>> ^srd:

>> ^blankfist:
I'm also glad he's ending the war in Iraq. And reinstating Habeas Corpus. And not continuing the Bush Doctrine.
New party slogan: Democrats. The new Republican.

This is something that keeps on popping up in my mind for over a year now everytime I look at internal US politics: It's time for a 3 party system, and I think you're going to get it (or else the current system is going to go so grossly defunct that the US will drift into third world status over the next 20 years).
Have the far-right republicans, bible (t)humpers and T-Partyists split off into their own party; the conservative democrats join the Republicans and presto: You've got a left, right and center party. Reform the system to not just allow but to actively support coalitions and things just might start moving forward again.


Yup

>> ^blankfist:

I'm also glad he's ending the war in Iraq. And reinstating Habeas Corpus. And not continuing the Bush Doctrine.
New party slogan: Democrats. The new Republican.


This is something that keeps on popping up in my mind for over a year now everytime I look at internal US politics: It's time for a 3 party system, and I think you're going to get it (or else the current system is going to go so grossly defunct that the US will drift into third world status over the next 20 years).

Have the far-right republicans, bible (t)humpers and T-Partyists split off into their own party; the conservative democrats join the Republicans and presto: You've got a left, right and center party. Reform the system to not just allow but to actively support coalitions and things just might start moving forward again.

I'm also glad he's ending the war in Iraq. And reinstating Habeas Corpus. And not continuing the Bush Doctrine.

New party slogan: Democrats. The new Republican.

>> ^blankfist:

What rights in a Libertarian society aren't protected? I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist, so I see government having a specific role, and that is to protect human rights and serve as unbiased arbiter for disputes.

From the UN Declaration of Human Rights, I'll pick this right at semi-random:

Article 23.

* (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
* (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
* (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
* (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Will your minarchy defend those rights?

As to your other comments, who controls the military in this minarchy, and how do you prevent them from establishing a global hegemony? How do you make the system unbiased?

For that matter, how do you maintain habeas corpus eternally, without fail?

But these unprovoked wars and the US hegemony exist, and they're a creation of Democratic and Republican government. Local law enforcement is becoming militarized brownshirts thanks to a large central government. This is a far worse outcome than even the worst that can come from a Libertarian utopia. But you're more worried about a theoretical "economic extortion" from private landowners over the current realistic government tyranny and government's own economic extortion.

What rights in a Libertarian society aren't protected? I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist, so I see government having a specific role, and that is to protect human rights and serve as unbiased arbiter for disputes. I don't understand why you'd think your rights would not be protected, but I'll chock that one up to a lack of understanding what a free society really means. Libertarians don't believe government's role to be forced taxation (theft, servitude), offensive wars, babysitting the world, social engineering by force, imperialism, espionage, suspending habeas corpus, etc. But Democrats and Republicans do.

Now contrast that simple minarchist belief with your own statist belief, and you tell me which society protects rights and which does not. Because in your society I can give you loads of examples where your large government has done the opposite of protecting rights, and has instead encroached upon them.

>> ^volumptuous:
So the Jesus Freak still hasn't answered WTF Ron Paul is talking about.
What American citizen has Obama assassinated?


Anyone they think joined al-Qaeda. No trial, no over-site, no habeas corpus, no due process...dead. So they can really just kill anyone and say that they were al-Qaeda and hide the evidence for "national security" reasons. So the real answer is who knows, and the real fear is anyone they want to.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
2009? That part right there is the epitome of politics in any time or place. It's why nobody in their right mind believes that politicians can make the world a better place. These are people who've dedicated their lives to playing these games in order to see how long they can be the center of attention.



I disagree. I think that the following all made the world a better place:

• Child labor laws
  
• Minimum wage laws
  
• Worker safety laws
  
• Car safety laws
  
• Environmental protections (ranging from national wildlife preserves, to endangered species protection to various Clean Air & Water bills)
  
• SNAP (aka Food Stamps)
  
• Unemployment benefits
  
• Civil Rights legislation
  
• Social Security
  
• Medicare, Medicaid, S-CHIP
  
• FDA, FAA, FCC, FEC, FDIC, FTC, NLRB, NOAA, NASA, ARPA
  
• National Guard, Coast Guard, Peace Corps, Americorps
  

And that doesn't even cover the most basic legislation laid down by "politicians" in the Constitution, establishing things like free speech, protection against illegal search and seizure, the right to a trial by peers, the right to habeas corpus, protection against cruel and unusual punishment, and the guarantee of equal protection of laws.

