McCain booed after trying to calm anti-Obama crowd

[mckracken]

By PHILIP ELLIOTT and BETH FOUHY,
Associated Press Writers

LAKEVILLE, Minn. - The anger is getting raw at Republican rallies and John McCain is acting to tamp it down. McCain was booed by his own supporters Friday when, in an abrupt switch from raising questions about Barack Obama's character, he described the Democrat as a "decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States."

A sense of grievance spilling into rage has gripped some GOP events this week as McCain supporters see his presidential campaign lag against Obama. Some in the audience are making it personal, against the Democrat. Shouts of "traitor," "terrorist," "treason," "liar," and even "off with his head" have rung from the crowd at McCain and Sarah Palin rallies, and gone unchallenged by them.:headscratch:

McCain changed his tone Friday when supporters at a town hall pressed him to be rougher on Obama. A voter said, "The people here in Minnesota want to see a real fight." Another said Obama would lead the U.S. into socialism. Another said he did not want his unborn child raised in a country led by Obama.:headscratch:

"If you want a fight, we will fight," McCain said. "But we will be respectful. I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments." When people booed, he cut them off.

"I don't mean that has to reduce your ferocity," he said. "I just mean to say you have to be respectful."

Presidential candidates are accustomed to raucous rallies this close to Election Day and welcome the enthusiasm. But they are also traditionally monitors of sorts from the stage. Part of their job is to leaven proceedings if tempers run ragged and to rein in an out-of-bounds comment from the crowd.

Not so much this week, at GOP rallies in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida and other states.

When a visibly angry McCain supporter in Waukesha, Wis., on Thursday told the candidate "I'm really mad" because of "socialists taking over the country," McCain stoked the sentiment. "I think I got the message," he said. "The gentleman is right." He went on to talk about Democrats in control of Congress.

On Friday, McCain rejected the bait.

"I don't trust Obama," a woman said. "I have read about him. He's an Arab.":headscratch: (as a nation, are we REALLY this fucking clueless?)

McCain shook his head in disagreement, and said:

"No, ma'am. He's a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with (him) on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about."

He had drawn boos with his comment: "I have to tell you, he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States."

The anti-Obama taunts and jeers are noticeably louder when McCain appears with Palin, a big draw for GOP social conservatives. She accused Obama this week of "palling around with terrorists" because of his past, loose association with a 1960s radical. If less directly, McCain, too, has sought to exploit Obama's Chicago neighborhood ties to William Ayers, while trying simultaneously to steer voters' attention to his plans for the financial crisis.

The Alaska governor did not campaign with McCain on Friday, and his rally in La Crosse, Wis., earlier Friday was much more subdued than those when the two campaigned together. Still, one woman shouted "traitor" when McCain told voters Obama would raise their taxes.

Volunteers worked up chants from the crowd of "U.S.A." and "John McCain, John McCain," in an apparent attempt to drown out boos and other displays of negative energy.

The Secret Service confirmed Friday that it had investigated an episode reported in The Washington Post in which someone in Palin's crowd in Clearwater, Fla., shouted "kill him," on Monday, meaning Obama. There was "no indication that there was anything directed at Obama," Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren told AP. "We looked into it because we always operate in an atmosphere of an abundance of caution."

Palin, at a fundraiser in Ohio on Friday, told supporters "it's not negative and it's not mean-spirited" to scrutinize Obama's iffy associations.

But Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania an author of 15 books on politics, says the vitriol has been encouraged by inflammatory words from the stage.

"Red-meat rhetoric elicits emotional responses in those already disposed by ads using words such as 'dangerous' 'dishonorable' and 'risky' to believe that the country would be endangered by election of the opposing candidate," she said.

----------------------------------
WTF???? ok, its one thing that people really hate the other party because they're Democrats but this is really rediculous, do people honestly believe Obama is "an Arab"? are we, as one Nation, REALLY this intolerant, ignorant and stupid?

and these are MY PEOPLE saying this shit too... good Lord, this is getting bad.

my Republican friend Mike stated that Obama will lead this country to Communism (believe it) I said "WTF???" and he said the line about turning the country to Socialism and Socialism is one step away from Communism.

good grief, do people actually believe these FEAR TACTICS will get anyone to switch sides and vote for McCain? Do the Republican people actually believe all this crap about Obama, that he's a Muslim, a devil worshipping evil vile possessed demon? the anti-Christ? a communist?

If Obama wins in november, will we have to put up with four years of people labeling him a traitor? an arab? a Muslim? (or worse?)

if Obama wins in novemeber, will the Obama supporters have to endure four years of unjust persecution from ignorant Republican radicals who seriously believe all this shit?:confused: :confused:

[Bill_the_Pony]

"I don't trust Obama," a woman said. "I have read about him. He's an Arab.":headscratch: (as a nation, are we REALLY this fucking clueless?)



Not all of us are as vulgar and crass as the Capulets or Montagues.

[MPG]

A sense of grievance spilling into rage has gripped some GOP events this week as McCain supporters see his presidential campaign lag against Obama. Some in the audience are making it personal, against the Democrat. Shouts of "traitor," "terrorist," "treason," "liar," and even "off with his head"
That's the part that struck me the most, because it reminded me of what happened in Zimbabwe recently, where Mugabe supporters were hunting down opposition supporters (and vice versa). It might sound sensationalist, but when people can shout something like this during a McCain rally without immediately being told by everyone else to get the fuck out, then I have to assume that this is only one small step away from actual physical conflict.

During these events recently in Zimbabwe, I thought that a country can't have a democracy when there is a significant number of people in the country who really don't want a democracy. People say "off with his head" about a candidate who currently enjoys the support of 50% of voting Americans and they are not being challenged by others? It's not McCain who should tell them to shut up... 99.9% of the other people at his rallies should do so! Democracy should regulate itself, it shouldn't require its leaders to tell the people what is good etiquette.

People are concerned that democracy is being eaten away by scary laws like the Patriot Act, but if this goes on, then American democracy will eat itself. Sometimes I get the impression that there are fewer and fewer people who are actually willing to participate in democratic processes. On the one hand, there is the "off with his head" crowd. The people who will hate Obama just for being a Democrat, the Hillary supporters who will vote for McCain because they can't vote for the guy who beat Hillary in the primaries - in short, the people who don't understand that one part of a democracy is the need to accept that "the other side" might win from time to time. Then there is the "bipartisan" crowd. The people who shy away from every kind of disagreement and who think that a candidate who isn't bipartisan is a bad candidate. These people would probably be much happier under a technocracy or a monarchy with a benevolent king, but democracy isn't for them. This kind of development scares me much more than any law that Bush has enacted over the last 8 years.
Another said Obama [I]would lead the U.S. into socialism.
Well, most people who talk about socialism don't really know what it is anyway. :smirk: When people are on the extreme side of free market capitalism, then e.g. a public school must already feel like socialism to them.
Part of their job is to leaven proceedings if tempers run ragged and to rein in an out-of-bounds comment from the crowd.
That's exactly my problem... if the crowd can't police itself, then something is wrong with the whole crowd.
"I don't trust Obama," a woman said. "I have read about him. He's an Arab."
The best part is that the fact that he is supposedly an Arab automatically makes her distrust him. And McCain counters it by saying "No, ma'am. He's a decent, family man, a citizen.."

Does this strike anyone else as strange? It's a bit like saying "He's not an Arab, he's a decent man!" Or what if the conversation had gone like this?
Woman: I don't trust him. He's black.
McCain: No, ma'am. He's a decent, family man, a citizen...

Perhaps the right answer would have been "He's not an Arab, and even if he were, what the fuck is your problem, you racist bigot bitch??"

Seriously, McCain did a good thing by asking people to respect Obama, but he really didn't go far enough.

[TrekSucksHard]

LMAO! I saw it on the news and freakin' loved it!!! :lol:

I wish the debates were like this- really fun stuff! :D

Go rednecks go! So it doesn't matter who will be elected President- there's gonna be a ton of riots coming early next year, add the financial meltdown and we are gonna have anarchy baby!!! :lol:

If Obama wins we are gonna see the rebirth of the militia movement and if McCain wins we are gonna see Bill Ayers go back to bombing government buildings along with the Obama Youth brigades- AWESOME! :lol:

This is gonna be great!

I WANNA BE ANARCHY! :D

[JarrodSarafin]

Yep...

The Uninformed are going to decide the election after all. Rednecks, old people and closet racists (errr open racists too).

Most of our votes won't really matter. Texas, California, New York...What do we matter when someone moron from Swing State, USA will take a "Obama is an Arab Terrorist" email seriously?


If you're going to be Anarchy dude, I think I'll take a page out of Neil Gaiman's Good Omens novel and become "Things Not Working Properly Even After You've Given Them A Good Thumping But Secretly No Alcohol Lager" .

[TrekSucksHard]

Here you go, Jarrod:

http://i35.tinypic.com/34iimmb.jpg
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
http://bayimg.com/oAlOIaaBg

[Bill_the_Pony]

Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.


again.

[TrekSucksHard]

Correction: its the Filth and the Fury.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/1107/filth-and-the-fury-the-sex-pistols-the/

And it sure beats packing fudge! :lol:

[Bill_the_Pony]

Correction: its the Filth and the Fury.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/1107/filth-and-the-fury-the-sex-pistols-the/

And it sure beats packing fudge! :lol:


Why don't you elaborate on that a little bit further.

[TrekSucksHard]

No need, youre the expert on that! :lol:

[neglet]

Tacky, TSH. There's no need to start personal attacks, especially on something completely off topic. Tone it down or take a break from the board, or you force the mods to do it for you. :(

Plus, it's "you're," not "youre." That's not even a word.

[Kaeos]

Well, putting aside Trek's copy of "How to win friends and influence poeple" aside, I was floored by this development last night.

