susiedriver
Well-Known Member
An Explication of the Poetic Myth of Libertarianism
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/22/19035/815
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/22/19035/815
Ethics
- Thread starter ok2bclever
- Start date
ok2bclever
I Re Member
Nice try wkmac, but reread my post and you will note I made no protest that it was anti-democratic, no denial that any of it is wrong (I don't know, don't much care as I am not enamored by any current politician, nor any of the movie stars mentioned), just the observation that someone who alledgedly is neutral, well dislikes both of the meaningful 
sides posting something exclusively against one side and self admittedly unconfirmed.
I judge each individual politician by his or her actions, rather than by his or her party.
Real impressive, you beat me in a one man race.
I had no intention of looking for negative gossip on libertarians as you are wrong, no nerve was hit here.
Not to mention like I said, "no one would recognize the names or care".
A great Thanksgiving holiday to you and yours as well as despite a variety of sorry affairs going on in our country we still have much to be thankful for.
sides posting something exclusively against one side and self admittedly unconfirmed.I judge each individual politician by his or her actions, rather than by his or her party.
Real impressive, you beat me in a one man race.
I had no intention of looking for negative gossip on libertarians as you are wrong, no nerve was hit here.
Not to mention like I said, "no one would recognize the names or care".
A great Thanksgiving holiday to you and yours as well as despite a variety of sorry affairs going on in our country we still have much to be thankful for.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
You opened the door so I walked in. Sorry if I wore the wrong thing to your party but the invite as I read it didn't seemed to specify a certain dress code! I'll remember that with any future affairs you might throw.
Hey, how do you get the tongue sticking out face? I thought it was colon followed by an upper case "P" but that didn't seem to work at least as I tried it.
Hey, how do you get the tongue sticking out face? I thought it was colon followed by an upper case "P" but that didn't seem to work at least as I tried it.
ok2bclever
I Re Member
Yes, I know how to get the tongue sticking out face, but you would be better off going down to the local elementary school and talking to a bunch of the young kids and get their opinion on how to do it.
Ok, ok, but I really couldn't resist dogging you there.
I just choose the icon from the legend of visible icon choices to the right of the response box.
It sounds like you are using the system in "basic" mode rather than standard or enhanced.
I use the enhanced mode which gives you WYSIWYG (What you see is what you get) as I far prefer that style.
Go into UserCP (upper left corner), then Edit Options, scroll down to Miscellaneous Options, Message Editor Interface and switch from basic to enhanced.
That should do it.
Or if you insist on doing it the old fashion manual way you were close, but it's a colon with a lower case "p".
Ok, ok, but I really couldn't resist dogging you there.
I just choose the icon from the legend of visible icon choices to the right of the response box.
It sounds like you are using the system in "basic" mode rather than standard or enhanced.
I use the enhanced mode which gives you WYSIWYG (What you see is what you get) as I far prefer that style.
Go into UserCP (upper left corner), then Edit Options, scroll down to Miscellaneous Options, Message Editor Interface and switch from basic to enhanced.
That should do it.
Or if you insist on doing it the old fashion manual way you were close, but it's a colon with a lower case "p".
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Found this little piece written back in the 70's interesting.
10. Two-Party System
There is no other way of explaining the phenomenon. Good men do find their way into government. But having gotten there, they must either perform their function or resign. If they perform their function, they use the government, an agency of compulsively gathered coercive force, to accomplish that function. Inevitably, they hurt someone. This is undoubtedly the reason such a furore is maintained over the necessity for a two-party system. Nothing is said in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights about the necessity of a two-party system. Yet most Americans hold that two parties are necessary.
The reason is obvious. The party in power inevitably employs its friends and well-wishers, and passes laws and enforces proceedings against others not of the same political conviction.
Over a period of time these laws and enforcements build up a body of resistance. The oppression mounts. It may become a public scandal. Finally, the "ins" are ousted and the other party assumes power.
Immediately the process repeats but with alternate emphasis. Those who are "ins" become "outs." And the newly hired "ins" go to work to cut their friends free from oppression and to visit their vengeance upon those who subscribed to the beliefs of the former "ins." Then the same iniquities come to pass all over again. Those persecuted change places with the persecutors. And around and around goes the political wheel of chance, with the voting public spinning the wheel.
In our own time we have seen one curious variance occurring to this otherwise monotonous and easily predictable routine. The "ins" and the "outs" have performed a merger. The party in power has now scarcely a discernible difference from the party out of power. And the reason for this merger is self-evident. The government has in itself grown so large and so formidable that it tends to absorb any and all politically interested persons, regardless of party affiliation. And since, in the main, there is no real difference in political parties, each party desiring only to rule — each party adopts an advertising program consisting of those public statements which each party leader feels will win an election — the merger is that of blood brothers and constitutes no betrayal.
http://www.mises.org/story/1970#10
Oh geez, I forgot again to check with the dress coordinator to make sure I'm not in violation!
