Fall of the Republic

[RRK]

Dramatized was the key word here. The point is that many people decrying Barack Obama and the Democratic White House are doing so under the guise of libertarianism in the form of tea parties. They bash Barack Obama to all hell, accuse him of countless atrocities, then say that the point is that both parties are bad and they're all screwed up. Yet they offer no viable alternative, are organized or funded at times by Republican groups, and are for the most part pushing people towards voting Republican over Democrat despite warnings that "both are bad".

I'd have a lot more respect for a group which holds protests and shows the atrocities of both Bush and Obama. One that lists all the horrible things our government has done over the last 20 years under Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama, not just the last year in Afghanistan and Iraq and the in-progress healthcare debate. If you want a revolution, if you want to decry the entirety of the US political structure, then ****ing OWN it. All of it. Otherwise the talking points melt too much into Republican talking points and you will only be seen as a tool of the party. Don't be Partisan, don't be bi-Partisan, be anti-partisan. And make sure it's obvious.

First, Libertarianism is not a guise for the republicans. I have voted Libertarian for 4 strait elections and I can assure you that they have valid criticism in their platforms for both mainstream parties. The party could be described as being economically conservative but they are also very socially liberal.

But my real point is that the argument that the two main parties are both corrupt is not invalidated by any of your statements. Even if everything you said was true it could still be true that the Republican and Democratic parties are monopolizing the election system and providing a false sense of choice.

[VBSnus]

First, Libertarianism is not a guise for the republicans. I have voted Libertarian for 4 strait elections and I can assure you that they have valid criticism in their platforms for both mainstream parties. The party could be described as being economically conservative but they are also very socially liberal.

But my real point is that the argument that the two main parties are both corrupt is not invalidated by any of your statements. Even if everything you said was true it could still be true that the Republican and Democratic parties are monopolizing the election system and providing a false sense of choice.

You're exactly right, and I'm not arguing with you on any of these points. YOU seem to be a true libertarian, and your points here reflect that.

My statements are not about the [libertarian] party, it's about the movements. The tea party movement may have some Libertarian roots, but the final message reaching the people is undoubtedly Republican. The conspiracy theorists, the protesters, they may have some valid points but in the end their message is incredibly one-sided.

Republicans need to take their party back from the neocons. Libertarians need to perfect their message and the delivery of that message. Democrats need to grow a backbone and get things done.

Go to one of these tea parties carrying around a sign about FairTax. Go to one with a sign listing the atrocities of President Bush. I guarantee you'll be shouted down, because while the foundation behind the movement is Libertarian, the outcome, the end-message, the end of the road ends up being Republican. And the majority of the Independents who are influenced by the protests, by the videos, etc. will not vote Libertarian but Republican next election cycle. I guarantee it.

It reminds me of an article I read a while back. There was a guy, good ol' boy ex military man who started an organization against what he sees as atrocities from both parties. He held a meeting and people introduced themselves. One was a guy who was afraid Obama would take his guns. Another was a woman who thought we were going to be sold out to Muslims. I could only imagine the guy who ran the organization doing a massive facepalm and thinking "You people just don't get it."

The people just don't get it. Your statement about monopolizing the election process is dead on. But until the message is perfected, until people can understand Libertarians are against both parties, the "common voter" will equate it with Republicans. And that makes the current movement a Republican tool. The more people hear Republicans using Libertarian talking points to decry President Obama and President Obama alone, the more people will equate Libertarianism with the Republican Party.

Hence, "Both parties are bad, vote Republican!"

[Bigblue1]

Guys the whole point of the movie is, F#ck the left / right donkey / elephant paradigm. They are the same thing.

Dramatized Example: "After two glorious non-socialist-communist-muslim-marxist-indoctrinating terms of President Bush, the corrupt terrorist palling islamofascistmarxbuddy Barack the Islamic Shock Hussein Obama is destroying the nation. The point is, they're both bad. Vote Republican!"

You make some fine points but I don't really understand the connection between these two statements.

Dramatized was the key word here. The point is that many people decrying Barack Obama and the Democratic White House are doing so under the guise of libertarianism in the form of tea parties. They bash Barack Obama to all hell, accuse him of countless atrocities, then say that the point is that both parties are bad and they're all screwed up. Yet they offer no viable alternative, are organized or funded at times by Republican groups, and are for the most part pushing people towards voting Republican over Democrat despite warnings that "both are bad".