Watch the footage of McCain defending Obama with the sound off. Go ahead, do it. The look on John's face says a thousand words. I think for just that moment in time, John McCain was reminded of who he was and what he stood for 10 years ago. back when Democrats were willing to work with him on legislation and most of the Republican elite including the right wing media machine hated him.

Back before all of this. It was like wathing an Alzheimer patient waking up from the fog for a moment. Maybe I am reading too much into it, but I paused the live shot for a second and looked at the man.

His eyes said "What the hell is going on here? Is this what it's come to?"

I think John McCain had a stark reminder of the reality of where this campaign has gone and of the monster he's created by stoking this "Fear Obama" campaign by allowing the right wing to stand on the "mistake" of calling him Osama, (LOTS of people seem to make that mistake on the right, don't they?) and of what the real effect is of his little Manchurian Alaskan out there spitting the words "terrorist" with rank condescencion in front of every podium she can find.

Trek seems to think it's a big hard har har and thats fine, he's likely just having fun being a troll and pushing buttons for the sake of getting a reaction, but this is a serious issue and I think John McCain realized it for the first time last night that it's very likely that his campaign has placed a man's life in danger.

I don't say that lightly. I honestly believe that Jerrod is right about the attitudes and motivations of the far right element in our society. Sadly, I also beleive that those fringe elements have been stoked into a quiet fury towards Obama, and that it's not a very big leap for those people to move to violence.

As I watched McCain take the microphone back from the woman, as he spoke about his opponent with dignity and respect for the very first time, I think he realized it too.

This election is almost over. At this point there are 3 remaining scenarios left where McCain can still win.

1) Omaba makes a major slip up, like MAJOR slip up and something concrete comes out that he has to back away from. Not all this silly nonsense about "associations". It will have to be something major like he raped someone or extorted money. The first scenario is he screws it up himself.

Not all too likely since the only thing the Repulicans have not dug up yet is what kind of cereal he ate as a kid. If it ain't out yet, I think that well may have dried up for them.

2) If there has been a vast network out there of Repulibans pullling a "New Hampshire (http://us-elections.suite101.com/article.cfm/new_hampshire_primary_polls_wrong)" and lying to the pollsters.

Possible, but I think not probable. Too big, too hard to coordinate without being exposed itself.

3) Jerrod's suggested scenario. That the true nature of people's racism will come out ONLY once they are "in the booth" and ready to pul the lever. That when it comes right down too it, there may just be enough stupid, uneducated and dispicable people left in this nation who "just can't elect a black man"

Again, possible. And based on the ignorance of the poeple McCain got boo'd by last night, just about the only real chance McCain has of getting more votes than he's getting credit for in the polls.

BUT there is a counter effect to that. All of the major polling companies, from Rassmussen, Zogby, Gallup, Reuters, newsweek, CBS, Fox, NBC, all of them rely on land line #'s for their polling. The vast number of young adults are moving to cell phones. Not published. The fact is that even something like the Real Clear Politics poll of polls (the only one worth looking at) may be skewed in the wrong direction too. There could be a LOT more young Obama supporters out there who are not being polled since they don't have a land line. Real Clear Politics has Obama at +7, 49-42. It could actually be a HIGHER margin than that.

God help us if some psychotic takes this election into their own hands because the Manchurian Alaskan told him Obama was a Terrorist Muslim Arab.

[rappites]

The "Aarab" remark are exactly the type of people that are from my home town.


It is really really sad. That they are so ignorant and intolerant it makes me so angry. No, wonder they feel that more educated people snicker at them when they make remarks like this.

:(

[mckracken]

even more scary is that my buddy Mike didnt say SOCIALISM... he said "Obama will turn our country to COMMUNISM".... and he holds at least one PHD and two BA's I think...a very well educated guy...unfortunatly a very well educated right winger who is being influenced by other more radical people he considers his peers.

Mike seems to think that Socialism is a push away from Communism (Russia) while forgetting that Canada is a Socialist society.

He is extremely closed minded. In his mind, McCain is the saving force behind this country and this election and Obama is straight up demonic evil.

SD6nkIdjBro

[Bill_the_Pony]

Neglet, there's no point. Cowards die many times before their deaths. so let him find comfort in his flailing about.

[tstone]

Reading the thread...

Two things to conclude...McCain has some really embarrassing morons among his supporters.

Sucks is a homophobic douchebag.

And the world keeps a'turnin'...

[Space Tycoon]

The old Republican Party is dead. The party of driven entrepreneurs, courageous high achievers and rugged individualists... is completely gone.

In it's place, a rabble of ignorant superstitious peasants with pitchforks, screaming, "Burn the witch! Kill the infidels! Kill them all!!"

That's it. Time to close the book on the Republican Party and put together a new, sensible party of the right.








.

[mckracken]

or switch to the left like i did.:lol:

[JarrodSarafin]

Errr Spacie, those idiots have always been there. The Democrats have them too and we all know it here..As a lot of us have been talking about for years, yourself included, most of the problems between both sides are the far equations...the Far Left and the Far Right.

Just this week after the second presidential debate, I was in the car in the morning and they were talking about the debate because McCain got frustrated and said "That man".

The Radio DJ was a democrat and made no bones about it but it didn't take long for a far lefter Democrat to call and put the Radio DJ back into his moderate common sense territories.

Caller: *screaming* MCCAIN is a racist! He's part of the KU KLUX KLANNN!

Radio DJ: *sigh* Here we go...

Caller: *screaming* Did you hear what he said last night!!!

Radio DJ: Yes, I heard it...

Caller: Well, how was that NOT ra...

Radio DJ: It's called frustration, caller. His numbers are down and the debate was going from bad to worse. Frustration, not racism.

Caller: *screaming* He's part of the KKK, I tell ya! They are all..

Radio DJ: *hangs up phone* Our first jackass of the day....

All parties have the radicals which usually come in between us here. It's always been like that and it always will come between both parties to a degree.

And hearing a lot of generalizations about "all" Republicans doesn't really help those of us moderate Repubs out and about either.

[MPG]

Things are going from bad to worse... :(

Gunman kills 15 potential voters (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/gunman_kills_15_potential_voters)

[Kaeos]

Things are going from bad to worse... :(

Gunman kills 15 potential voters (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/gunman_kills_15_potential_voters)


Dude. Not even the least bit funny. The Onion should be ashamed of this one.

[JarrodSarafin]

I couldn't get the video to work? What was it?

[WISEGUY562]

I guess I must be a racist since I'm voting for McCain.
Is funny how the open minded left is so quick to pass judgement on anyone that doesn't agree with them.
And calling people rednecks isn't racist? It doesn't matter if you're white or not, you're playing the same b.s. game.

And saying that Texas,Cal or NY don't have enough say is total b.s. They have too much say, cause even if one side wins by one vote they get all those electoral college votes. We need to change the system nationwide and award electorals by proportion of the popular vote instead of the all or nothing most states employ. This way the conservatives in Cal and NY can actually have a voice. We can all have a voice. I vote in a very liberal state, so my vote for Reps. means nothing.

And to the one that said McCain didn't go far enough to defend Obama. If he went any further he may as well have endorsed him for president. He did more than he needed and too much as far as I'm concerned.

[Bill_the_Pony]

Oh, yes the term rednecks is terribly inappropriate. They can't help it.


(I've always thought of "redneck" as a state of mind, anyway. Orange County, in the most seemingly "un-redneck" of places, is a breeding ground for them, and they come in a number of races, from what I see.)


Now, "White trash"...that might be racist.

[JarrodSarafin]

Wiseguy, I'm not voting for Obama either here. (I am republican after all). I'm not a big fan of McCain either but I don't trust either one of them. Personally, I think they're both full of crap.

What I mean is that outside of those of us voting for our own reasoning, a lot of people are NOT going to be voting for Obama because of the more ignorant reasoning...i.e Obama is a terrorist...Obama is black.

Not saying that's happening for everyone who doesn't vote for Obama. Otherwise, I would be insulting myself.

As for what I meant with New York, California and Texas (being from there), I'm talking about our electoral votes pretty much already being a given for each party here.

As usual, it's going to come down to the election based in a few Swing states...not what most of us have to say.

[UNCLEagent]

Scary news story yesterday in which a church leader is calling on his congregation to vote for McCain. Then instructing them to pray extra hard to call on God to smite McCain and send him to Hell so that Pallin can take her rightful place.

Strangely enough, I was watching a documentary on the Salem witch trials tonight. My first thought was, "Jesus - were we really that warped and fucked?" Then I realized, we still are.

meh

[UNCLEagent]

Of course.... I still want to do Palin.

Is that wrong?

[mckracken]

yes.

[Space Tycoon]

Of course.... I still want to do Palin.

Is that wrong?


No, it's not. Not at all.

I want her to teach me the error of my ways, chastise me and punish me.

I could go into detail, but..... I think you folks can use your imagination. :eyebrow:








.

[neglet]

Scary news story yesterday in which a church leader is calling on his congregation to vote for McCain. Then instructing them to pray extra hard to call on God to smite McCain and send him to Hell so that Pallin can take her rightful place.

I hope first he asked the parishioners to put a little extra in the collection plate, because as a political advocate their church is going to have to give up their tax-free status. :p

[Intelligent_Design]

Wiseguy, I'm not voting for Obama either here. (I am republican after all). I'm not a big fan of McCain either but I don't trust either one of them. Personally, I think they're both full of crap.


Then don't vote. Trust me, the world won't end on that Weds no matter who wins. Or if you must join in the political process, then do a wiki search on all the other people running for president that you can write in. I did and there are about 10 of them from all sides of the political spectrum.


ETA: There are racists in both parties. The dems seem to be better at clouding everyone's mind to that fact.

[Space Tycoon]

or switch to the left like i did.:lol:

At this point, from what I've seen, a vote for Obama is a move to the centre, rather than the left per se.

But I think a dose of socialism is definitely on it's way in an Obama administration. Socialism in it's early phases usually offers quick fixes to certain social problems, be it education, jobs, healthcare. But in the long run I think Americans will grow tired of seeing their country resemble Sweden and will long for something more robust.







