congress wants to circumvent the supreme court. ok- a repub president wants to do what he wants- and packs the court to do it. court disappoints- congress is eager to please. does anyone remember checks and balances- or is that passe?
Betmo: It was a combination of the will of the people (the ones who voted) and the apathy of the rest (the silent majority who did not)that put a republican tri-fecta at the head of Goverment; questions about Gore's loss in 2000 nonewithstanding. Ive said it again and again; had he won his own home state all this would have been moot, all of it. Gore would be in the white house, he -not GWB- would have put 2 Justices on the Bench. POP: There is no Constitutional directive saying one political group cannot head all three branches. But I agree that the checks and balances system does not seem equitative to the point of making the left feel part of the process. When Bush won (and my candidate lost) I said "Ok, let's see what I can do to make sure my voice is heard for the things I believe in". Ive sent 113 e-mails to congress and the white house on a littany of things. Thats how I participate in the loyal opposition movement... and believe me, doing so being a conservative libertarian puts me in a worse position than if I were a liberal. Tell me POP, if the Democrats win both sides of the house and the presidency in 2008, will you feel a sense of balance then? or just YOUR idea of balance? The miracle you are asking for is a full participation of a mojority of Americans in that which we all take so for granted. The single act of voting. The day we cross the 60% participation threshold will be the day of true revolution.
First, Gore won the 2000 election; Bush & company staged a bloodless coup as votes were stolen, and not counted. Second, the 2004 election was stolen again; and I suspect, that given the tone of this administration, that they may do away with elections altogether in 2008.
Second, Bush patently ignores any system of checks & balances, because he uses SIGNING STATEMENTS which say effectively that he won't follow the laws set by Congress. Almost 700 signing statements to date.
I agree with the comment that if Americans actually voted, that would be a true revolution.
Divajood: Name one instance of vote stealing in the states of Arkansas (Bill Clinton's) or Tennessee (Al Gore's) where proof of voter tampering was ever brought forward. But you keep thinking that. I'm sure it gives you serenity in your yearning for what could have been.... Had the networks not stupidly called Florida for Gore while the panhandle area (which was altogether in another time zone and mostly of red-counties) was still in commuter traffic, maybe the close outcome would not have been so close. Just an observation from moi, a non-Bush voter.
My argument still stands. Any party that has a popular incumbent (Clinton) and candidate (Gore) who could not even win their own states does not deserve to win,... popular votes nonowithstanding.
well- we can keep rehashing the last 2 elections or we can be proactive for the next two. what i meant by checks and balances was exactly that. no- there is no provision that says one party can't rule all three branches- but it certainly is not working out very well for the country. think about our best times in this country and you will see one party in the executive branch, one in the legislative and a mix on the court.
my point in the post being- this particular government wants no dissension-period. they have appointed the people on the court and want them to deliver- party line. they hold the other two branches and if exec doesn't get what it wants- on a rare occasion these days- then- hey they don't care- they will do what they want anyway and suffer no repercussions. i don't want to speak for diva- but i for one would like to see the left take at the very least the congress- hopefully the exec- and then the conservative court system can be left to the right until they start retiring. i don't want the left wing liberals to win- but the left wing moderates because they will be more likely to reach out to the moderate repubs- if there are any left- and possibly get something done that is productive.
Truth, the whole point of checks and balances is so there isn't ONE group that has all the power. It did not need to be implied in the Constitution because it was already said when the "separation of powers" was written. No one power can rule over the others, period.
Sarah: If the people elect the two branches of Government (Congress and the Executive)that is responsible for choosing the third (the Judicial), then how do we go about NOT allowing them to consolidate power? Checks and balances are to provide lawful process of legislation and oversight, not to avoid the furthering of the winning party's agenda. Some our there my be confusing checks and balances with left and right issues. It is not (and I am sure you know that of course)... The party who wins has every right to push their agenda as long as it follows law, cedes to Constitutional muster and (hopefully) listens to the will of the electorate. If the minority party lets them get away with it then we are all screwed for their idiocy Does it behoove the winning party to throw the loser a bone? Sure it does, after all the winning party still has to govern for all Americans and not just their partisans. But this notion that "checks and balances" stops at some invisible fulcrum point where an Administration can't go to far to the left or right is naive-thinking at best.
