START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
Group Discussions
Nails and heads and how hard one can hit them...
1 year ago

The oddest allies in the conservative movement have one thing in common

by digby


I've always found the alliance between libertarians and conservative Christians to be one of the strangest political bedfellows. One might expect that the people who seek to legalize drugs would have little in common with those who are dedicated to social control through Biblical principles. In fact, I've often made the point that libertarians have as much in common with Democrats as Republicans but, for some reason, always seem to vote with the GOP. Why would they align themselves with the party that worships militarism across the board, while at least the Democrats have a fairly significant anti-war faction. Anyway, I've always guessed it was because what they really care about is taxes and that the whole freedom and anti-war thing thing is of secondary concern.

But Ed Kilgore gives an answer I hadn't thought of before and I think it's right. He's discussing the latest buzz in conservative circles: how an alleged libertarian hostility against crony capitalism will bring the populists into the GOP fold. He writes:

-----

While disclaiming support for corporate cronyism is a fine idea for either party, the odds that there will ever be a popular majority for any political gathering that is distinctly libertarian (other than in temporary positioning rhetoric) are very remote. Aside from the fact that such libertarian first principle as free trade and hard money are perpetually unpopular (at least when they have any real impact), while libertarian boogeymen like minimum wage laws and corporate taxation are perpetually popular, there’s the issue of libertarianism’s inherent hostility to democracy. Serious libertarians do not tend to consider their public policy beliefs as historically conditional or as requiring popular sanction for their validity; instead, they reflect eternal, natural laws, among which the most important is individual liberty.

This is the basis for the much-misunderstood but very real alliance of libertarians and Christian Right activists in the Tea Party movement: for very different reasons involving somewhat different issues, Randists and theocrats feel strongly about their policy prescriptions being permanently enshrined via constitutional measures, whether it’s an “originalist” interpretation of founding document or subsequently adopted supermajority requirements against public spending or taxation. Wherever their positions coincide (as with absolute property rights or the inalienable individual rights of the fetus), there you will find the “conservative movement” in full voice.
----


Yes. These are people who place their beliefs in their preferred sacred texts, whether it's the constitution, Atlas Shrugged or the Bible. And only they are the self-anointed priests allowed to interpret them. For different reasons, they just don't care for democracy and wish to permanently bind everyone else to their belief system.

.

1 year ago

That couldn't be more true.

1 year ago

"Capitalism would have been to let the banks fail....not bail them out."

So why did Bush initiate that bailouts at the request of the banks?

1 year ago

On that, you are correct.  You don't care for either side and are fair.  Yes. 

I had less problem with the bank bailouts at the time.  After all, The People did have moeny invested that likely would have been lost.  However, there should have been some constraints such that they did not get bonuses.

1 year ago

What clueless observations by the statists Chile cited. Libertarians support some principles that are shared by a number of people, including some progressives.. True to their principles, where individuals are in favor of smaller government? Libertarians support them on that. We do not support an advance on the police state, futile and counterproductive wars, political and economic economic coercion or government schemes to take by force from some to give to others, central planning and such. Ironically, the people that Chile cites have more in common with the fake right than libertarians do, For example Democrats and those that consider themselves "Liberals" are in favor of drone warfare. Real Libertarians are not.

>

Here is the sad fact: "By the way, in the most common drone-strike scenario — a suspected terrorist being targeted on foreign soil with no issue related to citizenship — fully 74 percent approve of the policy including 69 percent of self-identified liberals. Looks like Pelosi was right. For all the media heavy-breathing about drone warfare, it does seem to be popular."