.

[Space Tycoon]

Errr Spacie, those idiots have always been there. The Democrats have them too and we all know it here..As a lot of us have been talking about for years, yourself included, most of the problems between both sides are the far equations...the Far Left and the Far Right.

...And hearing a lot of generalizations about "all" Republicans doesn't really help those of us moderate Repubs out and about either.

Maybe I should clarify. I didn't say all Republicans were mouthbreathers. Most aren't. But the dominant trend in the party is completely divorced from the sensible conservatism of earlier generations.

There doesn't seem to be any room for moderates like yourself, or libertarians like me in the present Republican Party. In fact there isn't room for anyone who happens to think a little differently. At least not for those who aspire to higher leadership.

The GOP is like a great tree rotting from the inside. The Party's over.

And so what? As I've said many times, these parties were never meant to be dynasties lasting for century after century. If it no longer works, start over.





.

[NotAFan]

I think the real question here is would you rather has this as your VP:

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o148/spencermustbeking/biden.jpg

OR THIS:

http://i484.photobucket.com/albums/rr210/mlojag/palin.jpg

I think the choice is obvious. HAHAHA BOOBIES!

[Bill_the_Pony]

http://a604.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/60/m_b93589d33d8dd4318479e6abf497e1cb.gif

[mckracken]

I think the real question here is would you rather has this as your VP:

http://i484.photobucket.com/albums/rr210/mlojag/palin.jpg
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o148/spencermustbeking/biden.jpg
I think the choice is obvious. HAHAHA BOOBIES!

you got the pictures out of order notafan.. here i fixed it for you!
LOL!

[tstone]

At this point, from what I've seen, a vote for Obama is a move to the centre, rather than the left per se.

But I think a dose of socialism is definitely on it's way in an Obama administration. Socialism in it's early phases usually offers quick fixes to certain social problems, be it education, jobs, healthcare. But in the long run I think Americans will grow tired of seeing their country resemble Sweden and will long for something more robust.



Not if what Obama actually does work.

Sweden works.

[Space Tycoon]

One of the reasons Sweden appears to work is that unlike the US, they don't spend more on military obligations than the rest of the world combined.

Nor do they have a sprawling empire consisting of hundreds of bases, hundreds of thousands of occupation forces, and a smattering of failed wars hither and yon. They mind their own business and have good relations with everyone, which is the model the US should follow.

Not their economic model, which is deeply flawed.








.

[tstone]

Is that really Palin there? Man, she has a beautiful rack.

[Space Tycoon]

Nah, that's not her. Photoshop, man.... :smirk:








.

[tstone]

One of the reasons Sweden appears to work is that unlike the US, they don't spend more on military obligations than the rest of the world combined.

Nor do they have a sprawling empire consisting of hundreds of bases, hundreds of thousands of occupation forces, and a smattering of failed wars hither and yon. They mind their own business and have good relations with everyone, which is the model the US should follow.

Not their economic model, which is deeply flawed.


Apparently not, since the country is wealthy, healthy, and the people are happy and content with their system.

[tstone]

[QUOTE=Space Tycoon;182177]Nah, that's not her. Photoshop, man.... :smirk:

Damn...I hear there are better rack pictures of her, though. And I believe she has a powerful rack.

:ohwell:

[Space Tycoon]

Apparently not, since the country is wealthy, healthy, and the people are happy and content with their system.

Ah, well, all is not as rosy as it may seem (http://mises.org/story/2190)from our vantage point...

Swedes are not as happy or wealthy as we may like to believe, and it is mostly the fault of failed collectivist policies.






.

[Space Tycoon]

Damn...I hear there are better rack pictures of her, though. And I believe she has a powerful rack.

:ohwell:

Well, I'm sure she will have a prosperous future ahead of her on the daytime talk show circuit. You just know that's coming..... :smirk:








.

[tstone]

Ah, well, all is not as rosy as it may seem (http://mises.org/story/2190)from our vantage point...

Swedes are not as happy or wealthy as we may like to believe, and it is mostly the fault of failed collectivist policies.






.


Dude...dude...this is from the Austrian School, one of the most extreme Libertarian organizationis out there. I see Libertarians quoting them all the time.

The Swedes also have a democratic republic, elected officials. And the system is solidly in place. To say the Swedes are overall happy and prosperous is not to say the system is perfect. Not at all. It is to say that there are many approaches to making a society work. And the Austrian School isn't the final word on the subject.

Bottom line is, the Swedes have found something that works for them.

Bottom line two, I believe that no single idealogy offers a singular formula that can make a society work. ALL successful societies will be a synthesis of free market and government policies. And the only way it will work at all, especially long term, is if it's set up to empower the whole society, rather than a powerful elite.

BTW, to be fair, I did read that article. It was an op ed piece, written by clearly an old grump pining away for the "good old days". To get a more accurate feel of how the modern Swedish society really feels about their country, you would need to talk to a wide range of demographics and get their general take.

One old fart can't presume to speak for his nation.

[omicron]

And really, how unhappy can you be when you're known for your blonde fair-skinned Nordic goddesses?? :eyebrow:

[Daltons Chin Dimple]

But Sweden has one of the highest suicide rates in the world doesn't it ?

I hate to sound like a gloater, I really don't mean to, but the rest of the world really is p*ssing itself laughing at US politics and probably has been since the Clinton affair.

[Bill_the_Pony]

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/PublicationsArticle/Condoleezza_0.gif

[NotAFan]

I hate to sound like a gloater, I really don't mean to, but the rest of the world really is p*ssing itself laughing at US politics and probably has been since the Clinton affair.

Sounds like someone's still bitter about having their A$$ kicked in the American Revolution! You sound awfully ungrateful considering America saved your A$$ in WWI & WWII. If it wasn't for the good old U-S-of-A then you'd be speaking german right now. You should be kissing America's feet. Besides there is way more to laugh at in British politics. What with the fact that you still have a monarchy, and that it is completely redundant and useless. You've left yourself with an inbred buck-tooth royal family whose only duty is to mince around like Tinkerbell, wave to people, and act as fodder for the tabloids.

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj199/yaryalitsa/caricatures/prince-charles-caricature.jpg

Speaking of which, you must have been real proud of your country when Prince Harry dressed up as Hitler. I guess that's what happens when you are the product of your father marrying his sister. BTW I've always wondered how the The Whole Nation of England could have such rotten teeth when their food is so freakin' awfull. I don't think your people could possibly stomach seconds could you?

http://i520.photobucket.com/albums/w328/Zack21o/thFlag.jpg

AMERICA F*CK YEAH!

[Daltons Chin Dimple]

Wow, did you type that with your cock ?

[Woodwraith]

I read about viscious supporters from both sides. It makes me cringe alot because no matter who wins neither side needs these kind of supporters and above all, it shows just what's wrong with this society. Just check out cbsnews.com at the end every article you'll see what I mean. It seems Obama suporters can be worse at times.

[Woodwraith]

you got the pictures out of order notafan.. here i fixed it for you!
LOL!

IMO they're both boobs. You know what I mean. :Dunno:

[Woodwraith]

[quote=Space Tycoon;182177]Nah, that's not her. Photoshop, man.... :smirk:

Damn...I hear there are better rack pictures of her, though. And I believe she has a powerful rack.

:ohwell:

That could be the moose head she has in hung up in her house. :D

[Woodwraith]

Sounds like someone's still bitter about having their A$$ kicked in the American Revolution! You sound awfully ungrateful considering America saved your A$$ in WWI & WWII. If it wasn't for the good old U-S-of-A then you'd be speaking german right now. You should be kissing America's feet. Besides there is way more to laugh at in British politics. What with the fact that you still have a monarchy, and that it is completely redundant and useless. You've left yourself with an inbred buck-tooth royal family whose only duty is to mince around like Tinkerbell, wave to people, and act as fodder for the tabloids.

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj199/yaryalitsa/caricatures/prince-charles-caricature.jpg

Speaking of which, you must have been real proud of your country when Prince Harry dressed up as Hitler. I guess that's what happens when you are the product of your father marrying his sister. BTW I've always wondered how the The Whole Nation of England could have such rotten teeth when their food is so freakin' awfull. I don't think your people could possibly stomach seconds could you?

http://i520.photobucket.com/albums/w328/Zack21o/thFlag.jpg

AMERICA F*CK YEAH!

Wow man. Did someone step on your hamster or what? That was pretty mean spirited don't you think?

[neglet]

Yeah, don't piss off the British. They might stop coming over here with their pounds and shopping in our outlet malls.

[Daltons Chin Dimple]

Hey, don't get me wrong. I love America. I am a Yank-o-phile. I used to be married to one. I am coming on my 3rd big holiday to the US in 2 years in less than 4 weeks. I detest lazy anti-Americanism for the sake of it and roll my eyes at people who manage to find a way to blame the US when their fridge runs out of milk or they stub their toe. But.....

What I mean is the current state of US politics and it has been growing steadily worse since the Bill Clinton affair. It has now reached a level that damages the USA, both internally and makes it look frickin' stupid (sorry, no other way to put it) to everyone else. It damages the image and appearance of a nation that I am very, very fond of. And also importantly, it makes a nation that is a force for good have far less influence on the international stage because everyone thinks it's a bit of a joke, and nobody really listens to the office/class idiot, right ?

First off there is the general standard of candidate who, whilst impressive in appearance, sombre, polished and considered in their approaches, are so well handled, briefed and stage managed in every way that it hides the fact that in any other Western democracy these guys wouldn't be in charge of the supplies closet back at Party HQ.

This has been characteristic for many years and reflected in the standard of others in the administration. There is a generally accepted norm in international politics that everything actually needs two meetings. One where the Americans jump up and down making lot's of noise with no real understanding of the reality of the situation, and then the second meeting where the American's have sodded off and the real work get's done. This has been voiced in nearly identical terms by people I know in the cabinet office, a Colombian contact, and somebody involved in the Spanish parliament as well as mentioned both covertly and out right in the media.