I'd have a lot more respect for a group which holds protests and shows the atrocities of both Bush and Obama. One that lists all the horrible things our government has done over the last 20 years under Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama, not just the last year in Afghanistan and Iraq and the in-progress healthcare debate. If you want a revolution, if you want to decry the entirety of the US political structure, then ****ing OWN it. All of it. Otherwise the talking points melt too much into Republican talking points and you will only be seen as a tool of the party. Don't be Partisan, don't be bi-Partisan, be anti-partisan. And make sure it's obvious.

.

I am quite sure Alex Jones has embodied these statements Better than anybody else I've ever seen who reports on the news. I don't recall recommending you read Glen Beck's, Sean Hannity's, or Bill O'reilly's
trash in my original post.
As for you having respect for a group who decries all the horrible things our government has done over the past twenty years. You need look no further brother. You will not find a more equal opportunity Government watchdog than The group led by Alex Jones. Can he get a little hysterical at times? Yes, but I bet in the early days of the fight for independence many of great patriots were considered hysterical. Are you familiar with the term three-percenters? Heres a link if not http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogsp...percenter.html

[justintempler]

First, Libertarianism is not a guise for the republicans. I have voted Libertarian for 4 strait elections and I can assure you that they have valid criticism in their platforms for both mainstream parties. The party could be described as being economically conservative but they are also very socially liberal.....

RRK since you are a fan of Libertarianism answer me this.

Greenspan who was a fan of Ayn Rand, adopted the libertarian premise of deregulation and a hands off philosophy of letting business compete in the market place. This was the philosophy of Democrat and Republican administrations under Greenspan.

Derivatives were afterall contracts between two private parties. Libertarians don't believe in government getting involved in private contracts. That's involvement by big brother.

Isn't the deregulation that is espoused by libertarians the very reason we got into this mess im the first place?

[VBSnus]

I am quite sure Alex Jones has embodied these statements Better than anybody else I've ever seen who reports on the news. I don't recall recommending you read Glen Beck's, Sean Hannity's, or Bill O'reilly's
trash in my original post.
As for you having respect for a group who decries all the horrible things our government has done over the past twenty years. You need look no further brother. You will not find a more equal opportunity Government watchdog than The group led by Alex Jones. Can he get a little hysterical at times? Yes, but I bet in the early days of the fight for independence many of great patriots were considered hysterical. Are you familiar with the term three-percenters? Heres a link if not http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogsp...percenter.html

I just got back from being out of town so it will be a while before I can give the time to watch that video. From skimming through it, it seems to be a video about how wrong Obama is. Is there one like this which he did to protest President Bush? One which isn't focused primarily on Obama, as this one is? One that mentions the fenced in and segregated "protester areas" from Bush speeches, or the PATRIOT act or stop loss etc etc?

Again, I didn't watch the video (yet) so I may be way off base here, but I saw Obama Obama Obama, pictures of Obama, imagery of elderly and obese people protesting government healthcare without realizing they are not acceptable to the healthcare companies, and a few bank logos. If it does go into Bush's atrocities, does it try to fob them off on Obama or is there equal coverage for the decimation of the rights of the media to show war footage, or rights of the people to not fear warrant-less wiretapping?

Also, you're right that you didn't recommend Beck or Hannity of O'reilly. That's why I made sure to say my post wasn't aimed at you but the message in general.

Isn't the deregulation that is espoused by libertarians the very reason we got into this mess im the first place?

You know, I've talked about deregulation in other posts. This one is always a sticky situation. I understand the premise behind deregulation, but I also understand that it just doesn't work. If we didn't have regulations barring it, there would be companies paying $1 an hour with little to no benefits, most toy products would have lead paint, and foods would be laced with even more carcinogens than they currently have. Just look at American tobacco vs. Swedish. Without regulations, there's no limit to the crap they'll throw in to save a buck and make mass production easier. It's the nature of the beast.

PRO: Deregulation = more capability for competition
CON: Deregulation = more corporate power to screw over the consumer

Weighing the two, I'll put my money on regulation to provide a better outcome in today's society.

[chadizzy1]

The first of hour of it contains some really interesting stuff. And not much talking or "conspiracy theory". It actually shows interviews with the people who received bailout money and wasn't taken out of context.