41% of all Democrats favor the POTUS being justified in killing Americans on US soil just on just his say so. In other word..... they believe in absolute power of a single individual who is above the law. The rest of the article is here: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/04/poll-41-ohttp://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/04/poll-41-of-dems-think-president-should-have-power-to-kill-suspected-american-terrorist-on-american-soil/f-dems-think-president-should-have-power-to-kill-suspected-american-terrorist-on-american-soil/

>

Those  progressives not being able to understand why libertarians would support those that agree with them on specific issues is a little disingenuous given that we hear a lot about them supporting the government but not some of the policies of that government. Libertarians don't support the government because the policies of government are not compatible with libertarian beliefs. Libertarians see individuals. Progressives see only the State. A collectivist mind set.  Their core belief is the state.  Not the individual.



This post was modified from its original form on 05 Mar, 12:31
1 year ago

Again, Jim proves my point and doesn't even understand that he is doing it.

Too good.

Rhonda, for the 90th time. I wish I owned that hat, but I did not buy it. I should have, that picture was taken in Huarez, Peru in a little shop when we were stuck there for 3 days during a transportation strike. That was awesome.

1 year ago

LOL. Once again Chile cannot get by his collectivist and statist mind set. While he claims that I make his point, the obvious is that he continues to prove mine. A mind this closed is a sad thing to see.

>

As I said, libertarians support small government initiatives and those that are advocates of such. Libertarians also supported progressives when they oppose excesses of the State. There were a number of libertarians involved in the "Occupy XX" for examples. That is completely consistent with our beliefs. Thing is? Most progressives do not support libertarians regardless on where we may agree on individual issues. They attack because they recognize the fact the libertarians reject their core belief of the State. Issues are unimportant.

>

What do progressives really stand for? Most progressives favored the giant banks and continued bailouts via the Federal Reserve. Chile is an example of this. Why? Because the giant banks are connected with the State. It empowers exactly what Chile really believes in. The phrase used is: "a strong state picks it's winners and losers".... That's economic fascism. Chile might resent that the corporations have too much power, but he doesn't reject the premise.

>

So, although Chile knows that the regulatory agencies are controlled by corporations and special interests, he supports that as real politic. The power of the State is of paramount importance. The illusion of control by the people is secondary, a useful facade for useful idiots..... or perhaps not important at all.

>

Libertarians also support repealing the drug laws. That reduces the intrusion of the State in our lives. Here is the catch: Most progressives do not support Colorado and Washington State in nullification of Federal law. Because their core belief is the power of the State and centralization of that power. This is one of many examples of where progressives demonstrate what they really believe in.

>

The fact is that what Chile really supports is a version of National Socialism. Along with the economic fascism it implies. Indeed, the people that originated "progressive" and the distorted version of "liberal" that exist now? They were the ones that destroyed classical liberalism. BTW. those same people were great admirers of the totalitarian fascist governments in the 30's. Chile either doesn't know that or doesn't care. I'm guessing the later.

Then there is the pro drone war killings as I showed above. Supported by liberals. I guess Chile would say that it proves his point too. Come to think about it....It does. But only if Chile is admitting my premise of statism as THE core belief of progressives is on target. 

1 year ago

Again. Angry Jim spouts of the Mantra of his cause. You could be a jehovah's witness, a Wahabi islamist, doesn't matter, your indoctrination is complete. Your arguments are all about what others believe. When that fails, you talk about what Libertarians believe. You use the collectivist mind set. "we Libertarians" or just "we believe", while falsely assigning those attirbutes to others.

You are a hack. plain and simple. That argument above describes your perfectly and you just spent two rambling posts proving it.

Thank-you.

Chile Willie.

1 year ago

......Ah.... The old "angry Jim" come back.     Chile and company use that when they have no answers........ Which happens quite a bit.

>

Chile states: "Your arguments are all about what others believe. When that fails, you talk about what Libertarians believe. " ....... Really?   Well, what else we should not engage in debate on? We should avoid what we believe in or what others either believe or, in this case what they pretend to believe in?    How ludicrous and shallow. ....... Should we instead engage is silly guilt by association as you have so often done Chile? Or pretend that those who disagree with your statist views are "crazy, "weird" or whatever?.......Just pretend that what others say somehow mysteriously  "proves" your point..  Your logic and rational are just dazzling. 