This is not an attack on the US historically. This is me saying that you are the USA, the country that put a man on the moon, came up with the Marshall plan, the nation of Roosevelt, Microsoft and Apple, the 747, New York City, Hollywood, Neglet and Kah, Wall Street, Baskin Robins and Krispy Kreme donuts, Long Island Iced teas and Jessica Alba's behind. You are better than this !!!!

Then there is the campaigning itself which is personality centred and leaves policies second. This is what I mean by laughable. Everyone external to the US looks at current campaign ads, the rhetoric, the words out of the mouths of the candidates, the bahviour of the supporters and the campaign management teams and just thinks "WTF????" Jaws hit the floor as it lurches from the sublime to the ridiculous. And it reflects badly on you. The vast majority of people from the US I have met are intelligent, quick witted and great fun to be around. They are also the nicest, friendliest and most welcoming people on earth with a positive outlook that I wish my country had more of. Just about everybody on here is fantastic in every way and been great fun conversing with on everything from the Credit Crunch to the new Bond theme.

But when the political circus starts up it makes that image change to a bunch of..... well, it's not pretty !

The overall picture in US politics is rotten to the core, threatening to take the whole great nation with it. The country is so divided. You throw words around at each other like "Liberal" and "Conservative" not as labels, but as barbs and insults, despite the fact that neither Republican or Democrat comes anywhere close to the reality of liberalism or conservatism in any way at all.

One side hates the other, detests everything the other stands for and will not entertain compromise, intellectual bargaining or the search for a third way. There is only black and white, left or right, with or against and the idiots are legion on both side.

And if one side loses, the other will cry foul, sue, or assassinate somebody anyway so is there really any frickin' point ! Meanwhile the world looks on and starts paying less and less serious attention to a country which, I strongly believe, the world really needs.

And regarding Not-A-Fan, if all you have got is lazy stereotypes and based on out of date perceptions then great, and enjoy your election. As none of your points or arguments really make a lot of sense and are factually incorrect then I guess the current state of US politics is right up your particular street. You can bring nothing but a barely intellectual mind-fart of true fuckwit proportions with a hackneyed check list (bad teeth, worse food etc.) and completely forgot shit weather and the fact we all talk like Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins. Amateur. Even when you do something shit, you do it badly. When you can come up with a more creative chant than "USA, USA, USA....." then maybe you can come and play again.

[Bill_the_Pony]

Dalton, when one IS a lazy stereotype, that's all they see the rest of the world (and themselves) as.

You, on the other hand, have never once fit in that category.

NotaFan.... you're not helping the cause, whatever the hell that may be. :mad:

[Space Tycoon]

Dude...dude...this is from the Austrian School, one of the most extreme Libertarian organizationis out there. I see Libertarians quoting them all the time.

Well, they've been right so far, about the war, about the impending economic recession brought on by reckless expansion of government, and about a whole range of other things.

Bottom line is, the Swedes have found something that works for them.

Either that, or they simply have become too dependent on the state to want to risk anything different.

BTW, to be fair, I did read that article. It was an op ed piece, written by clearly an old grump pining away for the "good old days". To get a more accurate feel of how the modern Swedish society really feels about their country, you would need to talk to a wide range of demographics and get their general take.

One old fart can't presume to speak for his nation

Well, this guys' not an old fart. (http://www.mises.org/story/2259) :smirk:

I imagine these sentiments are pretty commonplace throughout Swedish society. Young and old, male amd female, rich or poor, I imagine you would hear the same complaints--taxes are too high, governments are too intrusive, crime is up, coddled bums are too lazy to work... Sure they are proud of their country's accomplishments, and they have every right to be. But if I can draw from my experiences here, many Canadians are proud of their country too--but are sick and tired of overgovernment.








.

[omicron]

I really hope NotAFan was doing a parody and not serious. :(

[Bill_the_Pony]

I really hope NotAFan was doing a parody and not serious. :(


If it WAS , then it forgot to be funny.

Spouting off like that in a country that managed to vote for Bush TWICE is like a German saying Hitler wasn't such a bad guy.

[Space Tycoon]

Dalton speaks for me on this one. Absolutely right. Many Canadians feel the same way, although for us, there's also the inevitable friction that comes between any two neighbours.

Imagine if your brother or cousin lives next door to you and they have a yapping dog that leaves little gifts in your cultivated rosebush. As much as you may love and respect them... man, that damn yapping dog just won't stop pooping.

Being next door gives you the right to complain a little.

I mean, you Brits live next door to France and Ireland. Not always an easy relationship, yes?

This is not an attack on the US historically. This is me saying that you are the USA, the country that put a man on the moon, came up with the Marshall plan, the nation of Roosevelt, Microsoft and Apple, the 747, New York City, Hollywood, Neglet and Kah, Wall Street, Baskin Robins and Krispy Kreme donuts, Long Island Iced teas and Jessica Alba's behind.

Allow me to clarify:

http://www.funponsel.com/images/movies/jessica%20alba%20-%20into%20the%20blue.gif



And all that other stuff was great too.







.

[omicron]

good god it's hypnotic.........:eyebrow:

[mckracken]

her bikini bottom changes from blue to striped... whats up with that?

[JarrodSarafin]

Two different scenes from the movie I think, McK.

But both are equally enjoyable.

[Daltons Chin Dimple]

And Jessica Alba's behind heals the rift in America, and all was well with the world.

Huzzah !

[tstone]

Well, they've been right so far, about the war, about the impending economic recession brought on by reckless expansion of government, and about a whole range of other things.


However, as usual, they turn an utter blind eye to casino capitalism, the utterly disproved idea that the Wall Street masters of the universe will simply "behave themselves". Until Libertarianism is willing to confront that side of the economic puzzile, their solutions will be next to worthless.

And a whole lot of people opposed Bush on the war. Not like Libertarians were exactly lone wolves.




Well, this guys' not an old fart. (http://www.mises.org/story/2259) :smirk:


He comes across like one.


I imagine these sentiments are pretty commonplace throughout Swedish society.


You IMAGINE. Imagination is no substitute for hard, cold fact. You linked to one guy's opinion, comparing memories/heresay of Sweden's past to Sweden's present. That's not enough to conclude that Sweden's approach is some kind of failure.

As for Canadians, and them supposedly being "tired" of overgovernment, what precisely do you mean? And if that's the overwhelming popular sentiment, what parts of "overgovernment" are they on the verge of getting rid of?

I'm no Canadian, or expert on Canadian politics, but I really doubt, for example, they are in a hurry to ditch their health care system.

[neglet]

I'm no Canadian, or expert on Canadian politics, but I really doubt, for example, they are in a hurry to ditch their health care system.

I'm certainly in no hurry ... my mother-in-law (who lives in Canada) had an abdominal aneurysm this past summer and collapsed with severe internal bleeding. She spent several days in intensive care and almost two weeks in the hospital total. Luckily, she didn't have to have surgery (the bleed healed on its own), but she had many scans and tests while she was there. She was discharged when she was healthy enough to go. The only thing she paid for was the ambulance ride.

I contrast that to what my stylist was telling me about her mother yesterday. She had a brain aneurysm, has been in intensive care, and although they haven't ruled out a stroke, the hospital wanted to discharge her to a nursing facility. They only just removed a brain shunt, and her mother isn't fully conscious of people around her, because her brain is still healing. Still, the hospital was trying to get rid of her. At the family's insistence, they're going to move her to another hospital instead of a nursing facility, but still. The concern seems to be managing costs, not patient care.

I'm not saying I want the Canadian system, but ours sure isn't working right.

[Space Tycoon]

However, as usual, they turn an utter blind eye to casino capitalism, the utterly disproved idea that the Wall Street masters of the universe will simply "behave themselves".

Yes and no. Beltway libertarians were on the same page as Republicans for the most part, you're right about that. But old-schoolers like Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13544), have been predicting a massive economic crash for several years--putting the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Greenspan-Bush regime:

This is what Ayn Rand – Greenspan's old mentor – used to call "the aristocracy of pull," as she put it in one of her fascinating and audaciously self-referential essays. The housing boom – and bust – was made possible by U.S. government-guaranteed loans, given to individuals who failed to meet minimum credit standards. This "backed by the faith and credit of the U.S. government" label created a market that continued to overvalue these "assets," which were then bundled together into instruments of increasing complexity and sophistication. These "derivatives" and other exotic securities became progressively further and further removed from real market conditions.

The Greenspan bubble, pumped up to its limit, continued to expand – and quite naturally popped. Rand used to call him "the undertaker," because of his dark suits and darker demeanor. Little did she realize that her loyal disciple – Greenspan used to give lectures on "The Economics of a Free Society" at the old Nathaniel Branden Institute – would one day become the undertaker of the U.S. economy.

And a whole lot of people opposed Bush on the war. Not like Libertarians were exactly lone wolves.

"The war," yes. What about all the others? Libertarians--as well as genuine left-wing progressives--have been the only groups who challenge the Washington Consensus as embodied by Mcain and Obama. This idea that America must maintain a large and expensive international empire, intervening all over the world, is agreed upon by both parties, though they differ on the details.

He comes across like one.

Well, that is your opinion, I often feel the same way when I hear Democrats pining for the glory days of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy--forgetting all the abuses and injustices that went along with them.

As for Canadians, and them supposedly being "tired" of overgovernment, what precisely do you mean? And if that's the overwhelming popular sentiment, what parts of "overgovernment" are they on the verge of getting rid of?

Canadians have been successfully convinced that there is no real alternative. That, and the fact that the Federal government employs a huge chunk of the population, assures that socialism isn't going anywhere in Canada anytime soon.

I'm no Canadian, or expert on Canadian politics, but I really doubt, for example, they are in a hurry to ditch their health care system.

