Libertarianism
- Thread starter Pilgrim
- Start date
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Well there are estimates from different sources that give that number anywhere from 2.5 to 10 million. I would think that with an overall population of southeast Michigan still having the largest population outside of the middle east, and taking in account the number of African Muslims in Minnesota and Maine down to North Carolina and Florida, not to mention the number of Iraqis who live in the Dakotas and out west, the number may be closer to 7 million total. BUT with that said, can anyone see a take over of our system or an elimination of the main religions in this country by a small group of people ... honestly?
witness23
Veteran Expediter
FoxNews Channel and its personalities can, duuuuuh!
Right - we don't see the cream rising to the top yet, but it will. The "old guard" from the '90s has been mostly replaced, especially in the House. The presidential contenders will be fresh faces, instead of the usual GOP tendency of nominating somebody like Dole or McCain because it's "their turn".
I'll bet that very few voters go into the booth with the idea in their head that their ballots will be cast for X number of Democrats to balance Y number of Republicans. When we get party "balance" it's a consequence due to the public disapproval of the party that has majority at the time. In '94 the GOP made landslide gains because the voters were highly displeased with Clinton's performance in his first two years; the GOP nationalized the race and had an agenda of substantive conservative ideas to promote. In '06 and '10 the GOP lost ground because they tried to run on mushy moderate platforms.
No, I didn't miss that point - it's a given that Congress usually does business that way and waits to the last minute, or maybe until it's too late. But the fact remains that the GOP took the last minute route to try and fix things, and the Dems stonewalled it to prevent regulations that might have helped avoid the financial meltdown.
Being re-elected is almost always the prime directive among congressmen in either party. But the undeniable fact of life is that under current circumstances it would be foolish for the GOP to attempt an impeachment of the first black president unless they had an extremely serious charge and the solid backing of the public. Right now they have neither, plus they're dealing with a Democrat controlled Senate to boot.
Nope - only one subject. Maybe I should rephrase my point. One of the many reasons Libertarianism won't work in today's society is because it won't accommodate today's multiculturalism which is Balkanizing parts of our country. An example would be that the Islamic religion appears not to be compatible with the tenets of Libertarianism.
No, it worked well due to the immigrants involved being committed to coming into the USA LEGALLY, for the purpose of becoming Americans.
When and where was this going on?
"Modern Multiculturalism" (Balkanization) became a problem not only for conservatives, but for a lot of other US Citizens when hordes of ILLEGAL immigrants started pouring across the borders and overwhelming the resources and services of certain areas of the country.
Maybe that's because they weren't blowing themselves up in public places and crashing airplanes into tall buildings. That kind of activity tends to adversely influence public opinion.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Incorrect. The term neocon was coined to differentiate them from true conservatives, who are now called paleoconservatives. Neocons differ from true, paleoconservatives in their rejection of the rule of law, the belief that all men are equal under the law (no true conservative would believe in the doctrine of executive privilege, for example), and many issues of foreign policy. In addition, neocons subvert human rights as laid out in the Bill of Rights, many of them believing that these rights are given by government, and can therefore be suspended or even repealed.
Only a neocon would believe the things you say in your post.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
That was the old guard of Dole/O'Neal type of politician, they were replaced by what I consider the old guard of the party now.
Sorry but thats no where near the truth. Congress didn't act at all because it wasn't a politically good move to expose themselves to the public, it wasn't just about Frank and Dodd getting their hands slapped but a whole bunch of everyone getting their hands slapped. There wasn't any stonewalling when they were warned, just the opposite. They knew the fed lowering interest rates, the lack of oversight before 2006 election and a number of other things where they seemed not to give a crap. The sad thing is the GOP didn't do a thing and still doesn't seem too interested in actually fixing the issues that may cause us a further meltdown in the near term.
Balkanizing?
If you are talking about invaders from other countries, the problem with any and all libertarian views really is not an issue.
Even though their position is to have free movement between nations, it is not the same as the open border policies that both the liberals and conservatives have sanctioned where criminals and unwanted people find ease in crossing. TO be exact this is really where the line seriously just vanishes between a liberal and conservative, their position in congress has been exactly the same UNTIL the people rose up and screamed about it. AND STILL they hold the same position AND have absolutely refused to address the problem of the border and the crime along the border as either a conservative or a liberal sitting in congress.
IF you are to beleive that the libertarian point of view is to allow the Balkanizing of the nation, then you have a serious flaw to contend with on the entire immigration issue with the conservative movement totus. This seriously flaw that has to be addressed on the premise whether or not the conservative movement is going to continue to follow the political path and sell out its core principles by trying to garner the Latino vote or will they actually stand for something and actually do something that may or may not cost them an election?
See here is the issue for me, if we are going to have a closed border, it has to be addressed in congress, no where else. Like other tenents of our country (property ownership/Kelo v. New London is another one), the conservative movement has yet to step up and tried to correct the problems but instead sat on their hands and did nothing.
I don't think that sitting on their hands is the problem. I think that they sat down too hard and too fast on their butts and sprained their brains in the process.
I have no idea. Too me a conservative is a person who works within the Constitution. To some that is considered libertarian, to others, radical right wing. As are as I know no one has ever been able to pin ANY label on me. What do YOU think I am?