As to the south being Conservative?... Yep, Nixon rode the "southern strateg(er)y" all the way to victory twice,... but lets not Forget that Reagan Carried 49 states in the throttling of Carter in 1980, and another bucketload in 1984. And there were many a blue states in both victories. It is not an un-heard of thing to win in Red states. Look at Warner in Virginia. Gore could have carried some of the south. He just gave token attention to it, and Clinton was too busy staying away to be of any use. The Demos have not invested any serious political capital to the south in 30 years. They simply gave up... and THAT is just a sad a travesty as anything the Repubs have done as far as checks and balances is concerned. You want balances?... why don't the democrats start acting like a national party and go and fight for Alabama, and Louisiana and Georgia and The Carolinas? Because the don't want to piss off too many of the progressives in the Blue states by "pandering" to the morality and religious-end of the electorate in that region. All Americans should be courted for votes,..not just the ones that fill your cofers with money.
Lastly Sarah, a loss is a loss. Nixon "lost" to Kennedy by around 100,000 votes in 1960, yet he took the loss like a gentleman and conceded admirably; that in spite of the voter fraud BS that went on with Dailey in Chicago and Johnson in Dallas. A loss is a loss.. and in this day an age, a 3% win is almost as severe a throttling as anything meaning a landslide.
Every time I hear people still mourning the elections of 2000 I want to impale myself to my ceiling fan... It sucks to have not voted ANY Rebublican since 1992 yet defend the election process. Its 2006 already~!. I tell this to my own party faithful (libertarians) all the time. Until we do something to break out from our 2% showing we have no right to grouse. We as Americans should stop crying over it, get over ourselves and do the best we can to have our voices heard in a salient and compelling way.
Memo to the Demos, the whining does not win you one seat in the house,...not one.
The 2000 election is old hat to me. It's history now. You can't change the facts, no matter how many people manipulate what went on. Bush won twice, and there is not a whole lot you can do about it. Plus, Gore DID concede like a gentleman - it was his supporters who did all the whining. Kerry did the same.
Plus, I expect checks and balances, no matter who is in power. Democratic or Republican, I don't care. The majority has absolutely no right to push its beliefs on the minority. The election of Bush does not give him a mandate to do what he wants. That goes for any other President-elect. Those who get elected serve the people, not some far-fetched agenda. I also expect anybody who gets elected to uphold The Constitution and preserve the rights of the people. Or is that too much to ask?
Anyway, you don't see Cheney and Bush pandering to anybody in the North, do you? Nope, because they have a solid base. These elected representatives are faithful to those who elected them into power.
Why should the Democratic party become Republican-lite in order to win votes? The reason the Democratic party is suffering is because they can't stand for anything - they are too busy trying to be Republicans.
However, I believe the 2008 elections are going to change the swing of things. People are tired of Bush and the Republicans. The media did a swell job turing liberals into Satan these past 20 years, but people aren't falling for it anymore.
Personally, I am tired of conservatives always getting treated like secular saints that can do no wrong. Even so-called "libertarians" spend more time bashing liberals while defending the actions of Bush and his administration. Please explain to me what is so very "libertarian" about Bush?
bush is not anything. allegedly he is a conservative but cheney, rumsfeld and wolfowitz are some new breed of conservative. i call them neocons out of necessity because i don't know what they really are. i have to agree with tp about getting our asses up and beating the dems with a stick to get them moving. i know that moveon.org and democracy for america are both looking to get out the dems in 'red' states and in some local races have been successful. move on is also looking into voter fraud and machines in critical states and recently scored a victory in maryland where the new machines have to have a paper trail. we just need to keep on plugging and hope that we can encourage enough people to vote. we americans have the power to change our world and take our country back- we just have to do it. we don't have to be held hostage by the types of demogogues that are currently in office. with a 98% incumbent re-election rate we need to wake up and take a look at ourselves and our system.