>

How about a repartee using innuendo? .......Just marginalize, demonize, dehumanize.......... ......Yawn.



This post was modified from its original form on 05 Mar, 19:30
1 year ago

Every time you post, you futher prove my point and the authors point. You are the only one that is allowed to interpret what beliefs people can hold and how they are allowed to define themselves.

Now go post your noam chomsky piece about classifying people, then call me a statist, whiile failing to realize the irony.

Thank-you, angry Jim, you make it all to easy.

1 year ago

The whole political system needs to be overthrown,because the current one is obviously not working .The republicans and the democrats blame one another for the mess we are in,and guess what?!They are both right.

1 year ago

I don't disagree with you Justice.

1 year ago

Chile:  "You are the only one that is allowed to interpret what beliefs people can hold and how they are allowed to define themselves."  ......  Really? 

>

Just expressing an opinion Chile.  .One that I have backed up.  You gave your opinion about me.  The authors you cited do the same.  

>

I'm getting a little concerned with your replies Chile.  You don't seem to be thinking straight.  You're not making sense.

>

 Seriously, Chile are you OK? 

1 year ago

Good title for a thread Chile, got me to look here. Imagine my shock to find Jim is repeating the exact same strawman argument, ie, those who don't share his Libertarian beliefs support living under the tryanny of an all powerful state. Never changes.

Rhonda, i haven't read all your posts but i see you understand how the repeal of sensible financial regulation (like Glass-Steagall) helped lead to the 2008 economic collapse. Clinton is guilty of signing the bill that repealed it, though the bill was created by three Repub representatives (Grahm, Leach, Bliley) and tacked on to some other bill.

Yet you then say progressives -- who have always supported such financial regulation -- have wrought economic collapse, and completely ignore that it is conservatives who have pushed for such deregulation for decades. Unbelievable.

1 year ago

Yep Bryan,

Same thing over and over. Its indoctrination. There can be no waivering, there can by no nuance. There is only Mises and Libertarians.

Of course, believing that the government can and does have a roll in shaping our economy make me either a National Socialist or Statist with no individual thoughts or beliefs in individual liberty. As Jim says, my Core Belief is in the State.

OH well.

1 year ago

How am I doing that, Rhonda?

General Douglas MacArthur ...insidious forces working from within
1 year ago

1 year ago

Then again Chile, let's just give it up and admit that we worship the all-powerful state. Why pretend? If you believe depression era financial regulations played a beneficial role in the economy, or that a ban on lead in gasoline was a good thing, it's just code for state worship.


Rhonda, i liked this part of the comment you posted:

They're more interested in the newest iPhone, cars, shows, movies, and just about anything else you can think of. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with these things, but my friends/family/peers are CONSUMED by these distractions.


I'm a fan of various music, movies art, etc, but anyone with a heart and a brain should have moved beyond being consumed by all the glitzy distractions long ago. It seems to me that the issue is that you (and others) think that this corporatism gets it's power from the government as opposed to thinking that corporate power owns and thus controls the government. True, we indeed have a corrupt government, but i'd still say to follow the money.


Though i liked your article, it seemed to be equating socialism with the USSR dictatorship, which isn't true. Workers having more direct say in the economy and a society that collectively provides some of the basic needs (infrastructure, police, access to health care, etc.) doesn't have anything to do with totalitarianism, nor does it have to infringe on a free market. In fact, when people feel they have some basic level of security (as opposed to relying on private business for everything) they are more inclined to be entrepreneurs.

The wealth inequality video in your article (a great one that every single American should see!) could not possibly be a more progressive message.


1 year ago

Obama is just more of the status quo for sure. But to say that corporations and elite bankers are running the country now that he is in office is just beyond silly. At very least Obama dares say the word 'regulation' and gives a little criticism (as meaningless as it might be in reality) to Wall St. 'fat cats' as opposed to the Republican worship of these financial elites and their continual peddling of failed trickle down.