And the "anti-Obama" stuff isn't really taken out of context either. It's just him making promises on the campaign trail, and then showing a clip of a year later of him saying or going against it. No big "conspiracy talk", just actual footage. Alex Jones isn't in this much, he speaks here and there, but doesn't pwn the video or anything.

The thing I do, and this is just me, is keep an open mind. When I watch movies about 9/11, and the "conspiracy" theories, I also watched Popular Mechanics Debunking movies. I explore something from all angles. It's important to keep an open mind, because if you don't, you won't explore other possibilities.

[VBSnus]

The first of hour of it contains some really interesting stuff. And not much talking or "conspiracy theory". It actually shows interviews with the people who received bailout money and wasn't taken out of context.

And the "anti-Obama" stuff isn't really taken out of context either. It's just him making promises on the campaign trail, and then showing a clip of a year later of him saying or going against it. No big "conspiracy talk", just actual footage. Alex Jones isn't in this much, he speaks here and there, but doesn't pwn the video or anything.

The thing I do, and this is just me, is keep an open mind. When I watch movies about 9/11, and the "conspiracy" theories, I also watched Popular Mechanics Debunking movies. I explore something from all angles. It's important to keep an open mind, because if you don't, you won't explore other possibilities.

Okay, let's roll with that. Keep an open mind. Explore from all angles. Explore other possibilities. These are good things, right?

The President goes on the campaign trail and makes promises. He becomes President. During that time he sees many new angles and keeps an open mind. He changes his thoughts on the subject at times as a result and goes against his previous statements.

Why should he then be demonized? Wouldn't it be worse if he got into the Presidency and forced laws into being based on his campaign promises and ignoring any new information? Wouldn't it be best if he kept an open mind and possibly changed his tune here or there?

On a side note (and not really related to this debate)...

I understand what you're saying, I keep an open mind on anything NEW. The problem with most of the things I hear today, most of the articles I see or the videos I watch, it's the same talking points I've already heard. The slant might be different, the article might be different, but it's still the same old thing. Of course, I haven't seen this video so I can't pass judgement...yet.

It just reminds me of the constant haranguing by Southern Baptists or Northern VA conservative Christians. "Where will you go when you die?" "Have you heard the good news of the Lord?" "Read our pamphlet" "just come one time" "the holy book says..." etc. It's assumed that people who don't believe obviously just don't understand or haven't been given enough information. I don't need another pamphlet with the same old points. I get it.

[RRK]

RRK since you are a fan of Libertarianism answer me this.

Greenspan who was a fan of Ayn Rand, adopted the libertarian premise of deregulation and a hands off philosophy of letting business compete in the market place. This was the philosophy of Democrat and Republican administrations under Greenspan.

Derivatives were afterall contracts between two private parties. Libertarians don't believe in government getting involved in private contracts. That's involvement by big brother.

Isn't the deregulation that is espoused by libertarians the very reason we got into this mess im the first place?

The problem is that he was picking and choosing what and when to deregulate. The whole idea of the fed goes against Libertarian philosophies. Hand picked deregulation is really just more meddling. The libertarian model for our economic system would be a total restructure from the ground up. Applying these philosophies to a few parts of the current system is ridiculous and I would say that Greenspan was disingenuous when saying that these moves were based on Libertarian or Randian philosophies (which are not really completely the same anyway).

[RRK]

PRO: Deregulation = more capability for competition
CON: Deregulation = more corporate power to screw over the consumer
.

Its not provable at this point but philosophically in an unregulated economic system all of the power is in the hands of the consumer.

[chadizzy1]

I mean, I'm a devout Christian, but I watch documentaries about other faiths. Why? It's interesting, I may learn something new. I'm a Baptist. I have visited other churches. Why? They may have something new to learn or I may decide to go to a new church.

We try new snus all the time. Why? Because we have open minds.

And the campaign promise thing is NOTHING new. EVERY president does it.

Bush Sr. "READ MY LIPS!" .....we did.

[VBSnus]

PRO: Deregulation = more capability for competition
CON: Deregulation = more corporate power to screw over the consumer
.

Its not provable at this point but philosophically in an unregulated economic system all of the power is in the hands of the consumer.

Yeah, I can understand the logic behind that. But at the same time technology has grown to the point where we can use disgusting and cheap ingredients to make food taste good, or make toys bright, or make building repairs cheap, and so on. So let's take two companies:

ChinaCorp: No ingredients list, slave labor, and shitty ingredients combine to make Widget 9000 Deluxe cost $1.20 in parts and labor, $1.50 in packaging and transport, $6 in advertising, and sells for $20 at WalMart.