10. Two-Party System
There is no other way of explaining the phenomenon. Good men do find their way into government. But having gotten there, they must either perform their function or resign. If they perform their function, they use the government, an agency of compulsively gathered coercive force, to accomplish that function. Inevitably, they hurt someone. This is undoubtedly the reason such a furore is maintained over the necessity for a two-party system. Nothing is said in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights about the necessity of a two-party system. Yet most Americans hold that two parties are necessary.
The reason is obvious. The party in power inevitably employs its friends and well-wishers, and passes laws and enforces proceedings against others not of the same political conviction.
Over a period of time these laws and enforcements build up a body of resistance. The oppression mounts. It may become a public scandal. Finally, the "ins" are ousted and the other party assumes power.
Immediately the process repeats but with alternate emphasis. Those who are "ins" become "outs." And the newly hired "ins" go to work to cut their friends free from oppression and to visit their vengeance upon those who subscribed to the beliefs of the former "ins." Then the same iniquities come to pass all over again. Those persecuted change places with the persecutors. And around and around goes the political wheel of chance, with the voting public spinning the wheel.
In our own time we have seen one curious variance occurring to this otherwise monotonous and easily predictable routine. The "ins" and the "outs" have performed a merger. The party in power has now scarcely a discernible difference from the party out of power. And the reason for this merger is self-evident. The government has in itself grown so large and so formidable that it tends to absorb any and all politically interested persons, regardless of party affiliation. And since, in the main, there is no real difference in political parties, each party desiring only to rule — each party adopts an advertising program consisting of those public statements which each party leader feels will win an election — the merger is that of blood brothers and constitutes no betrayal.
http://www.mises.org/story/1970#10
Oh geez, I forgot again to check with the dress coordinator to make sure I'm not in violation!
susiedriver
Well-Known Member
https://web.archive.org/web/20060615014510/http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html
excerpt:
This diversity of libertarian viewpoints can make it quite difficult to have a coherent discussion with them, because an argument that is valid for or against one type of libertarianism may not apply to other types. This is a cause of much argument in alt.politics.libertarian: non-libertarians may feel that they have rebutted some libertarian point, but some other flavor libertarian may feel that his "one true libertarianism" doesn't have that flaw. These sorts of arguments can go on forever because both sides think they are winning. Thus, if you want to try to reduce the crosstalk, you're going to have to specify what flavor of libertarianism or which particular point of libertarianism you are arguing against.
Libertarians are a small group whose beliefs are unknown to and not accepted by the vast majority. They are utopian because there has never yet been a libertarian society (though one or two have come close to some libertarian ideas.) These two facts should not keep us from considering libertarian ideas seriously, however they do caution us about accepting them for practical purposes.
excerpt:
This diversity of libertarian viewpoints can make it quite difficult to have a coherent discussion with them, because an argument that is valid for or against one type of libertarianism may not apply to other types. This is a cause of much argument in alt.politics.libertarian: non-libertarians may feel that they have rebutted some libertarian point, but some other flavor libertarian may feel that his "one true libertarianism" doesn't have that flaw. These sorts of arguments can go on forever because both sides think they are winning. Thus, if you want to try to reduce the crosstalk, you're going to have to specify what flavor of libertarianism or which particular point of libertarianism you are arguing against.
Libertarians are a small group whose beliefs are unknown to and not accepted by the vast majority. They are utopian because there has never yet been a libertarian society (though one or two have come close to some libertarian ideas.) These two facts should not keep us from considering libertarian ideas seriously, however they do caution us about accepting them for practical purposes.
susiedriver
Well-Known Member
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/politics/20lobby.html
WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 - The Justice Department has signaled for the first time in recent weeks that prominent members of Congress could be swept up in the corruption investigation of Jack Abramoff, the former Republican superlobbyist who diverted some of his tens of millions of dollars in fees to provide lavish travel, meals and campaign contributions to the lawmakers whose help he needed most.
The investigation by a federal grand jury, which began more than a year ago, has created alarm on Capitol Hill, especially with the announcement Friday of criminal charges against Michael Scanlon, Mr. Abramoff's former lobbying partner and a former top House aide to Representative Tom DeLay.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 - The Justice Department has signaled for the first time in recent weeks that prominent members of Congress could be swept up in the corruption investigation of Jack Abramoff, the former Republican superlobbyist who diverted some of his tens of millions of dollars in fees to provide lavish travel, meals and campaign contributions to the lawmakers whose help he needed most.
The investigation by a federal grand jury, which began more than a year ago, has created alarm on Capitol Hill, especially with the announcement Friday of criminal charges against Michael Scanlon, Mr. Abramoff's former lobbying partner and a former top House aide to Representative Tom DeLay.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
susiedriver
Well-Known Member
Powell aide: Torture 'guidance' from VP
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/20/torture/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A former top State Department official said Sunday that Vice President Dick Cheney provided the "philosophical guidance" and "flexibility" that led to the torture of detainees in U.S. facilities
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/20/torture/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A former top State Department official said Sunday that Vice President Dick Cheney provided the "philosophical guidance" and "flexibility" that led to the torture of detainees in U.S. facilities
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
Susie
I would guess that my real problem with your posts is not the pointing out of failures in our government, but the seeming gloating that you do while pointing out the short comings.
