see it now:

The Modern Declaration of Independence

When in the course...blah blah blah. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present United States Government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world:

1) I can't drive as fast as I want to, where i want to.
2) I have to wear a seat belt.
3) I can't smoke where I want to.
4) I can't take whatever drugs I want.
5) I can't eat trans fat in NYC.
6) I couldn't buy beer until I was 21.
7) I don't like PSAs.
8) I don't want to be tolerant.
9) I feel like the government is all up in my face and stuff.
10) I want to keep more of my money than I do right now.

***

Man. I like it. I say print it out and post it everywhere and see if you can get yourself a rebellion going. I mean, lord, I know that that list of 10 is pretty solid. Thoreau himself is no doubt salivating in his grave at the power of such a list of abuses of power.

You have to be kidding with that link. I was awaiting something better. Let's see if you can find it. But seriously, I fail to see why you're disagreeing here. I understand the point of amending the Consitution is to change its meaning. The point is that meaning should not be changed by a court. Statements/ideas/rights should not be added by a court, like they were with Roe V. Wade. If we're going to amend the Constitution, there is a democratic process for that. Obviously there are things that need to change or will need to change. We don't disagree there.


You can't possbily be saying that our infrastructure in this country has been maintained and upgraded as it should be. That's the point I'm making. As to tax revenue, you're perverting the conservative position (or the position most conservatives hold).

Most conservatives fully support the things I mentioned in my earlier post re: government priorities. I don't know about less revenue. One, you're misguided in your notion that lower taxes always mean less revenue, though that is besides the point. More importantly, it's the way the revenue is spent that many conservatives take issue with. If the feds were spending our $3 trillion a year on defense, infrastructure, education, taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves, et all...I'd be thrilled. But "governments" are not doing that, at least not in the proportions they should be. We spend over a trillion dollars a year (federal alone) on social welfare and entitlement programs, most of which go to people perfectly able to provide for themselves mentally and physically. That's my problem, and I suspect it's Jubelum's as well.


You're just being silly. It's not what I'm saying at all.


Shouldn't that be your choice? I wear my seatbelt 99% of the time, but still...it has nothing to do with the government telling me I have to by law. You?


You've been drinking again, haven't ya? Let me ask you...what is the problem with the free market determining which restaurants offer smoking sections and which ones do not? Why ban smoking in bars? I'm not complaining about public buildings, where you're dealing with an enclosed space that the public should have free and open access to. I'm talking about private establishments where the government has banned a (currently) legal product. I won't even address your strip club comment, as much as i do enoy strippers.


I don't know about giant billboards, but it's pretty damn close.


What is it tonight, rum, vodka, or schnnaps?


Do the math, friend. It's close to 50% of what you earn. Add up all the taxes you pay, from income taxes (fed, state, local) to property taxes to gas tax to liquor tax to licensing "fees" to telecommunications tax. I'm just sayin....


Come back from the cliff, sir. No one is talking about a rebellion. No one is talking about moving. I didn't realize one had to threaten to leave the country or declare his independence from The State to express an opinion about how our government is encroaching on our freedoms.

Well here's a line in the political sand.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17852151/

I wonder if Dubya is aware ( or even cares ) that the whole of the republican party will feel the effects if he vetos this?

Which I fully expect he will.

SDW:

1) You, sir, need to develop a sense of humor. LAUGH, MAN! I MADE YOU YOUR OWN DAMNED DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE and all you can do is accuse me of drinking rum (YUCK!)! It is red wine during the week and bourbon on the weekends. You are SUCH a yankee.

2) Love it or leave it. :P

And damn proud of it.

God-damned right! And really...he's dismissing rum? Try some Mount Gay rum. Smooth. Like his mama's backside.

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

I'll take my Patron any day...chilled, no training wheels.

This is not a discussion of gay rights, SDW. Stay on topic.

This place is like a playpen, but with fewer toys.


<waits for jimmac to make a nonsensical crack about age>

Your Mom's name is "topic?"

Actually, Oedipus, I need to tell you something...

What the hell are you talking about here?

You'd know wouldn't you?

Kerry said that US troops were terrorizing Iraqi women and children in the dead of night. This is pretty well known. He also said, on foreign soil, that the US was an international pariah.

I see. And this has what to do with your concerns regarding our oppressive federal apparatus, again?

Or are we to the point where random, Tourettes-like eruptions of "filthy liberal traitor" non-sequitors are to be regarded as normal conversation?