Sarah, Sure Gore conceded like a Gentleman,...maybe 5 weeks later (and kicking and screaming), but he did. Nixon conceded election night before the sun came up. Let's not give Gore that much credit, please.
..."The majority has absolutely no right to push its beliefs on the minority. The election of Bush does not give him a mandate to do what he wants. That goes for any other President-elect. Those who get elected serve the people, not some far-fetched agenda"...
In my opinion,...yes it does. To the victor go the spoils of war. It sucks for both you and I as non-republicans,... but it does. Did anybody stop Roosevelt from pushing his liberal new-deal "far fetched agenda"? Nope. 4 straight election victories gave him the mandate to do whatever the hell he wanted. The conservative movement was sucking on Codfish for 20 years. But they just kept plugging away until Eisenhower came to their rescue. Thats what elections are so important becuase the fate of one agenda or another is at stake.
..." I also expect anybody who gets elected to uphold The Constitution and preserve the rights of the people. Or is that too much to ask?"...
Apparently it is too much to ask...Again, if the opposition lets any administration get away with it then shame on them (and us) for letting it happen. Its not Bush's fault the opposition has no sack to stand up to him. Its ours.
..."Anyway, you don't see Cheney and Bush pandering to anybody in the North, do you? Nope, because they have a solid base. These elected representatives are faithful to those who elected them into power"...
I was not talking about Cheney. I was making a point about Gore's inability to win southern voters. The burden of voter coutship falls to the party out of power, doesn't it? Besides Bush and Cheney aren't running last time I looked.
..."Why should the Democratic party become Republican-lite in order to win votes? The reason the Democratic party is suffering is because they can't stand for anything - they are too busy trying to be Republicans"...
Ditto, I fully agree with you on that one. The Demos don't want to differentiate themselves at all. I've been barking on that notion for 2 years now. For as much as I dislike the Bush administration I've yet to see anything the Demos have that would give me enough of a mental flatulence moment to vote for them.
..."Personally, I am tired of conservatives always getting treated like secular saints that can do no wrong. Even so-called "libertarians" spend more time bashing liberals while defending the actions of Bush and his administration. Please explain to me what is so very "libertarian" about Bush?"...
I'm tired of that too Sarah, so I can't help you there. I am not defending Bush, although I have said many times that some of the things his administration has done are decent enough (if one takes the partisan blinders off, it can be seen as such). I am only opining on the constant whinning on the election results on the part of most everybody left of Bill Kristol. If the results are old hat as you say (to some), then why is it still topic du joir in blggersville?.... Second, I never said or implied he is a Libertarian in any way. Actually I did a post saying that he is a Trojan horse social liberal. God save me if he even joined my party. I'd be the one hauling ass to Canada. The reason "some libertarians" bash liberals is because of fiscal policy not social agendas. Most libertarians are pro-choice on everything, not just abortions. And that includes education, health care, crime prevention, and gun ownership.
However, I will have to disagree with you about the "New Deal." Our nation was going through a depression at the time. He saved the nation, in my opinion. It should also be noted that the Supreme Court did rule that his "New Deal" was unconstitution in many parts - see, it was checked and balanced. Many supporters of Roosevelt accused the Court of "judicial activism." See, things never change.
It should be noted that many liberal historians have attacked the "New Deal" as nothing but a defense for capitalism. There are many critics of the New Deal, but overall I believe it was successful and a great relief to the American people at the time.
We'll also have to disagree about the victor getting the spoils - that is not the American philosophy I was taught. I'm not going to sit down and shut up - I have every right to speak out at the abuses of the government. To be honest, I don't even know how you can support such a viewpoint and call yourself libertarian.