1 year ago

Rhonda, as i said, Obama is more of the status quo (eg, relies on corporate money). What is completely false is to say corpoations and banks are in power now that he is in office. The Republican party has traditionally gotten more money from Wall St., and they are the ones who have fought hardest for financial (and other) deregulation that benefits big corps and banks for decades. And of course the Tea Pary is backed by big corporate interests such as the Kochs.

1 year ago

LOL Bryan.... Tell us how WE are "indoctrinated"? The public schools are run by the State, no? The economics departments and the vast majority of scholarships are funded by the State and the Federal Reserve, no? History is written by those that have been "educated" and are paid by the State.   We choose to have a different viewpoint and that viewpoint is consistent with our positions on war, economics, history and government. that's based on what we have learned despite the indoctrination  of the State.  

>

Straw man argument is defined as: "a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

>

That's exactly what you have done Bryan. For example, I clearly stated that most Progressives (including Chile) supported the Wall Street Bailouts. That most self identified liberals supported drone warfare. While you claim that I am using a "straw man argument" you fail in either showing how it is a "straw man argument" or even have a rational response. In fact, you come back with a claim of "indoctrination" attempting to demonize and marginalize any that disagree with your beliefs. Your  argument, on the other hand, is indeed a ad hominem/ straw man argument. You give no real examples of inconsistency in my or in general libertarian beliefs.  Only that I dissent.  

>

If you are claiming that Progressives or Democrats are actually anti war for example? Then go ahead and dispute it. I've given both my opinion and the above poll to show my point. Or if Democrats and Progressives are, (other than giving lip service), actually against the corporate State especially the banking cartel? Go ahead and dispute it.  Don't bother with the lip service or fake legislation.  Use actually examples and results. 

>

Fact is that both political party's are run by special interests. The idea that powerful government will not attract those special interests is silly. Likewise the idea that full time professionals in these special interests will not dominate citizens efforts is absurd. Washington DC is crawling with highly paid lobby's.  Of course, your answer would be to only have the special interests that advocate your positions and the rest should be banned.  It's pretty cleal by your and Chile's comments that would leave other political opinons like ours out of the picture. Likely it would end up benefiting you both financially also. 

>

  Increasing the power of government and the corporate controlled regulatory agencies will. and has, only be used to give those special interests advantage and increase their dominance. If you want to dispute that statement? Go ahead. But using "everyone knows" or claims of "indoctrination" because others do not share your ideology and have come to their own conclusions is a pretty lame response.




This post was modified from its original form on 13 Mar, 10:36
1 year ago

As for support for the banking cartel? Your vaunted regulatory agencies? Despite massive fraud, no executive or banking firm was criminally prosecuted by the Obama "Justice" department. I ask you: does that prove the efficacy of powerful regulatory agencies working on behalf of the public?

>

As far as Democrats being less supportive to the corrupt banking system?  Really?

>

Senate Democrats.TARP vote: 40 Yea ~9 "Nay" (more than 4:1)

>

House Democrat TARP vote: "172" Yea~63 "Nay" (almost 3:1). (and the Republicans voted against TARP. Not that they are any better overall.

>

BTW. Democrats also wrote the legislation for TARP.

>

Note: The legislation that repealed the part of Glass Steagall that kept a firewall between speculation and traditional banking had support of Democrats by a 2:1 margin in Congress and was signed into law by a Democrat POTUS. 

>

Or that Brooksley Born's attempt to create transparency in counterparties for derivatives trading was trashed by DEMOCRATS.  A "regulation" that actually made sense? 

>

Fact is that if banks were open and transparent and investors/bondholders didn't think the banks would be bailed out, Glass Steagall would not be needed. Instead, today the giant banks and their bondholders know their investments will be protected by the Fed and the government. Which they knew.  So the banks today continue to make higher risk bets.....subsidized by the taxpayers. Funded by the Fed.  Likewise the Fed continues the bailouts via low interest rates and purchase of bonds via QE.