There is growing support for at least some privatization, among many parts of the population. But again, people have essentially been brainwashed to believe that healthcare must be monopolized by the government.

Basically, what it boils down to is, when you have a large nation rich in resources, and a small population, socialism seems to make sense. What happens when that is no longer the case?






.

[tstone]

Yes and no. Beltway libertarians were on the same page as Republicans for the most part, you're right about that. But old-schoolers like Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13544), have been predicting a massive economic crash for several years--putting the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Greenspan-Bush regime:


There is no way I can get behind Libertarians until they admit that corporate power is at least as dangerous as government power can be.


"The war," yes. What about all the others?


You can't generalize "war". Each has to be taken as a specific case.


Libertarians--as well as genuine left-wing progressives--have been the only groups who challenge the Washington Consensus as embodied by Mcain and Obama. This idea that America must maintain a large and expensive international empire, intervening all over the world, is agreed upon by both parties, though they differ on the details.


If you are a world power, want world influence and have global interests, it's a reality that you either need a military that can defend it, or get someone else to do it.

In general, the swords to plowshares approach is a pie in the sky concept not supported by history.


Canadians have been successfully convinced that there is no real alternative. That, and the fact that the Federal government employs a huge chunk of the population, assures that socialism isn't going anywhere in Canada anytime soon.


Because the system works. That's not saying it's perfect, that's saying it works, and no one is offering a demonstrably better alternative. It's all theory, just like what the hard core socialists offer. And like the socialists, most of what libertarians can point to is not encouraging.

There is growing support for at least some privatization, among many parts of the population. But again, people have essentially been brainwashed to believe that healthcare must be monopolized by the government.


Take it from me, the for profit model is not a good one for health care.


Basically, what it boils down to is, when you have a large nation rich in resources, and a small population, socialism seems to make sense. What happens when that is no longer the case?


You continue with what works, adjust what doesn't. And don't lock into any idealogical pie in the skie notions with little basis in reality.

[Outsydr]

Sounds like someone's still bitter about having their A$$ kicked in the American Revolution! You sound awfully ungrateful considering America saved your A$$ in WWI & WWII. If it wasn't for the good old U-S-of-A then you'd be speaking german right now. You should be kissing America's feet. Besides there is way more to laugh at in British politics. What with the fact that you still have a monarchy, and that it is completely redundant and useless. You've left yourself with an inbred buck-tooth royal family whose only duty is to mince around like Tinkerbell, wave to people, and act as fodder for the tabloids.

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj199/yaryalitsa/caricatures/prince-charles-caricature.jpg

Speaking of which, you must have been real proud of your country when Prince Harry dressed up as Hitler. I guess that's what happens when you are the product of your father marrying his sister. BTW I've always wondered how the The Whole Nation of England could have such rotten teeth when their food is so freakin' awfull. I don't think your people could possibly stomach seconds could you?

http://i520.photobucket.com/albums/w328/Zack21o/thFlag.jpg

AMERICA F*CK YEAH!

I'm guessing that you live in an apartment with hard wood floors and no furniture. That way, when you start giggling over your latest attempt at humor, the echo makes it seem like someone else finds you funny and that your life is less empty.

[Space Tycoon]

There is no way I can get behind Libertarians until they admit that corporate power is at least as dangerous as government power can be.

But now you're engaging in the very generalization you often accuse libertarians of. Libertarians who oppose the military industrial complex naturally condemn those companies who sustain it and profit from it. As they condemn certain other corporations for various reasons. Many other corporations have been immensely beneficial, as you know. And many of them started off as small independent enterprises.

Your solutions, and the solutions of the left as an aggregate(now I'm generalizing), would create a plethora of new laws, regulations, and constraints which would punish and stifle the innocent along with the guilty.

The very fallacy of all collectivism.

Libertarianism is about free choice and the promotion of self-reliance. Not an automatic apologia for bad corporate behaviour. Sure there are problems, but we simply do not trust government as a solution.

f you don't like Wal-Mart, don't shop there. If you hate your job, start your own business. If you don't trust the processed food your local supermarket chain sells, then buy from the local organic farmer. Or grow your own. Buy American. Think locally. Or better yet, just think. For yourself.

That's really all we're saying.

You can't generalize "war". Each has to be taken as a specific case.

Well then, I would say that the vast majority of US military actions since the end of the Cold War (that includes Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II) have run the gamut from unnecessary to ill-advised, to utterly criminal. US wars of "liberation" and "democracy" are invariably covers for protecting and promoting corporate or other special interests.

With the exceptions of Bosnia and Kosovo, in which there were genuine humanitarian issues at stake. Even with the Balkan intervention, however, we see definite economic and geostrategic interests being served such as oil pipelines, the containment of Serbia and Russia, etc.

The occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have been totally illegitimate and counterproductive. The same holds true for America's outsourced conflicts in the Horn of Africa, Lebanon, and the Caucases. All this bears the distinct hallmark of an Empire, plain and simple, which is what the USA has seemingly become.

Empires have a tendency to fall under their own weight

If you are a world power, want world influence and have global interests, it's a reality that you either need a military that can defend it, or get someone else to do it.

The US has the largest military machine on earth, no-one else even comes close, nor will they for decades. America's best option, in my opinion, is to bring the troops home from all these occupations, peaceful or otherwise; close down most of the 300 or so bases and military outposts around the world; and focus on true homeland security. I could go on but that's a topic for another

In general, the swords to plowshares approach is a pie in the sky concept not supported by history.

I disagree totally, I believe that modern warfare itself has become the enemy of mankind. In a globalized world, every minor conflict in every region has the potential to blow up into something much larger.

Because the system works. That's not saying it's perfect, that's saying it works, and no one is offering a demonstrably better alternative. It's all theory, just like what the hard core socialists offer. And like the socialists, most of what libertarians can point to is not encouraging.

You keep trying to invent some pattern of similarity between socialists and libertarians. There simply is none. Socialism is utopian, while libertarianism is almost dystopian. Never the twain shall meet.

I see plenty encouragement from the free-market experimentation in places like Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, China, Russia, Dubai, New Zealand... I could go on. It's not just just theory, it's fact.

Take it from me, the for profit model is not a good one for health care.

The reasons US healthcare is in trouble... has nothing to with the profit motive. It has everything to do with bureaucracy, litigation, red tape, and the fact that Americans simply are not healthy. They lead unhealthy lives, eat the wrong foods, get little exercise, engage in high-risk actvities, etc.

And the kicker is, under a system of "free" healthcare, we are forced to pay for the treatment of such people. The guy who gets a heart attack because he smokes, drinks, uses drugs, eats fatty foods, sits on the couch for hours every day... you're bailing him out.

Hasn't there been enough of that lately?

You continue with what works, adjust what doesn't. And don't lock into any idealogical pie in the skie notions with little basis in reality.

There's nothing pie in the sky or utopian about libertarianism. It is as natural as Darwin's theory of evolution, which is why collectivists of the right and the left hate libertarianism.






.

[Space Tycoon]

I'm guessing that you live in an apartment with hard wood floors and no furniture. That way, when you start giggling over your latest attempt at humor, the echo makes it seem like someone else finds you funny and that your life is less empty.

I'll tell you what's going on here.

Remember all the ridiculous venom directed at France when Chirac refused to participate in the Iraq War? Well you just don't hear that anymore, now that French PM Sarkozsy has moved the country towards a more pliant, US-leaning direction. No more "freedom fries" or "surrender monkeys."

Britain's government is no longer playing the role of the supplicant as during the Bush years. So now the haters are going to start in with the Brits. UK-bashing could be the next big thing for the hordes of dispirited, frustrated neocrazies.

That is, when they're not busy smearing Obama as a sleeper agent for al Qaeda. :rolleyes:







.

[MPG]

Remember all the ridiculous venom directed at France when Chirac refused to participate in the Iraq War? Well you just don't hear that anymore, now that French PM Sarkozsy has moved the country towards a more pliant, US-leaning direction. No more "freedom fries" or "surrender monkeys."
That stopped long before Sarkozy. The reason is not that France changed its policies but that at some point, people in the US realized that the countries that were against the Iraq War were simply right. Before the Iraq War all the dunces who really believed that there were WMDs thought that there was some kind of immediate threat from Iraq, so it felt to them that allies like France were abandoning them. Now they realize that the anti-war countries were more like the good friend who tells you "Dude, don't smoke that stuff, it's not good for you." So now they realize that the whole "freedom fries" thing was nothing more than an embarrassment that should be quietly forgotten.

What is even more embarrassing though is that there was never an apology for that. I know it's difficult to apologize when you feel stupid, but the dunce fraction's vitriol was directed not only towards countries but also towards individuals. I always remember for example how Conan O'Brien made fun of Hans Blix in a really shameful manner. But I guess a part of being stupid is not knowing when to apologize.

[Bill_the_Pony]

I don't imagine we should expect apologies from any of these people sometime soon. :rolleyes:

zRqcfqiXCX0

[mckracken]

chalk one up for the misinformed Ohio Corn growers.... but I cant really make that argument because thats exactly what all the extreme right-winger McCain supporters in my church say about Barack "baby Killer, Muslim, terrorist, anti-white, Commie, socialist"

"how can you call yourself a Republican and yet vote for the Baby-killer Barack Obama?"

"How can you call yourself a Christian and vote Democrat when it(He) is against everything we stand for?" they ask.

we stood for everything Bush stood for, for eight years, i took it, I tried it, I believed there were WMD's in Iraq, I believed that the war was justified, we were all lied too, its done now, its finished and I want to try something different this time.

[tstone]

But now you're engaging in the very generalization you often accuse libertarians of. Libertarians who oppose the military industrial complex naturally condemn those companies who sustain it and profit from it. As they condemn certain other corporations for various reasons. Many other corporations have been immensely beneficial, as you know. And many of them started off as small independent enterprises.