Let's pretend somebody similar to Hilter was elected fairly in the United States. Should I keep my mouth shut when minority groups get shuffled away to be slaughtered? What right do I have to speak against my government if the majority rules? Even immoral acts and unconstitution laws should just be ignored because that is what the ruling party wants?
Even though many won't agree with me, I believe the same about legalized abortion. I see it as a moral and ethical evil - and I believe the scientific and philosophical arguments back me up to a tee. However, many will tell me the majority wants the procedure to be legal in the name of "choice."
When I said "he" in my last post, I meant Roosevelt.
Plus, while the country was behind the New Deal, there were still plenty of those who did not agree with it, including many conservatives AND liberals of the time.
Roosevelt was historical - he changed the face of the Democratic party and save a great nation. He had many supporters of all stripes - how many politicians can say that today? Also, you cannot forget his great record on WWII. The majority of historians record him as one of the greatest Presidents of all time - so do most of the American people.
I cannot comment on the legacy of Bush yet - I will wait until I'm 70 to do so : )
Sarah... Althought I would love to entertain the topic of Roosevelt's inducing the nation towards socialism-type entitlements in the name of the depression years, I am going to have to pass. Its the topic of a near-finished posting and I have not the time to indulge tonight. But let me just say that it does not change my premise. Regardless of the moral clarity of the action (or lack thereof) it is an administration's right to pursue the agenda of their choice. Example: I wanted to do nothing with prescription drug "benefits" since i considered THAT a "far fetched agenda", but it was shoved down my pie-hole anyway. Did the administratio have a right to do it?... of course they did, whether I (or you)liked it or not is a moot point now. Its law.
As to your assertion of my calling myself a Libertarian etc,.... I've just re-read my comments (twice) and am having a hard time finding the part you are talking about....please tell me, where in my previous comments did I call for the quieting of opinion or censorship of expression? let me quote part of what i said.......
..."When Bush won (and my candidate lost) I said "Ok, let's see what I can do to make sure my voice is heard for the things I believe in". Ive sent 113 e-mails to congress and the white house on a littany of things. Thats how I participate in the loyal opposition movement... and believe me, doing so being a conservative libertarian puts me in a worse position than if I were a liberal"...
I never implied that one has to shut up if your party of choice losses, or if the White House Agenda is not to our liking. Only that it is the prerogative of Governance to apply policies that if ran on during its campaign. But opinions are ,...just that,... arent they? So that is mine and mine alone.
Sarah: Far be it for me to look at anybody with partisan eyes. I try not too. It is anathema to what I believe. As to giving Bush a fair shake?... I give him credit if due, and lay the lumber to his tail if I feel he deserves it. I am a conservative, not a republican :)
Apparently, you took my "far-fetched" agenda to heart. I'm talking about policies that do not benefit the American people here.
"Far-fetched" to me is a government that does not listen to what the people need and want - it's a government that does what it wants with no care to established law and what the American public needs. It's a very simple civil lesson - the people rule, not the government. We elect people to reflect our goals, not the goals of the politician.
In a previous post, you said that an elected government has the right to do what it wants without regard to individual rights. A person who calls themselves libertarian would not support an elected government lording over those in the country, that is all I was saying.
..."In a previous post, you said that an elected government has the right to do what it wants without regard to individual rights. A person who calls themselves libertarian would not support an elected government lording over those in the country, that is all I was saying"...
I am still waiting to find where exactly it was that I said that. I don't doubt that you may have interpreted that, I just doubt me saying that verbatim.
23 comments:
Checks and what?
Balance a repub house, senate, president? No balance can be hoped for until November, and then we can only hope for a miracle.
Betmo: It was a combination of the will of the people (the ones who voted) and the apathy of the rest (the silent majority who did not)that put a republican tri-fecta at the head of Goverment; questions about Gore's loss in 2000 nonewithstanding. Ive said it again and again; had he won his own home state all this would have been moot, all of it. Gore would be in the white house, he -not GWB- would have put 2 Justices on the Bench.