>

You just can't get away from the fact that progressives effectively support the welfare/warfare/corporate/special interest State. You are unwilling to even consider the dismantling or even reducing the power of any of the sources of corruption including the captured regulatory agencies. You have not been able to show any real improvement in reducing the decay. You only wish to change the mananagement of the State....... Which, as history has amply proven, just exchanges another corrupt management in control who are always working for the benefit of the elites.  Of course, those that are connected to government do pretty well, right?  I'm sure that has nothing to do with your political beliefs.

>

Meanwhile, the lower income demographic are forced into dependency; victimized by a assault on their wages by the State debasement of the dollar and the middle class declines. The powerful reap the benefit.  The State continues to use fear and terror to increase it's power, and it's supporters look the other way claiming: "well we don't support that"

1 year ago

Here we go agian. Jim's rants about how every else feels and what everyone else believes.

How come Jim always talks about "We". Who the hell are you speaking for?

For the last time, I supported a government intervention in the banking sector, not bailouts. Ideas like nationalizaton of the banks and then dissolving them. Not bailouts.

There are many Anti-war democrats. There are also many pro-war democrats. That is fact. There are more Anti-war democrats, than anti-war republicans though. That too is Fact.

And why are you using the word progressive, again? Your usage of that word has been thoroughly discredited.

But the main point, over and over here, that you can't get through your angry brain, is that you have to assign other people beliefs and positions to allow you to try to make your arguments. Positions that I don't hold.

I don't, and I doubt you'll see Bryan, dispute the facts that special interests, lobbying and corruption are ruining our government. But that, in no way, supports your position that all government is bad and that very little government would be better.

By the way, Bill Clinton was the best Republican President we ever had.

But the greater point, as I have made numerous times, and this article makes superbly is that you live by a rigid dogma. An indoctrination that is unwaivering and uncompromising.

Yes. These are people who place their beliefs in their preferred sacred texts, whether it's the constitution, Atlas Shrugged or the Bible. And only they are the self-anointed priests allowed to interpret them. For different reasons, they just don't care for democracy and wish to permanently bind everyone else to their belief system.


You have illustrated that over and over here and you still don't see that you are doing it. Its truly amazing, because while you may be angry, I don't think you are stupid.


Oh well

1 year ago

You're being disingenuous or obtuse again Chile. I expressed an opinion. Exactly as you are doing. You seem to object to that. You are making claims about me also, and what you claim libertarians believe. The article cited displays the same. I have merely pointed out the discrepancies in what progressives claim to believe, what they actually support.. I am backing it up, You are not.

>

For example you said earlier that TARP saved the economy and you supported it. I pointed out that that position is identical to the banking cartel. I also pointed out that the regulatory agencies didn't even enforce the existing fraud statutes. Statutes are in fact regulations. Regulatory agencies are not working. I think that Elizabeth Warren would agree. As bright as she is, she doesn't understand why and just thinks a bit of oversight is the answer. IMO: wrong.

>

You claim that "you live by a rigid dogma". That is an opinion, One that you have not backed up.    You claim "indoctrination" and cannot back that up either. Indoctrination implies a outside influence and opportunity usually with the youth to do the indoctrination. You can give no examples and seem to confuse positions gained through understanding and agreeing with ideas with "indoctrination".

>

I learned the hard sciences: physics, math and chemistry. I accept and use the scientific method to come to conclusions. That led me to question the status quo and what I had been taught.

>

You subscribe to statist beliefs and have been subjected to real indoctrination via the educational system. Somehow it cannot be indoctrination if it is done by the state? Germans, Russians, assorted Eastern Europeans and others would likely differ.

>

You said "You have illustrated that over and over here and you still don't see that you are doing it. Its truly amazing, because while you may be angry," ..........Actually I am bemused and amused. Just about everything you state appears to be you projecting. Not the least is the "angry" thing you keep on defaulting back to.