Wal Mart is not part of the "military/industrial" complex, as are any number of other large companies whose practices from labor to community, environmental, trade etc etc are harmful. Am I saying all corporations are harmful? Of course not. Some are beneficial, and some are a mixed bag.

But are you willing to take such a more nuanced approach to your criticism of government?




Your solutions, and the solutions of the left as an aggregate(now I'm generalizing), would create a plethora of new laws, regulations, and constraints which would punish and stifle the innocent along with the guilty.

The very fallacy of all collectivism.


Really, what "solutions" are those? Telling companies they have to clean up their own messes? Telling companies they have to treat their employees decently? Telling companies they have to put out products that are safe for use/consumption? Telling companies that communities exist for their own sake, not just as collections of consumers/resources to be used?

It is a fact that there are a number of government initiatives that have seen the nation cleaner, more profitable and with the wealth more spread, resulting in yet more profit. EVERY free market economy in the world has versions of this. There is not ONE example of laisez faire just getting things done.



Libertarianism is about free choice and the promotion of self-reliance. Not an automatic apologia for bad corporate behaviour. Sure there are problems, but we simply do not trust government as a solution.


Unfortunately, they've yet to offer a better one, or one even just as good, without anything more concrete than "trust us".


f you don't like Wal-Mart, don't shop there. If you hate your job, start your own business. If you don't trust the processed food your local supermarket chain sells, then buy from the local organic farmer. Or grow your own. Buy American. Think locally. Or better yet, just think. For yourself.


Yes, but what happens when I'm up against an organization that's larger, wealthier, more powerful and has access to information than I don't? The individual against the corporation nowadays is not in a fair fight.




Well then, I would say that the vast majority of US military actions since the end of the Cold War (that includes Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II) have run the gamut from unnecessary to ill-advised, to utterly criminal. US wars of "liberation" and "democracy" are invariably covers for protecting and promoting corporate or other special interests.


I thought corporations were the good guys?

Desert Storm was warranted. Our interventions in Eastern Europe were warranted. Our intervention in Somalia was warranted, just badly done. Our invasion of Afghanistan, WARRANTED.


US wars of "liberation" and "democracy" are invariably covers for protecting and promoting corporate or other special interests.


This is often something that comes from the radical left. Which I disagree with. The Bush Admin has been guilty of far more wrong than right. But the Bush Admin is not a typical US administration, and it would be inaccurate at best to use it's misdeeds to color the rest of American history.



With the exceptions of Bosnia and Kosovo, in which there were genuine humanitarian issues at stake. Even with the Balkan intervention, however, we see definite economic and geostrategic interests being served such as oil pipelines, the containment of Serbia and Russia, etc.


Maybe, but they were still right. And if we can do some good strategic maneuvering, and maybe even get something for our time, resources and risk, I have no problem with that.


The occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have been totally illegitimate and counterproductive. The same holds true for America's outsourced conflicts in the Horn of Africa, Lebanon, and the Caucases. All this bears the distinct hallmark of an Empire, plain and simple, which is what the USA has seemingly become.


Iraq, yes, Afghanistan, NO. We were responding to an act of aggression. All nations have the right to defend themselves. Bush Admin ineptitude is not the same thing as the policy being wrong.


Empires have a tendency to fall under their own weight


Again, empires fall for all kinds of reasons, that is way too general and insubstantial a conclusion.




The US has the largest military machine on earth, no-one else even comes close, nor will they for decades. America's best option, in my opinion, is to bring the troops home from all these occupations, peaceful or otherwise; close down most of the 300 or so bases and military outposts around the world; and focus on true homeland security. I could go on but that's a topic for another


Hell to the no.




I disagree totally, I believe that modern warfare itself has become the enemy of mankind. In a globalized world, every minor conflict in every region has the potential to blow up into something much larger.


And that's the way it is. So how do you cope with being in a world of wolves?

Not by being a sheep.




You keep trying to invent some pattern of similarity between socialists and libertarians. There simply is none. Socialism is utopian, while libertarianism is almost dystopian. Never the twain shall meet.


They both believe in an airy fairy ideal theory of a society that can work as a pure example of their beliefs. But examine either of them and the more extreme any society has gotten (more government control or more lax on wealth and resources, just letting folks do whatever), the result is not anywhere near what their ideals say it would be.



I see plenty encouragement from the free-market experimentation in places like Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, China, Russia, Dubai, New Zealand... I could go on. It's not just just theory, it's fact.


China is still a military dictatorship with NO political or religious freedom, nor no inclination to head that way. Russia is steadily discarding freedom after freedom, crony capitalism is out of control, and is becoming more of a military aggressor again. Journalists have died there. Dubia, nice shiny face covering up a strict fundy Islamic "justice" system, I could ALSO go on.

NONE of them are practicing libertarian economics. All of them have rules.



The reasons US healthcare is in trouble... has nothing to with the profit motive. It has everything to do with bureaucracy, litigation, red tape, and the fact that Americans simply are not healthy. They lead unhealthy lives, eat the wrong foods, get little exercise, engage in high-risk actvities, etc.


And companies don't play a part in encouraging any of these activities? Oh, and a big scandal about medical companies in America getting mad because of American citizens getting meds through CANADA, because they don't want to pay the too high American costs. American medical companies are making money hand over fist. Red tape, litigation and beauracracy make a nice battle cry, but they don't mesh with the reality on the ground.



And the kicker is, under a system of "free" healthcare, we are forced to pay for the treatment of such people. The guy who gets a heart attack because he smokes, drinks, uses drugs, eats fatty foods, sits on the couch for hours every day... you're bailing him out.


Blame his HMO.



Hasn't there been enough of that lately?


Yes. I am tired of "greed is good".

It's played.



There's nothing pie in the sky or utopian about libertarianism. It is as natural as Darwin's theory of evolution, which is why collectivists of the right and the left hate libertarianism.


"Collectivist?" Time to ditch the Red Scare era rhetoric. Yes, Libertarianism IS pie in the sky, and it's NOT natural in the way you use it, that it will somehow "naturally" benefit the greater whole by itself. It's only natural in the way that greed shares with anger, hatred, jealousy, etc. It's a natural impulse and not even always bad. But by itself, allowed to run wild without any restraints, will eventually destroy itself, and often take those around with it who didn't deserve such a fate.

[MPG]

There's nothing pie in the sky or utopian about libertarianism. It is as natural as Darwin's theory of evolution, which is why collectivists of the right and the left hate libertarianism.
Usually it's a good idea to stay out of a discussion when people claim that certain social or economic ideals are "natural" or mention the theory of evolution in that context. But even though tstone has already made a lot of good points, it is difficult for me to resist adding a few more or less random thoughts...

First: I think it would be obvious, but something that is natural is not automatically the right thing to do. A lot of things are "natural". It is "natural" for me to want to eat a lot of sugar, because evolution has made us crave sugar as a convenient source of energy. But evolution did not predict that one day we would have constant easy access to sugar, so I have to keep myself from doing what is natural. And what is natural anyway? Is it natural to have a state, to have a government? Is it natural to build streets, to drive cars to fly airplanes? What is natural? From putting on socks in the morning to brushing your teeth in the evening, you do a thousand things each day that are really very unnatural.

Second: It might seem like that, but competition is not necessarily the most natural thing. Yes, ever since Dawkins' "Selfish Gene", darwinism has largely accepted the concept that altruism is always just a temporary means to egoistic ends. But that does not mean that altruism or "collectivism" does not exist in nature. Nature is full of examples of altruism, so it is strange to claim that competition is natural. In fact, gaming theory has proven quite conclusively, that in many "games", cooperation is clearly the most successful strategy.

Third: Even the most "pessimistic" darwinists like Dawkins have clearly stated that even though they have proven that all organisms are inherently selfish, it really does not imply that human beings should behave like that. In fact, they argue that the one thing that really separates us from animals is that we can make a conscious decision to suppress our "natural" selfish instincts. We are the only beings on Earth who can reflect on our relationship with each other. So perhaps we should.

Fourth: The idea that competition solves everything is very obviously wrong. A competitive society always gravitates towards the lowest common denominator. It always moves towards what is profitable not towards what is good or necessary or important. In such a society, you will have great cold medicines, because everyone gets a cold every now and then, so there's a lot of money to be made from that. But you will have practically no research on cures for rare diseases, because it just does not pay. Why should you spend a hundred million Dollars for research for a disease that kills ten people per year? You will never recoup such an investment. So that is something that has to be financed by a government that takes care of even the smallest minorities. Of course, if you don't care about minorities, then the most competitive system will be the best for you. But then I really hope that you will never become a member of a minority. It can happen quite quickly though.

Fifth: It is strange to me that people still argue for free market capitalism only weeks after free market capitalism has failed. Again. Completely.

[tstone]

Well said, MPG. Like all things, it's about balance.

You need competition. You also need cooperation. Do away with either, you weaken the remains.

[MPG]

Dude. Not even the least bit funny. The Onion should be ashamed of this one.
If it's not funny, then only because the Onion's satire is perhaps a bit too close to the truth nowadays to be recognized as satire.

Southern Sheriff Pulls Over Obama Campaign Bus For Broken Taillight (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/southern_sheriff_pulls_over_obama)

I lost a lot of respect for the Onion years ago when they felt they could not joke about 9/11, but they found it appropriate to joke about the victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. It just seemed a bit racist to me that it was impossible to be politically incorrect about 3000 dead Americans, but it was completely fine to be politically incorrect about 300,000 dead Asians. Now they seem to have found a better balance of just how irreverent they can get.

[Space Tycoon]

Wal Mart is not part of the "military/industrial" complex, as are any number of other large companies whose practices from labor to community, environmental, trade etc etc are harmful. Am I saying all corporations are harmful? Of course not. Some are beneficial, and some are a mixed bag.

But are you willing to take such a more nuanced approach to your criticism of government?