POP: There is no Constitutional directive saying one political group cannot head all three branches. But I agree that the checks and balances system does not seem equitative to the point of making the left feel part of the process. When Bush won (and my candidate lost) I said "Ok, let's see what I can do to make sure my voice is heard for the things I believe in". Ive sent 113 e-mails to congress and the white house on a littany of things. Thats how I participate in the loyal opposition movement... and believe me, doing so being a conservative libertarian puts me in a worse position than if I were a liberal.
Tell me POP, if the Democrats win both sides of the house and the presidency in 2008, will you feel a sense of balance then? or just YOUR idea of balance? The miracle you are asking for is a full participation of a mojority of Americans in that which we all take so for granted. The single act of voting. The day we cross the 60% participation threshold will be the day of true revolution.
First, Gore won the 2000 election; Bush & company staged a bloodless coup as votes were stolen, and not counted. Second, the 2004 election was stolen again; and I suspect, that given the tone of this administration, that they may do away with elections altogether in 2008.
Second, Bush patently ignores any system of checks & balances, because he uses SIGNING STATEMENTS which say effectively that he won't follow the laws set by Congress. Almost 700 signing statements to date.
I agree with the comment that if Americans actually voted, that would be a true revolution.
Divajood: Name one instance of vote stealing in the states of Arkansas (Bill Clinton's) or Tennessee (Al Gore's) where proof of voter tampering was ever brought forward. But you keep thinking that. I'm sure it gives you serenity in your yearning for what could have been....
Had the networks not stupidly called Florida for Gore while the panhandle area (which was altogether in another time zone and mostly of red-counties) was still in commuter traffic, maybe the close outcome would not have been so close. Just an observation from moi, a non-Bush voter.
My argument still stands. Any party that has a popular incumbent (Clinton) and candidate (Gore) who could not even win their own states does not deserve to win,... popular votes nonowithstanding.
well- we can keep rehashing the last 2 elections or we can be proactive for the next two. what i meant by checks and balances was exactly that. no- there is no provision that says one party can't rule all three branches- but it certainly is not working out very well for the country. think about our best times in this country and you will see one party in the executive branch, one in the legislative and a mix on the court.
my point in the post being- this particular government wants no dissension-period. they have appointed the people on the court and want them to deliver- party line. they hold the other two branches and if exec doesn't get what it wants- on a rare occasion these days- then- hey they don't care- they will do what they want anyway and suffer no repercussions. i don't want to speak for diva- but i for one would like to see the left take at the very least the congress- hopefully the exec- and then the conservative court system can be left to the right until they start retiring. i don't want the left wing liberals to win- but the left wing moderates because they will be more likely to reach out to the moderate repubs- if there are any left- and possibly get something done that is productive.
Truth, the whole point of checks and balances is so there isn't ONE group that has all the power. It did not need to be implied in the Constitution because it was already said when the "separation of powers" was written. No one power can rule over the others, period.
More history
To be fair, Gore had a good amount of votes in Tennessee during the 2000 election:
Bush: 1,056,480 51%
Gore: 977,789 48%
Plus, you have to keep in mind that Tennessee is a conservative area. Actually, most of the South is.
Sarah: If the people elect the two branches of Government (Congress and the Executive)that is responsible for choosing the third (the Judicial), then how do we go about NOT allowing them to consolidate power? Checks and balances are to provide lawful process of legislation and oversight, not to avoid the furthering of the winning party's agenda. Some our there my be confusing checks and balances with left and right issues. It is not (and I am sure you know that of course)...
The party who wins has every right to push their agenda as long as it follows law, cedes to Constitutional muster and (hopefully) listens to the will of the electorate. If the minority party lets them get away with it then we are all screwed for their idiocy Does it behoove the winning party to throw the loser a bone? Sure it does, after all the winning party still has to govern for all Americans and not just their partisans. But this notion that "checks and balances" stops at some invisible fulcrum point where an Administration can't go to far to the left or right is naive-thinking at best.