>

Fact is, you cannot get around the simple fact that I, and others like me, are not trying to impose anything on you. We are resisting what you are trying to impose on us. We do not believe, or no longer believe, what you do.    Many, if not most libertarians are ex progressives/liberals, or didn't you know that? And more are coming to the same conclusions every day. 

>

Sadly you cannot even conceive that we might be correct and you attack any that do not accept your ideology. You seem personally threatened.  IMO, the rigid myopic worldviews are yours, not ours.  

One more thing Chile
1 year ago

Your quote: "These are people who place their beliefs in their preferred sacred texts, whether it's the constitution, Atlas Shrugged or the Bible. And only they are the self-anointed priests allowed to interpret them. For different reasons, they just don't care for democracy and wish to permanently bind everyone else to their belief system."

>

I don't really care what "sacred texts" or interpretations people have of any of the above. People have a right to believe what they wish Including progressives, liberals, social conservatives, neo-cons, socialists or whatever. AS LONG AS THEY DON'T SEEK TO IMPOSE THEIR IDEOLOGY OR BELIEFS ON OTHERS OR FORCE OTHERS TO PAY FOR THEIR BELIEFS with the associated violation of the human rights of others. This includes religion, alleged law enforcement and imprisonment for non violent crimes, corporate bailouts, preemptive wars and such. Most of that can only be accomplished by the State.   I am a libertarian. We do not believe in the initiation of force against others and do not seek to impose our beliefs on others or force others to pay for our beliefs.  Obviously whoever wrote that quote  understands nothing about libertarian thought.

>

  No,  it isn't libertarians that seek to "permanently bind everyone else to their belief system."  That does describe statists accurately though.  Control is a statist goal.  Libertarians are the opposite.  Liberty..... get it?   

>

I believe in human rights. Under "democracy" (which BTW is easily manipulated by the elites and the political class) 51% or less can impose their will on the rest with no restrictions. Whoever wrote that quote has missed the discussion on "democracy" that has been going on for centuries. No surprise. The rest is pretty clueless also. Many talk about "democracy" but would object when the majority decides to take their own rights away.

this is a shocker ...
1 year ago

The man who helped sink Mitt Romney's presidential dreams with a hidden camera is Scott Prouty, a 38-year-old “middle class guy” from Boca Raton, Fla.

The bartender revealed himself publicly for the first time Wednesday night on MSNBC's "The Ed Show" after secretly taping Romney's infamous "47 percent" comments at a campaign fundraiser last May. The remarks gave resonance to Democratic caricatures of Romney as an out-of-touch plutocrat.

"It was tough," Prouty said during the hourlong interview of his decision to give the tape to the magazine Mother Jones. "And I debated for a little while, but in the end I really felt it had to be put out. I felt I owed it to the people that couldn't afford to be there themselves to hear what he really thought."

As soon as “The Ed Show” started at 8 p.m. EST, Mother Jones posted on its website a full story about Prouty and how the video came to light. Once it hit the press, Prouty worried about his privacy, his job, possible litigation and even criminal prosecution for his actions, deciding to stay anonymous.

RELATED: ROMNEY ENJOYS FLUFFERNUTTER CUPCAKE FOR BIRTHDAY

On Wednesday, Twitter users mostly gushed after the interview about Prouty, likening him to a hero who lifted President Obama to a win in November’s election.

Other online commenters poked fun at conservative talk show hosts who will inevitably take aim at Prouty, whom Mother Jones described as a college-educated bartender originally from Boston.


The Associated Press

Prouty, explaining his decision to release the videotape, said "I simply wanted (Romney’s) words to go out."

“You shouldn’t have to pay $50,000 to find out what a candidate actually thinks,” Prouty said during the interview, alluding to the per-plate cost at the May fundraiser.