In a sense, most major corporations are a part of the MIC, since they donate money to the political campaigns of of the candidates of both parties--therevy ensuring the continuation of world empire.

As far as taking a nuanced approach to government, well of course I do, I wouldn't compare the government of Sweden to the government of, say, North Korea, just because they both are based on a version of socialism.

I believe that government, all government, is basically evil. It is based upon force, fraud, and lies. That being said, there is such a thing as a necessary evil. There should be limits to government power. Nowadays, we are seeing the rise of a government that has fewer and fewer limits.

And all the corruption you see in Corporate America is a direct result of that government overreach. BS flows downhill.


Really, what "solutions" are those? Telling companies they have to clean up their own messes? Telling companies they have to treat their employees decently? Telling companies they have to put out products that are safe for use/consumption? Telling companies that communities exist for their own sake, not just as collections of consumers/resources to be used?

Nothing wrong with basic standards, especially where the environment is concerned. I've always said that. As for the rest, well, whatever happened to "buyer beware?" It all comes back to people thinking for themselves, which used to be the greatest feature of America.

It is a fact that there are a number of government initiatives that have seen the nation cleaner, more profitable and with the wealth more spread, resulting in yet more profit. EVERY free market economy in the world has versions of this. There is not ONE example of laisez faire just getting things done.

"Wealth more spread?" Sorry, wealth is generated by the people and it should be their right to do with it as they will. You might as well give a medal to everyone who bothers to show up at the starting line, regardless of how hard they've trained or how fast they run.

Yes, but what happens when I'm up against an organization that's larger, wealthier, more powerful and has access to information than I don't? The individual against the corporation nowadays is not in a fair fight.

Well then I would suggest passive resistance. If you hate the corporate world, don't be a part of it. Start up an alternative organization based upon your own values and interests. Of course, this is difficult, and complex, and much more demanding, than simply expecting the federal government to pass some laws that hopefully will be followed in due course.

It's your call.

Remember, no-one forces you to shop at Wal-Mart; no-one forced these people to sign on to these bad mortgages; no-one forced them to become addicted to easy credit; no-one forced them to live beyond their means.

I thought corporations were the good guys?

Of course that's not what I said, or what I think.

Desert Storm was warranted.

Yes, thank God the US defended a government of corrupt, venal, disco-dancing oil sheiks from occupation by a former US ally.

Iraqi forces killed a few hundred Kuwaitis, and in response, the US and it's allies (read: bitches) killed maybe.... a MILLION Iraqis?! Wow, that's fair. :rolleyes:

So where was the Grand Coalition to kick Israel out of the West Bank and Gaza? Is this not also an illegal occupation? I guess it all depends on who owns the media reporting the news.... :ohwell:

Or what about the US invasion of Panama earlier that year? What made that acceptable?

Our intervention in Somalia was warranted, just badly done.

US intervention in the Horn of Africa has been a nightmare. The US backs the very same "secular" warlords who dragged fallen US servicemen through the streets of Mogadishu in '93.

In addition to bombing scores of Somalis who dare to resist the New World Order, the US has also outsourced the war to the faux-democratic nation of Ethiopia, whose armed forces have many crimes to answer for themselves; ethnic cleansing, mass murder, rape, to name a few.

If there was ever a clear-cut case to be made for Western non-intervention, it is the Horn of Africa.

Our invasion of Afghanistan, WARRANTED.

Inasmuch as we are talking about destroying or humbling al-Qaeda-- sure.

Seven years ago, that is.

But this constant nonsense I hear of occupying the country and draining the swamp of anti-American resistance forces referred to as "Taliban," well, it is no more warranted than the invasion of Iraq. Taliban had NOTHING to do with 9/11. They didn't plan it, didn't approve of it, and in fact they denounced the attacks.

Obama/McCain's plans to escalate the war in Afghanistan/Waziristan/Pakistan are as dangerous as anything the Bushies ever offered up. Perhaps more so. Pakistan actually has the weapons Saddam could only dream of possessing. And yet, otherwise sensible Liberal Democrats seem to be totally convinced of the righteousness of this cause.

Oh well. Even the very wise cannot forsee all ends.

The Bush Admin has been guilty of far more wrong than right. But the Bush Admin is not a typical US administration, and it would be inaccurate at best to use it's misdeeds to color the rest of American history.

Oh no, the Bush Admin's policies have been very much in keeping with their predecessors--Democrat and Republican. Little of what they have done has surprised me. It's all a question of the degree of intervention. Bush II has shared many of the characteristics of their predecessors-- on steroids.


Maybe, but they were still right. And if we can do some good strategic maneuvering, and maybe even get something for our time, resources and risk, I have no problem with that.

To the victor belong the spoils? That's not very noble. It sounds more and more like a protection racket. In the time of the Roman Empire, Caesar exacted tribute from those far-flung corners of the Empire who relied on Rome for protection. Seems things have not progressed much since then.

Except, of course, that in the American Empire, everything goes out, and nothing comes in.

Iraq, yes, Afghanistan, NO. We were responding to an act of aggression. All nations have the right to defend themselves. Bush Admin ineptitude is not the same thing as the policy being wrong.

The time for defense was 7 years ago. That ship has sailed. al Qaeda has become a worldwide phenomenon. What little unity the Muslims may have amongst themselves is more than compensated for by their hatred of US policy.

It would be great if the Democrats offered a real alternative to said policy... but they don't. Therefore, expect more retaliation and more deaths, unless some fundamental changes are made.

How do you cope with being in a world of wolves?

Not by being a sheep.

Ah, well, I haven't suggested a stark choice between being either wolves or sheep, have I?


They both believe in an airy fairy ideal theory of a society that can work as a pure example of their beliefs.

"Airy fairy?" Exactly what does that mean? I already told you that there is nothing in libertarianism to guarantee the success of some construct called "society." Any nation is only as successful as those individuals who make it so. When the culture is strong and vibrant, the nation will prosper. When it is corrupt and decadent, even the most well-intentioned government cannot act as saviour.


China is still a military dictatorship with NO political or religious freedom, nor no inclination to head that way.

Chinese people are inclined to prefer strong central authority. And there has been a gradual opening up of press freedom over the past few years, as we have seen.

Russia is steadily discarding freedom after freedom, crony capitalism is out of control, and is becoming more of a military aggressor again.

Russians, like Chinese, prefer order over chaos. As far as playing the "military agressor" card, well, as I've pointed out, they are only responding to what they see as blatant encroachments upon their historic hinterland.

Dubia, nice shiny face covering up a strict fundy Islamic "justice" system, I could ALSO go on.

That is rather insulting to Muslim people, but whatever. It's a country with an Islamic majority, of course their legal system will be based upon Sharia law.

NONE of them are practicing libertarian economics. All of them have rules.

Of course these are not libertarian societies. But they have made major economic progress by adopting classical liberal policies.

And I assure you, the majority of the people of Russia, China, Dubai very much approve of their government's successful economic policies. Unlike Americans, they actually expect substantial results from their leaders.

And companies don't play a part in encouraging any of these activities? Oh, and a big scandal about medical companies in America getting mad because of American citizens getting meds through CANADA, because they don't want to pay the too high American costs. American medical companies are making money hand over fist.

I can turn that aournd and point to Canadians cutting across the border to obtain treatments and services our not-for-profit system does not deliver. Or the doctor shortage up here, as the best and brightest graduates search for greener pastures(and who can blame them?).



Blame his HMO.

No, I'd rather blame HIM, the individual, for living an unhealthy lifestyle.




Yes. I am tired of "greed is good".

It's played.

Well, again, that's not what I was getting at...:ohwell:




"Collectivist?" Time to ditch the Red Scare era rhetoric.

I prefer to call a spade a spade.

Yes, Libertarianism IS pie in the sky, and it's NOT natural in the way you use it, that it will somehow "naturally" benefit the greater whole by itself. It's only natural in the way that greed shares with anger, hatred, jealousy, etc. It's a natural impulse and not even always bad. But by itself, allowed to run wild without any restraints, will eventually destroy itself, and often take those around with it who didn't deserve such a fate.

I can only assume by your statements that you really do not understand what libertarianism is, or what libertarians believe. That's okay, so do many of the people who consider themselves libertarians.

Or, you have only a vague, superficial idea of what it means to be a libertarian.

There are plenty of resources out there for you to study if you wish to gain a deeper insight.






.

[omicron]

The time for defense was 7 years ago. That ship has sailed. al Qaeda has become a worldwide phenomenon. What little unity the Muslims may have amongst themselves is more than compensated for by their hatred of US policy.

It would be great if the Democrats offered a real alternative to said policy... but they don't. Therefore, expect more retaliation and more deaths, unless some fundamental changes are made.


Just out of curiousity Spacey, what changes? I admit I am no scholar in mid-eastern politics, but it appears the guys who are chanting "Death to America" and strapping bombs on their chests don't like the secular western culture. Even if we totally pulled out from the ME and stopped supporting Israel, I don't think it would make a difference. If we turned our entire nation into Islamic fundmentalism and burka'd up our women it wouldn't matter.

As long as we are what we are, they won't like. Sure we could not antagonize them by occupying their countries and broadcasting our softcore porn 24/7, but I don't think that anything would appease them. :Dunno:

[Space Tycoon]

Well, groups like al Qaeda do what they do in response to particular US policies and actions, not because of Britney Spears. Fundamentalists may condemn Western culture to no end, but many millions of young Muslims around the world yearn for the kinds of freedom and opportunity that America--and Canada-- represent.

Terrorism is simply a tactic of asymmetrical warfare. If a negotiated settlement can ever be reached between the US and the various violent groups active in the Mideast, we may consider the so-called "War on Terror" more or less over.

That process may begin with Obama's policy of diplomacy and engaging foreign leaders rather than throwing the full weight of the US military machine after some spectre called "terrorism."






.