As to the south being Conservative?... Yep, Nixon rode the "southern strateg(er)y" all the way to victory twice,... but lets not Forget that Reagan Carried 49 states in the throttling of Carter in 1980, and another bucketload in 1984. And there were many a blue states in both victories. It is not an un-heard of thing to win in Red states. Look at Warner in Virginia. Gore could have carried some of the south. He just gave token attention to it, and Clinton was too busy staying away to be of any use. The Demos have not invested any serious political capital to the south in 30 years. They simply gave up... and THAT is just a sad a travesty as anything the Repubs have done as far as checks and balances is concerned. You want balances?... why don't the democrats start acting like a national party and go and fight for Alabama, and Louisiana and Georgia and The Carolinas? Because the don't want to piss off too many of the progressives in the Blue states by "pandering" to the morality and religious-end of the electorate in that region. All Americans should be courted for votes,..not just the ones that fill your cofers with money.
Lastly Sarah, a loss is a loss. Nixon "lost" to Kennedy by around 100,000 votes in 1960, yet he took the loss like a gentleman and conceded admirably; that in spite of the voter fraud BS that went on with Dailey in Chicago and Johnson in Dallas. A loss is a loss.. and in this day an age, a 3% win is almost as severe a throttling as anything meaning a landslide.
Every time I hear people still mourning the elections of 2000 I want to impale myself to my ceiling fan... It sucks to have not voted ANY Rebublican since 1992 yet defend the election process. Its 2006 already~!. I tell this to my own party faithful (libertarians) all the time. Until we do something to break out from our 2% showing we have no right to grouse. We as Americans should stop crying over it, get over ourselves and do the best we can to have our voices heard in a salient and compelling way.
Memo to the Demos, the whining does not win you one seat in the house,...not one.
The 2000 election is old hat to me. It's history now. You can't change the facts, no matter how many people manipulate what went on. Bush won twice, and there is not a whole lot you can do about it. Plus, Gore DID concede like a gentleman - it was his supporters who did all the whining. Kerry did the same.
Plus, I expect checks and balances, no matter who is in power. Democratic or Republican, I don't care. The majority has absolutely no right to push its beliefs on the minority. The election of Bush does not give him a mandate to do what he wants. That goes for any other President-elect. Those who get elected serve the people, not some far-fetched agenda. I also expect anybody who gets elected to uphold The Constitution and preserve the rights of the people. Or is that too much to ask?
Anyway, you don't see Cheney and Bush pandering to anybody in the North, do you? Nope, because they have a solid base. These elected representatives are faithful to those who elected them into power.
Why should the Democratic party become Republican-lite in order to win votes? The reason the Democratic party is suffering is because they can't stand for anything - they are too busy trying to be Republicans.
However, I believe the 2008 elections are going to change the swing of things. People are tired of Bush and the Republicans. The media did a swell job turing liberals into Satan these past 20 years, but people aren't falling for it anymore.
Personally, I am tired of conservatives always getting treated like secular saints that can do no wrong. Even so-called "libertarians" spend more time bashing liberals while defending the actions of Bush and his administration. Please explain to me what is so very "libertarian" about Bush?
bush is not anything. allegedly he is a conservative but cheney, rumsfeld and wolfowitz are some new breed of conservative. i call them neocons out of necessity because i don't know what they really are. i have to agree with tp about getting our asses up and beating the dems with a stick to get them moving. i know that moveon.org and democracy for america are both looking to get out the dems in 'red' states and in some local races have been successful. move on is also looking into voter fraud and machines in critical states and recently scored a victory in maryland where the new machines have to have a paper trail. we just need to keep on plugging and hope that we can encourage enough people to vote. we americans have the power to change our world and take our country back- we just have to do it. we don't have to be held hostage by the types of demogogues that are currently in office. with a 98% incumbent re-election rate we need to wake up and take a look at ourselves and our system.
Sarah, Sure Gore conceded like a Gentleman,...maybe 5 weeks later (and kicking and screaming), but he did. Nixon conceded election night before the sun came up. Let's not give Gore that much credit, please.