The video dropped on the campaign like a bombshell last fall, badly knocking Romney off message. In the remarks, which he eventually disavowed, Romney painted Obama supporters as hopelessly dependent on government.

RELATED: ROMNEY BACK TO BUSINESS, JOINS SON'S FIRM

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what … who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it," Romney told supporters at the fundraiser.

"My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Prouty, explaining his decision to release the videotape, said "I simply wanted (Romney’s) words to go out."

"The guy was running for the presidency, and these were his core beliefs," he said. "And I think everybody can judge whether that's appropriate or not or whether they believe the same way he does. I felt an obligation to expose the things he was saying."

danh@nydailynews.com



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/revealed-man-caught-romney-47-percent-moment-article-1.1287285#ixzz2NXVYnU3a

1 year ago

Romney nailed the GOP's coffin shut tight along with his own campaign.

WHY is their convention CPAC having him a major speaker and shunning Chris Christie?

Please someone educate me. Is the GOP sado-masocistic?

1 year ago

I like Governor Christie.  He has accomplished alot in Jersey.  Not enough, but more than any other.  I wouldn't say he is too left or too right.  He just knows how to navigate the muck.  Honestly, I think he is a pretty fair guy. 

1 year ago

Please Jim, don't try to dazzle with bullsh*t. No one is interested. I stated very clearly in my first post the strawman argument you make. And you make it over and over.

1 year ago

Rhonda, your post made me laugh, not in a bad way either.  Should I be insulted

I hear ya...

Have a good weekend!

1 year ago

Rhonda what bothered me most was Romney's attitude on the Chinese girls working in his factory.
He thought it was okay. These were jobs that were once American and now Chinese thanks to Bain Capital and the deplorable working conditions is no more than a prison.

You are telling me this is how the republicans think? They think this is okay?

He is at CPAC convention today I wonder how he will be greeted?
This story is not going away and it is devastating.
The 47% remarks is lightweight against this.

1 year ago

Another drive by comment by Bryan: No substance at all...."Please Jim, don't try to dazzle with bullsh*t. No one is interested. I stated very clearly in my first post the strawman argument you make. And you make it over and over.".....

.>

Clearly? Not really. Actually you made a claim of a straw man which was easily dismissed. On the other hand, you and Chile do exactly what you claim I have done. Little double standard at work, No? .. Again, you have failed to address or dispute facts, ...Just the claims of "straw man" or "angry"/or other ad hominem attacks ad nausem. Or my addressing the actual straw man you have been using on libertarians. Including the lead in article for this thread......... Which was dismissed in my first comment. No real reply to that either.

>

But I notice and Chile have been unable or unwilling to reply to the points I have made on regulatory capture, regulatory agencies subsidizing and protecting Wall Street criminals and failing to prosecute fraud and more. Latest is the SEC quashing stockholders rights to have a vote on even on a proposal to explore the possibility of breaking up the big banks

>

Sure Bryan, you will say that you don't support the lack of action by the regulatory agencies. You might even say that you don't support subsidizing the banking cartel. Although Chile earlier did say that earlier. But you repeat again and again, the need for more regulation and fail to explain why how that would work given that the regulatory agencies work for the powerful special interests that they are supposed to be regulating. This is clearly the case. If you wish to actually engage in a debate on this? Have at it.........

>

Else, IMO  you support further regulation and empowerment of government agencies that are in fact used by the "regulated" special interests for their own purposes is de facto, making my argument.  Regulation for the sake of regulation?  Increasing government power is good regardless of who or what  inevitably controls that power?  Notice the question marks...... 

>

Doubtless you and Chile will come back with more ad hominem attacks and claims of a straw man. Instead, for a change, how about just replying to the actual issues involved?   The actual examples cited?   Dispute away...... Or not. 