I guess in my world, I dont take any joy in the downfall or disgracing of someone, it is shameful. I dont really feel sorry for the person, but I do not feel a huge sense of joy in pointing out things that you seem to do.
I will wait for the system to run its course, the truth to come out, and then the guilty to be punished.
d
I would guess that my real problem with your posts is not the pointing out of failures in our government, but the seeming gloating that you do while pointing out the short comings.
I guess in my world, I dont take any joy in the downfall or disgracing of someone, it is shameful. I dont really feel sorry for the person, but I do not feel a huge sense of joy in pointing out things that you seem to do.
I will wait for the system to run its course, the truth to come out, and then the guilty to be punished.
d
susiedriver
Well-Known Member
Danny, I don't see how you can accuse me of gloating when the majority of my posts have been links without personal comment. On top of that, why would I relish the fact that my government's ethics seem to be in the toilet?dBoy said:
Did it ever occur to you that shedding light on the deeds done in the dark could in fact be construed as patriotic?
wkmac
Well-Known Member
susiedriver
Well-Known Member
wkmac,
Good article. Though we don't agree on politics, I think we are probably closer in our beliefs than you would care to admit.
The author is dead on when he refers to the power of internet in this statement:
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Reporting on the goofs and verbal gaffes of politicians might sound like a trivial act in the overall fight for freedom, but it relates directly to the huge issue of news reporting and politics. I need not argue for the importance of a free, independent press as a bulwark for freedom, as a guardian of truth against political deception and an irreplaceable service to the people.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
I think that the internet is the only place one can get unbiased reporting. At a time when all the major networks are owned by huge conglomerates one has to wonder at the depth (or lack of it) in their news reporting.
I also agree with the author when he states:[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
The Internet really is the destined home for libertarianism
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]because I just don't see it ever succeeding in the real world, not that I don't wish there was an alternative to the two major parties.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
Good article. Though we don't agree on politics, I think we are probably closer in our beliefs than you would care to admit.
The author is dead on when he refers to the power of internet in this statement:
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Reporting on the goofs and verbal gaffes of politicians might sound like a trivial act in the overall fight for freedom, but it relates directly to the huge issue of news reporting and politics. I need not argue for the importance of a free, independent press as a bulwark for freedom, as a guardian of truth against political deception and an irreplaceable service to the people.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
I think that the internet is the only place one can get unbiased reporting. At a time when all the major networks are owned by huge conglomerates one has to wonder at the depth (or lack of it) in their news reporting.
I also agree with the author when he states:[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
The Internet really is the destined home for libertarianism
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]because I just don't see it ever succeeding in the real world, not that I don't wish there was an alternative to the two major parties.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
moreluck
golden ticket member
"I think that the internet is the only place one can get unbiased reporting."
Anyone talking anywhere is biased.....one way or another. That's just human. We all have different life experiences and those infiltrate into our conversations......even in reporting the news. I don't believe there is ANY news reporting out there that is unbiased........impossible.
All we can do is take it in and glean what we can from it from several different sources.
Anyone talking anywhere is biased.....one way or another. That's just human. We all have different life experiences and those infiltrate into our conversations......even in reporting the news. I don't believe there is ANY news reporting out there that is unbiased........impossible.
All we can do is take it in and glean what we can from it from several different sources.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
You know I'm really surprised by some here. Over the last few days VP Dick Cheney has been shown in the media responding to IRAQ war critics as he stood at the podium in the offices or some event sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute. You clearly see the moniker behind Cheney. Who is AEI? Surely I don't have to tell you neocon haters that do I?
Even I had to ask myself the question, what in the world would Cheney be doing at AEI? Read some history about Irving Kristol and his past and you might get a better window of what a neocon really is and why they differ so much from a more traditional conservative like Pat Buchannan who is opposed to the war as well. Pat also doesn't like neocons either.
Also back in the very early 80's before his death Congressman Larry McDonald (killed on KAL 007 shot down by Soviets) told my wife and I to never, never, never, never.......................never trust Newt Gringrich and look who he's with now and what they are and you'll see why. Yeah Newt was my Congressman too for a while but I never voted for him.
Even I had to ask myself the question, what in the world would Cheney be doing at AEI? Read some history about Irving Kristol and his past and you might get a better window of what a neocon really is and why they differ so much from a more traditional conservative like Pat Buchannan who is opposed to the war as well. Pat also doesn't like neocons either.
Also back in the very early 80's before his death Congressman Larry McDonald (killed on KAL 007 shot down by Soviets) told my wife and I to never, never, never, never.......................never trust Newt Gringrich and look who he's with now and what they are and you'll see why. Yeah Newt was my Congressman too for a while but I never voted for him.
susiedriver
Well-Known Member
wkmac, did you leave out the sarcasm smiley on purpose?wkmac said:
susiedriver
Well-Known Member
Thoughtful article by Jim Lobe, who knows more about the neo-con movement than Richard Perle, about Cheney's speech at the AEI:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GK23Ak01.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GK23Ak01.html
Similar threads