..."The majority has absolutely no right to push its beliefs on the minority. The election of Bush does not give him a mandate to do what he wants. That goes for any other President-elect. Those who get elected serve the people, not some far-fetched agenda"...
In my opinion,...yes it does. To the victor go the spoils of war. It sucks for both you and I as non-republicans,... but it does. Did anybody stop Roosevelt from pushing his liberal new-deal "far fetched agenda"? Nope. 4 straight election victories gave him the mandate to do whatever the hell he wanted. The conservative movement was sucking on Codfish for 20 years. But they just kept plugging away until Eisenhower came to their rescue. Thats what elections are so important becuase the fate of one agenda or another is at stake.
..." I also expect anybody who gets elected to uphold The Constitution and preserve the rights of the people. Or is that too much to ask?"...
Apparently it is too much to ask...Again, if the opposition lets any administration get away with it then shame on them (and us) for letting it happen. Its not Bush's fault the opposition has no sack to stand up to him. Its ours.
..."Anyway, you don't see Cheney and Bush pandering to anybody in the North, do you? Nope, because they have a solid base. These elected representatives are faithful to those who elected them into power"...
I was not talking about Cheney. I was making a point about Gore's inability to win southern voters. The burden of voter coutship falls to the party out of power, doesn't it? Besides Bush and Cheney aren't running last time I looked.
..."Why should the Democratic party become Republican-lite in order to win votes? The reason the Democratic party is suffering is because they can't stand for anything - they are too busy trying to be Republicans"...
Ditto, I fully agree with you on that one. The Demos don't want to differentiate themselves at all. I've been barking on that notion for 2 years now. For as much as I dislike the Bush administration I've yet to see anything the Demos have that would give me enough of a mental flatulence moment to vote for them.
..."Personally, I am tired of conservatives always getting treated like secular saints that can do no wrong. Even so-called "libertarians" spend more time bashing liberals while defending the actions of Bush and his administration. Please explain to me what is so very "libertarian" about Bush?"...
I'm tired of that too Sarah, so I can't help you there. I am not defending Bush, although I have said many times that some of the things his administration has done are decent enough (if one takes the partisan blinders off, it can be seen as such). I am only opining on the constant whinning on the election results on the part of most everybody left of Bill Kristol. If the results are old hat as you say (to some), then why is it still topic du joir in blggersville?.... Second, I never said or implied he is a Libertarian in any way. Actually I did a post saying that he is a Trojan horse social liberal. God save me if he even joined my party. I'd be the one hauling ass to Canada.
The reason "some libertarians" bash liberals is because of fiscal policy not social agendas. Most libertarians are pro-choice on everything, not just abortions. And that includes education, health care, crime prevention, and gun ownership.
Great debate as always :)
Betmo:
Thanks for the fine posting morsel. See?... just one day I am feel like I never left... :)
Betmo, as I always say, we need to stay optimistic and remember what is good about our country : )
Yes Truth, great debate as always.
However, I will have to disagree with you about the "New Deal." Our nation was going through a depression at the time. He saved the nation, in my opinion. It should also be noted that the Supreme Court did rule that his "New Deal" was unconstitution in many parts - see, it was checked and balanced. Many supporters of Roosevelt accused the Court of "judicial activism." See, things never change.
It should be noted that many liberal historians have attacked the "New Deal" as nothing but a defense for capitalism. There are many critics of the New Deal, but overall I believe it was successful and a great relief to the American people at the time.
We'll also have to disagree about the victor getting the spoils - that is not the American philosophy I was taught. I'm not going to sit down
and shut up - I have every right to speak out at the abuses of the government. To be honest, I don't even know how you can support such a viewpoint and call yourself libertarian.
Let's pretend somebody similar to Hilter was elected fairly in the United States. Should I keep my mouth shut when minority groups get shuffled away to be slaughtered? What right do I have to speak against my government if the majority rules? Even immoral acts and unconstitution laws should just be ignored because that is what the ruling party wants?