Real example of a straw man.
1 year ago

  Byran said:  "What is completely false is to say corpoations and banks are in power now that he is in office."      ...........That is another example of a staw man Bryan.  Rhonda or I didn't say or imply that: . .....Rhonda and I both believe it isn't Obama.  It isn't recent.  It isn't Republicans or Democrats.....  This  has been going on for a very long time and is getting worse. It is directly proportional to the power of the State in a system that is, in fact, fascist economics.  

>

You are so mesmerized by the illusion of "the  sides"  ........   No.   It isn't just Democrats, or just Republicans;  Its both, It's the State and this sort of thing  is going to be the case because money is drawn to power. 



This post was modified from its original form on 15 Mar, 9:04
1 year ago

Rhonda, you didn't insult me.  I got a kick out of it.  I know there is a difference in style throughout our great country.  Really I was joking with that comment

1 year ago

Another drive by comment by Bryan: No substance at all...."Please Jim, don't try to dazzle with bullsh*t. No one is interested. I stated very clearly in my first post the strawman argument you make. And you make it over and over.".....

.>

Clearly? Not really. Actually you made a claim of a straw man which was easily dismissed. --Jim


Jim, what are you talking about?  My statement was in fact clear because you do repeatedly claim that others who don't share your beliefs must therefore support an all powerful state along with its corruption and tyranny. Do you understand that making such a claim is making a strawman argument? Do you actually deny that you make such claims?

Just the first couple things i found from you in this thread:

Progressives see only the State. A collectivist mind set.  Their core belief is the state.  Not the individual.

What do progressives really stand for? Most progressives favored the giant banks and continued bailouts via the Federal Reserve. Chile is an example of this. Why? Because the giant banks are connected with the State. It empowers exactly what Chile really believes in.


As Chile explained, your arguments are all about assigning others beliefs and positions they don't hold.

And for the millionth time, yes everyone understands the problem of regulatory capture, but that doesn't mean that financial regulations (especially the ones repealed before the crash) don't have benefit. At very least they provide a better means to prosecute for criminal acts after the fact, if they are broken.

Then you say that i'm "mesmorized by the illusion of the sides" after i've just said that Obama is just more of the status quo, and i've often said the Dem party isn't really any better. How does that work for you Jim? Someone can say, "I like the color blue," and then you're able to then just say, "So you like the color red"?

You continually evade what is said to you and put words in people's mouths, so no, i don't have any desire to go through the fustration of attempting to debate.




This post was modified from its original form on 15 Mar, 16:17
1 year ago

You missed the points Bryan. I gave examples.

>

1.Like claims of being anti war but supporting drone war and attacks. The majority of liberals also supported the attack on Libya.

>

2. Claiming to be against giant corporate dominance but the supporting the bailouts for the banks Wall Street and supporting the Federal Reserves continued propping up of those institutions. 

>

3,By supporting the regulatory agencies even though they failed to prosecute the widespread fraud.

>

4,By claiming more regulation is an answer even though those regulatory agencies failed to enforce the regulatory powers they had.

>

5.By claiming to support democracy and being anti war war on drugs but agreeing that the people of the states have no right to nullify unconstitutional Federal laws on drugs.

>

No evasion here at all.. I haven't even touched on human rights such as property rights. Or the fact that the US government has impoverished millions of Americans by depreciating their wages via debasement of the dollar. Forcing 10's of millions into dependency.

>

You might claim that you and progressives don't support the above. A person can claim anything they want. But the truth is in their actions, what they do, not what they say.

>

You you are CLAIMING that I am "assigning others beliefs and positions they don't hold."????   Relly??  You haven't refuted what I claimed.    Just used "strawman" claims and ad homiem attacks. 

No Bryan , I haven't "evaded" anything. That would be you.   I made my points.  If you disagree with my points?  Strap on a set and refute them. If the majority of progressives didn't support the above?  Note "majority"  Show me.,,,,,,,, And please, don't bother with a few isolated individuals.  I am aware that not every progressive/liberal/democrat thinks the same.  



This post was modified from its original form on 19 Mar, 10:08
This thread is archived. To reply to it you must re-activate it.