If our elected representatives don't live up to the standards of the above, it's our fault for having sent them there, and we need to do better.

Acting as though it's impossible to improve the situation is exactly the kind of thinking that got them elected in the first place. In fact, there's a whole party dedicated to intentionally fucking up government, then saying to the electorate "vote for me if you think the government sucks!"

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what the other party is dedicated to. Seems to me they're dedicated to promising good things, then making excuses about how the other party stopped them from getting them done. I'm hoping eventually they wake up and start fighting for what they supposedly believe in.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
How can you say "We need a commander and chief not a law professor!" and get applause? So what? The laws in this country aren't valuable but someone who makes bold idiotic decisions is? Wait, it all makes sense now!
p.s. Regan put us in a worse recession than Bush did, not something to celebrate.


agreed jigga.
the problem is americans collective short term memory and the majorities abject failure in not only knowing recent history but understanding its full impact on their own civil liberties.
habeas corpus is a british law enacted in 1250 a.d for the specific purpose of right of redress.
start tampering with that and the government can charge you with anything and your right to face your accuser in a court of law is toast.result=indefinite detention.
the "war on terror" is an arbitrary term with no definitive goal nor specified target.the "enemy" can be anyone or anything the government deems a threat.this can lead to wholesale abuse considering the the "war on terror" is actually a war on ideology.
historically speaking,it is not uncommon nor unimaginable that when a government is granted power it will always use that power and in many instances against it's own citizens.
the real problem in my opinion is when you add up americans lack of historical knowledge and our collective ability to forget and the corporate medias total failure to address politicians who flat out lie or manipulate facts to fit their narrative,we find ourselves dealing with a powerful cocktail of ignorance and fear which political parties use with amazing proficiency.
the majority of american people have given authority to the corporate media to tell them what to think and how to think it.until they realize that the mainstream media had utterly failed,and that journalistic integrity has been forfeited for ratings and profit we will see more sarah palin like politicians in the future.

>> ^Rotty:
This really isn't news worthy; obammy has already demostrated that he's a diplomatic moron. What, no iPod for Akihito?
There are more relevant reasons to slam this Banker boy:
1) No immediate plans to leave Iraq. What happened to the nine month plan?
2) Additional deployments to Afghanastan; more dead Americans fighting the elite's wars.
3) Filling his admnistration with the same thugs that have consistently corrupted and looted America.
4) Other than banker bailouts, he hasn't done SHIT for the economy.
5) No changes in banking regulations that led to the last economic meltdown.
6) Other than creating a few thousnad jobs in his native state, he hasn't done SHIT in creating jobs.
As a matter of fact, other than touring the planet, he hasn't done a fucking thing.
The only CHANGE he's interested in is the change in your pocket.


If you cut out the diplomacy slam and all the childish name calling, I would have to agree with much of this fellow's post.

The bank bailout is a moot point because anyone in office would have bailed them out. Maybe not Ron Paul, but certainly McCain! After all, Bush bailed out Bear Sterns in Feb 2007 and McCain did whatever Bush did so...there you go.

I voted for Obama because he said he'd...

1) end the war,
2) go after those that committed war crimes (admittedly, Biden said this not Obama, but still)
3) not have any lobbyist on his cabinet (for the post of Deputy Secretary of Defense he nominated William J. Lynn III, the top lobbyist for Raytheon, one of the biggest companies in the military-industrial complex)
4) follow the rule of law. Meanwhile, the suspension of habeas corpus is still in effect for many "enemy combatants" and warrantless wiretaps at the NSA are still going like the energizer bunny.

He has done some good things. He at least tried to introduce a public healthcare option (it's unfortunately DOA on the Senate floor), he reversed some environmental policies, and, well, he's not Bush. But that's not really enough for me.

Downvote this comment if you like but everything I've pointed out is the truth.

I'm all for protecting your rights as a citizen. I can even (with some caveats) see the logic of bringing a point across by exercising that right in a very public fashion. But where were these people when their right to privacy was taken away, or when they lost habeas corpus with only a penstroke?