Even though many won't agree with me, I believe the same about legalized abortion. I see it as a moral and ethical evil - and I believe the scientific and philosophical arguments back me up to a tee. However, many will tell me the majority wants the procedure to be legal in the name of "choice."
When I said "he" in my last post, I meant Roosevelt.
Plus, while the country was behind the New Deal, there were still plenty of those who did not agree with it, including many conservatives AND liberals of the time.
Roosevelt was historical - he changed the face of the Democratic party and save a great nation. He had many supporters of all stripes - how many politicians can say that today? Also, you cannot forget his great record on WWII. The majority of historians record him as one of the greatest Presidents of all time - so do most of the American people.
I cannot comment on the legacy of Bush yet - I will wait until I'm 70 to do so : )
By the way Truth, don't look at Roosevelt through a partisan eye, and I'll give Bush a fair shake. Deal?
: )
Sarah...
Althought I would love to entertain the topic of Roosevelt's inducing the nation towards socialism-type entitlements in the name of the depression years, I am going to have to pass. Its the topic of a near-finished posting and I have not the time to indulge tonight. But let me just say that it does not change my premise. Regardless of the moral clarity of the action (or lack thereof) it is an administration's right to pursue the agenda of their choice. Example: I wanted to do nothing with prescription drug "benefits" since i considered THAT a "far fetched agenda", but it was shoved down my pie-hole anyway. Did the administratio have a right to do it?... of course they did, whether I (or you)liked it or not is a moot point now. Its law.
As to your assertion of my calling myself a Libertarian etc,.... I've just re-read my comments (twice) and am having a hard time finding the part you are talking about....please tell me, where in my previous comments did I call for the quieting of opinion or censorship of expression? let me quote part of what i said.......
..."When Bush won (and my candidate lost) I said "Ok, let's see what I can do to make sure my voice is heard for the things I believe in". Ive sent 113 e-mails to congress and the white house on a littany of things. Thats how I participate in the loyal opposition movement... and believe me, doing so being a conservative libertarian puts me in a worse position than if I were a liberal"...
I never implied that one has to shut up if your party of choice losses, or if the White House Agenda is not to our liking. Only that it is the prerogative of Governance to apply policies that if ran on during its campaign.
But opinions are ,...just that,... arent they? So that is mine and mine alone.
Sarah: Far be it for me to look at anybody with partisan eyes. I try not too. It is anathema to what I believe. As to giving Bush a fair shake?... I give him credit if due, and lay the lumber to his tail if I feel he deserves it. I am a conservative, not a republican :)
Apparently, you took my "far-fetched" agenda to heart. I'm talking about policies that do not benefit the American people here.
"Far-fetched" to me is a government that does not listen to what the people need and want - it's a government that does what it wants with no care to established law and what the American public needs. It's a very simple civil lesson - the people rule, not the government. We elect people to reflect our goals, not the goals of the politician.
In a previous post, you said that an elected government has the right to do what it wants without regard to individual rights. A person who calls themselves libertarian would not support an elected government lording over those in the country, that is all I was saying.
Have a good night : )
..."In a previous post, you said that an elected government has the right to do what it wants without regard to individual rights. A person who calls themselves libertarian would not support an elected government lording over those in the country, that is all I was saying"...
I am still waiting to find where exactly it was that I said that.
I don't doubt that you may have interpreted that, I just doubt me saying that verbatim.
Good night Sarah :)
No, I was giving a draft of what was said - Anyway, it really doesn't matter anymore. I think this debate has run out of steam, hehe : )
Enjoy your holiday!
Sarah:...maybe we both have to re-interpret what far-fetched means, I've never looked it up till just now...
Far-fetched: Not readily believable because of improbable elements therein: a far-fetched analogy; a far-fetched excuse.
Far-fetched is another word for improbable: unlikely to be true or to occur. That is the sense I was using the word in.
In another sense - policies that have no truth and/or are not based in reality.
Post a Comment