[tstone]

Well, groups like al Qaeda do what they do in response to particular US policies and actions, not because of Britney Spears. Fundamentalists may condemn Western culture to no end, but many millions of young Muslims around the world yearn for the kinds of freedom and opportunity that America--and Canada-- represent.


Actually, it's both. They resent our meddling in the region. But they also resent our culture, the Fundies. And the fundies aren't changing anytime soon.

It's going to take a combination of approaches to this problem. Mere disengagement/appeasement won't do it, and we can't afford to do it at this time, anyway.

But longer term, we will have to, for both our interests as well as theirs. We need to develope energy independence, and getting out of the area will cost the fundies power, and allow the moderates to gain more of a foothold.

We can't just up and do it now, though.

And we will not drop our support of Israel. Ever. Nor should we. The only true democracy in the area? What kind of principle would we be showing if we did that?





That process may begin with Obama's policy of diplomacy and engaging foreign leaders rather than throwing the full weight of the US military machine after some spectre called "terrorism."


I believe Obama is just the sort of leader capable of grasping the nuanced approach we will need.

[tstone]

I believe that government, all government, is basically evil. It is based upon force, fraud, and lies. That being said, there is such a thing as a necessary evil. There should be limits to government power. Nowadays, we are seeing the rise of a government that has fewer and fewer limits.


That's not nuanced.


And all the corruption you see in Corporate America is a direct result of that government overreach. BS flows downhill.


Oh PLEASE, so the moral weaknesses in big corporate are because of GOVERNMENT??! That if only government scaled back, then the corporates would clean up their acts? If that's not pie in the sky in all defiance of human nature and history, I don't know what is.

BOTH have problems because both are powerful, and are controlled by humans. Power corrupts humans. And there is NO REASON, just blind faith, to assume that one powerful entity would just straighten itself up because the one entity that keeps it in line is no longer able to.



Nothing wrong with basic standards, especially where the environment is concerned. I've always said that. As for the rest, well, whatever happened to "buyer beware?" It all comes back to people thinking for themselves, which used to be the greatest feature of America.


Buyer beware doesn't work if you don't have freedom of information and transparency. Would you have that if corporates no longer have regulators to worry about?

No.




"Wealth more spread?" Sorry, wealth is generated by the people and it should be their right to do with it as they will. You might as well give a medal to everyone who bothers to show up at the starting line, regardless of how hard they've trained or how fast they run.


Well, it works, unlike the greased pole social model you are advocating.




Well then I would suggest passive resistance. If you hate the corporate world, don't be a part of it. Start up an alternative organization based upon your own values and interests. Of course, this is difficult, and complex, and much more demanding, than simply expecting the federal government to pass some laws that hopefully will be followed in due course.


Again, what we have works. Point me an example of a society which works of the above principle.




Remember, no-one forces you to shop at Wal-Mart; no-one forced these people to sign on to these bad mortgages; no-one forced them to become addicted to easy credit; no-one forced them to live beyond their means.


That's all good and well, if Wal Mart played fair. It doesn't, in all sorts of ways that are well documented.





Yes, thank God the US defended a government of corrupt, venal, disco-dancing oil sheiks from occupation by a former US ally.


Life in an imperfect world. The alternative was to let an almost defenseless ally fall, and a cruel dictator control that much more oil. And it was clear to see by the continuing repositioning of his forces that he wasn't content to stop there.



Iraqi forces killed a few hundred Kuwaitis, and in response, the US and it's allies (read: bitches) killed maybe.... a MILLION Iraqis?! Wow, that's fair. :rolleyes:


It's war. It's not about being "fair". It's about killing the enemy.



So where was the Grand Coalition to kick Israel out of the West Bank and Gaza? Is this not also an illegal occupation? I guess it all depends on who owns the media reporting the news.... :ohwell:


Conspiracy much?



Or what about the US invasion of Panama earlier that year? What made that acceptable?


Military coup? Manuel Noriega? HELLOOOO?

I was there, dude.




US intervention in the Horn of Africa has been a nightmare. The US backs the very same "secular" warlords who dragged fallen US servicemen through the streets of Mogadishu in '93.


As I said, badly run. But the confusion and chaos doesn't mean we stay home, hide behind walls and hope it doesn't come to us.

Because, as we've seen, it will.



Inasmuch as we are talking about destroying or humbling al-Qaeda-- sure.

Seven years ago, that is.

But this constant nonsense I hear of occupying the country and draining the swamp of anti-American resistance forces referred to as "Taliban," well, it is no more warranted than the invasion of Iraq. Taliban had NOTHING to do with 9/11. They didn't plan it, didn't approve of it, and in fact they denounced the attacks.


But they provided support to Al-Quaida, and that was just a public show. And now, if we just left, you think the Taliban and Al Quaida would not return? By their activities during the ops there ALONE, we know that's not true.




Obama/McCain's plans to escalate the war in Afghanistan/Waziristan/Pakistan are as dangerous as anything the Bushies ever offered up. Perhaps more so. Pakistan actually has the weapons Saddam could only dream of possessing. And yet, otherwise sensible Liberal Democrats seem to be totally convinced of the righteousness of this cause.


You've yet to make a convincing case on how a withdrawal would be better.




Oh no, the Bush Admin's policies have been very much in keeping with their predecessors--Democrat and Republican. Little of what they have done has surprised me. It's all a question of the degree of intervention. Bush II has shared many of the characteristics of their predecessors-- on steroids.


No, many aspects of the Bush Admin are unprecedented. That is why the Admin has such a low regard now, from both within and without.


To the victor belong the spoils? That's not very noble. It sounds more and more like a protection racket. In the time of the Roman Empire, Caesar exacted tribute from those far-flung corners of the Empire who relied on Rome for protection. Seems things have not progressed much since then.


Strategic alliances.


It would be great if the Democrats offered a real alternative to said policy... but they don't. Therefore, expect more retaliation and more deaths, unless some fundamental changes are made.


So far, the history of appeasement doesn't show promise, either. Again, it's going to require a combination of approaches.



Ah, well, I haven't suggested a stark choice between being either wolves or sheep, have I?


Yes, you kind of have. You've been suggesting what amounts to an across the board disengagement and disarmament.

Sheep.






"Airy fairy?" Exactly what does that mean? I already told you that there is nothing in libertarianism to guarantee the success of some construct called "society." Any nation is only as successful as those individuals who make it so. When the culture is strong and vibrant, the nation will prosper.


Society is REAL, it's not just a construct. And there is nothing about libertarianism that guarantees a "strong and vibrant" culture. Do you believe that "culture" is all, and society should be neglected?




When it is corrupt and decadent, even the most well-intentioned government cannot act as saviour.


I don't see how a good culture can be built from the central tenament, "I got mine."



Chinese people are inclined to prefer strong central authority. And there has been a gradual opening up of press freedom over the past few years, as we have seen.


But it's not guaranteed by law.




Russians, like Chinese, prefer order over chaos. As far as playing the "military agressor" card, well, as I've pointed out, they are only responding to what they see as blatant encroachments upon their historic hinterland.


There is no historical precedent that the Russian military machine will behave itself if we just "leave it alone".





That is rather insulting to Muslim people, but whatever. It's a country with an Islamic majority, of course their legal system will be based upon Sharia law.


Next, you'll explain to me how this is actually a good thing.



Of course these are not libertarian societies. But they have made major economic progress by adopting classical liberal policies.


But again, they are a long way from this libertarian ideal you toute.



And I assure you, the majority of the people of Russia, China, Dubai very much approve of their government's successful economic policies. Unlike Americans, they actually expect substantial results from their leaders.


Condescend much?



I can turn that aournd and point to Canadians cutting across the border to obtain treatments and services our not-for-profit system does not deliver. Or the doctor shortage up here, as the best and brightest graduates search for greener pastures(and who can blame them?).


So again, perhaps a solution is not an either or, but something in between?






No, I'd rather blame HIM, the individual, for living an unhealthy lifestyle.


So, what about those people who do do everything right? But still have inadequate health care?











I can only assume by your statements that you really do not understand what libertarianism is, or what libertarians believe. That's okay, so do many of the people who consider themselves libertarians.

Or, you have only a vague, superficial idea of what it means to be a libertarian.

There are plenty of resources out there for you to study if you wish to gain a deeper insight.


I understand perfectly what it is, having read plenty of those resources (I knew about the Austrian School, for example). I've also read plenty of criticism of it.

I just don't look at Libertarianism through the rose coloured glasses of the "true believer".





.[/QUOTE]

[tstone]

With that, I'm not going to continue this. You and I simply aren't going to budge.

:)

[Space Tycoon]

Well, so be it. I have a feeling we'll be spending the next 4-8 years arguing about US policy under President Obama.

Hopefully Mr. Obama will give us far less bile-inducing moments in the years ahead.







.

[Bill_the_Pony]

Civil Discourse is so ......sexy. :D

[Space Tycoon]

I just don't have as much stamina anymore... :ohwell:








.

[neglet]

I just don't have as much stamina anymore... :ohwell:
.

I wondered why Tstone was telling you, "You've yet to make a convincing case on how a withdrawal would be better." :lol:

[Space Tycoon]

Now you know why my girlfriend left me... :ohwell:


Oh well, there was a time I could go on and on debating these points, but sometimes you just have to end it.


There will be plenty of time and opportunity to make the libertarian case in the years ahead, when the bill for all these grand failures finally comes due.







.

[tstone]

But what if there are grand successes?

:D

[Space Tycoon]

Well, I guess I meant the bill for the previous 8 years... it's gonna be a whopper.








.

[Bill_the_Pony]

Well, maybe if marijuana was legalized, the taxes from that could help. :smirk:

[Space Tycoon]

That's not the worst idea I've heard all day...







.

[tstone]

Legalize, regulate, tax. Whole new enterprise AND tax revenue. The War On Drugs, or Prohibition 2, hasn't fared any better than it's predecessor.

[NotAFan]

http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr136/runninz99/VOTE___Choose_Your_Puppet_by_scart.png