USACorp: Provides ingredients, uses good materials and skilled laborers to make a superior product, the Widgetron Pro. It costs $12.50 in parts and labor, $2 in packaging and transport, and sells for $25 at WalMart.

1) People will go for the cheapest one
2) WalMart will stock more of the cheaper one
3) ChinaCorp's product will have more money for advertising to convince people their product is A-OK, with no limitations on advertising language

Many of the philosophies behind Capitalism are outdated due to advances in technology, travel, ingredients, and even medicine.

In a perfect world, capitalism without regulation should work beautifully. But in a perfect world, so should communism.

[Redbeard]

Haha, my wife is from OKC. She said that preachers would be standing in front of their congregations on Sunday, praise Gawd can you let me hear you say amen, say hallelujah!, and would ask that the good folk get kneebound and pray with me now for the QB of the OU team.

I can't say for certain as I haven't set foot in a church here, but that sounds about like the mentality I've seen. OU is a religion here.

On another note, when I first moved here, I noticed three things OKC had more of than the other places I've lived (Raleigh area, Kansas City area): tweakers, titty bars, and churches.

Back to the matter at hand, I haven't followed the Tea party movement as closely I would like, but from a casual observer, it appears that it is no longer a Libertarian movement, but an anti-Obama movement. I've heard no mention of social liberty, just economic liberty. "Keep the government and their death panels out of my health care!" Nevermind the fact that someone dies every 12 minutes in the US because of lack of health insurance. Many of which may be covered by a public option. While I'm on the public option, why are these folks so scared of a public option? It is just that, an option. Choose private insurance if you prefer.

[VBSnus]

I mean, I'm a devout Christian, but I watch documentaries about other faiths. Why? It's interesting, I may learn something new. I'm a Baptist. I have visited other churches. Why? They may have something new to learn or I may decide to go to a new church.

We try new snus all the time. Why? Because we have open minds.

And the campaign promise thing is NOTHING new. EVERY president does it.

Bush Sr. "READ MY LIPS!" .....we did.

Sure, I know every president does it. But they're human too, and humans should keep an open mind and change if it is required. It's not allowing new information to change your views that is dangerous. This boils down to "gosh it's too bad we can't trust politicians".

As for the religion part, I agree. I've read the Bible 3 times, the Koran once, many Hindu, Buddhist, and even Zoroastrian texts. I've studied the Torah, attended Universal Unitarian churches, delved into Catholicism, even read the Urantia book. Likewise I've read all the texts of Yogi Ramacharaka, Aleister Crowley, and other Golden Dawn writers. As you have, I've taken some information I found useful and discarded other information. It's not the information itself that I find problematic, it's the fierce urgency to push that information on others in case they "haven't heard" that I have a problem with. What Sage called proselytizing. I'm not saying this post was doing that at all...this was a side rant. =D

[VBSnus]

While I'm on the public option, why are these folks so scared of a public option? It is just that, an option. Choose private insurance if you prefer.

From my understanding, it's primarily distrust of the Federal government. The elderly are afraid it will reduce their Medicare, the insured are afraid it will make their insurance worse, and the liberty minded don't like the concept of a Federal "mandate" and also don't like increased spending on another government funded social program, of which we have [too] many.

Those who are for it would argue that the public option is mostly for those who cannot afford private coverage even with government subsidy, that private insurance will still be the primary provider in the nation with new regulations barring pre-existing condition denials, that the mandate is necessary if you're going to bar pre-existing condition denials, and that it will save us money by providing a healthy nation and less ER visits by the uninsured.

That's it in a nutshell.
That's my

[chadizzy1]

Free sharing with the attempt of someone keeping an open mind is one thing, but forcing information in attempt to change someones mind is another. It is VERY hard to change the opinions of someone. The only way I changed my mind on the 9/11 opinion was because a friend said "Hey, let's watch this video, it's about 9/11. Some other guys opinion." And I was like, Okay. The info was such that it convicted me in a way that it changed my opinion. It's hard to do unless the info ISNT forced upon you, and it's good, valid info.

Same with religion. The religions that FORCE themselves on you, the ones who are at your door, shoving literature down your throat are ones you avoid but the ones you hear good things about, or know people are involved with, or the ones that "do their own thing" or stick to themselves are more approachable because they aren't in your face.