>> ^vaporlock:
These people are scary... After 8 years of the most corrupt president EVER (who they supported). They are now worried about their rights.


Do you honestly think this guy or those like him were sitting on the sidelines while Bush was eliminating habeas corpus, or blowing our national wad in the Middle East? Who are "they" anyway? Are you assuming this guy's a republican because he believes in the Second Amendment?

I absolutely agree with this guy's statement: exercise your rights or you'll lose them, simply because it's virtually impossible to reclaim power from the government once it's been surrendered. In my current home state – Wisconsin – bringing a gun to a presidential rally would certainly be excessive, but I'm more concerned about the guns I don't see (and there are far more than you might think).

^You should read the sentence again: "And those who hide behind the veil of law and quote it as moral are acting with gross self-righteousness."

It was specific to a comment above. Though, I would question what you mean by 'good order'. Order? As in obedience? I get why we need laws against murder and rape, sure, but notwithstanding common necessity laws I wonder what else you mean by order.

Outlawing free choice by declaring war on drugs? Devising a permission society where you must gain a 'permit' to move about the roads or marry the one you love? The Anti-terrorism laws where detainees lose Habeas Corpus? These are the laws that keep order?

Well.....technically, as president, she could establish a Department of Law...and if Bush can ignore the constitution and wiretap us, severely weaken habeas corpus, etc, I don't see what would stop President Palin from having ethics charges dismissed by her newly appointed Secretary of Law---and have the ones who brought the charges sent to Guantanamo.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Modern liberalism seems to be trouncing real individuality at every turn: no longer are you allowed to choose what to drive, what to eat, whether to buy health care, whether to use tobacco, whether to own a gun, what you're allowed to say in public, whether you may express religious thought in public, what you can do with your own land.

All of those things are still permitted, and will stay that way, if the actual (as opposed to fictional) "modern" liberals have anything to say about it.

However, in the wake of a series of conservative administrations, we seem to have lost the ability to marry who we choose, take the drugs we want to take, and the ability to practice a non-Christian religion without persecution.

I also seem to have lost the ability to sue telephone companies who eavesdrop on my conversations without warrants, my right to habeas corpus, and the protections of the Geneva conventions. Again, thanks to the "modern" conservatives.

I have never, ever seen you preach tolerance for a viewpoint other than your own myopic view of the world. We tolerate you, because we pride ourselves on tolerance of people who are different from ourselves, but your hyopcritical, sanctimonious horseshit makes it a little more difficult than it really needs to be.

It's easy to understand why the "liberals" feel the way they do about torture when you take the number of innocent people that were tortured and you put yourself in their situation. You're minding your own business and you get picked up, without habeas corpus being extended to you, and are interrogated ruthlessly for information that you do not have. Not only is this wrong and archaic, it may "make" enemies that were indifferent before. If you were picked up by a bunch of Muslim extremists, would you not be willing to do whatever it took to get back at that group? Now imagine if your only education told you that every Muslim extremist represents the ideals of a certain country. You'd wanna want to be a part in hurting that country.

You (and Holder) forgot one small detail: only three of the Gitmo captives were waterboarded. If we were waterboarding for "our pleasure" in inflicting torture, we would've done it to every last one of them.

I accept the risk of picking up innocents in the pursuit of potentially saving the lives of millions. The recidivism rate of Gitmo scum who were scum before being captured and after is far higher than that of supposed innocents turned into extremists.

For those that think there will never be a suitcase nuke scenario: computers once took up the size of whole rooms, now they fit in a palm. It may take 80 years or more, but creation of a nuke even the size of tackle box is certainly viable. It's not a matter of 'if' but 'when'.


I challenge you to provide ANY evidence to the contrary. Lots of psychological studies have been done on false confessions and truth telling under duress, please give us a reference that even suggests that your entire premise is not a load of bullshit.

Sorry. I respectfully disagree. Can't hide a proposed moral stance behind secrets of national security. I could be wrong, but when the communocrats threatened to release sensitive info on Gitmo "torture", Cheney urged them on, possibly because there is evidence waterboarding works. When Obamarx was threatened with having to tell the whole story, he dropped the issue.