Nice try - every sentence in the above post is either based on conclusions derived from a false premise or is simply wrong. This effort by the liberals to split the conservative movement into factions is an interesting, but lame effort. The statement that "neocons subvert human rights as laid out in the Bill of Rights, many of them believing that these rights are given by government..." is just preposterous. Then the icing of "...and can therefore be suspended or even repealed" leads me to believe you're spending too much time on MoveOn.org or the Daily Kos. If you're going to make those kinds of broad, accusatory statements you need to have some factual examples to support them - otherwise, your readers will quickly conclude you don't know WTF you're talking about.
Obviously, there must be some polling that reinforces the negative connotation of "neocon"; sounds like neo-nazi doesn't it??
Are you kidding me? Go back and watch the proceedings on YouTube. Nearly every politically informed person on the planet has seen the videos of Barney, Maxine, et al trumpeting the virtues and accomplishments of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, crowing about what a great job Franklin Raines had done. When it came down to somebody (the GOP) finally trying to get some regulations in place, the Democrats stopped it cold - it's a matter of record.
Absolutely incorrect - the laws of the land are clear, but they're not being enforced. G.W. Bush was a failure in this aspect as is Obama. Thus, the turmoil and lawsuits going on in AZ. But for you to claim the conservatives are sanctioning "open border policies" is ridiculous.
Here again, you're making a false assumption or just patently unsupported statements. There were a number of conservative groups along with others that files amicus curiae briefs in the Kelo case, but to no avail. But regarding the open borders situation, the laws of the land are in place. The fact that neither the Bush nor the Obama administrations choose to enforce them is the problem; but the conservative legislators have done all that they can do.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
I don't think I've ever heard liberals do that. Conservatives do it. I mean real conservatives (paleoconservatives) like Pat Buchanan and Walter Williams. We differentiate ourselves from phony conservatives (neoconservatives) because they came along after us and perverted conservatism. I read them in the soapbox section every time I log on here.
No, it's a fact. I've heard neocons say it. Came right out of their mouths and/or keyboards. That position itself is what is preposterous, and again, I read that and variations of it every time I read through The Soapbox section.
Never been to moveon.org. I might have been on the dailykos a couple times, but can't stand it because they're so far to the left. As Reagan said, "They're so far left, they've left America." And that's true of neocons, too. If you're a neocon, you're to the left of me.
That's what was so crazy about the Bush-worshipers. When we true conservatives criticized Bush for not being a true conservative, his neocon worshipers criticized us, calling us leftists and such, when he and they were to our left.
I'm not linking it at all to neo-nazi. Neo-denotes a new twist on something, which our current crop of so-called conservatives truly are. No true, traditional (paleo) conservative would support an interventionist foreign policy, executive privilege, social welfare programs like Medicare Part D, the War on Terror, exceptions to the Bill of Rights and the PATRIOT Act.
Here's a summary for you, from this page: Paleoconservatism Vs. Neoconservatism: A Primer
Paleoconservatism Vs. Neoconservatism: A Primer
When people think of conservatism, many automatically think of George W. Bush, but he is only one type of conservative [i.e. NOT--amonger]. Conservatism tends to fall into thee very different categories: paleoconservatism, neoconservatism, and libertarianism. Libertarians are a completely different species, so I'll briefly delineate some of the differences between paleoconservatism and neoconservatism.
Paleoconservatism: The Old Right, "America First"
Like the dinosaurs, paleoconservatism seems to be a dying breed, but its adherents are proudly hanging on. Paleoconservatism represents what the GOP used to be before Iraq and the war on terror. The typical paleoconservative probably goes to church, subscribes to The American Conservative magazine, dislikes President Bush, and feels disenfranchised with the current GOP.
Paleoconservatism and Social Issues: Paleoconservatives tend to agree with Republicans on right to life issues such as abortion and euthanasia.
Paleoconservatism and Economics: Paleoconservatives tend to support isolationism and protectionist trade policies.
Paleoconservatism and Immigration: Heightened border security, stricter laws on immigration
Paleoconservatism and Foreign Policy: Anti-Bush, Anti-Iraq War, Anti-Israel. Paleoconservatism leans towards isolationism. Paleoconservatives opposed the Iraq War, arguing that the traditional conservatives were isolationists. [or at least a lot closer to it--amonger]
Paleoconservatism and Israel: Paleoconservatives then to be anti-Israel. They argue that America's support of Israel caused us to become a target for Islamic fundamentalists. Some may even argue that the state of Israel should not exist. [I don't go that far. They are morally and culturally superior to the Arabs. Nevertheless, as both a paleoconservative and a preterist, I have neither more nor less affinity for them than the Bolivians, the Sri Lankans, the Dutch, the Canadians, or the Australians.--amonger]
Famous figures in Paleoconservatism: Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, Calvin Coolidge (on foreign policy), or Ron Paul (on foreign policy)
Rhetoric of Paleoconservatism: "We are a republic, not an empire." "Close up our borders." "Isolationism!" "George Washington, in his farewell address, argued for neutrality and warned against permanent entangling alliances." "Not with my paycheck you don't!"
Pros and Cons of Paleoconservatism: What I like about paleoconservatism is the recognition that America's role is not to police the world. However, the extremists of paleoconservatism tend to be a bit anti-Semitic, though this may be more a reflection of Pat Buchanan than of paleoconservatism itself.
Neoconservatism: The New Right, George Bush Conservatism, "Israel First"
The typical neoconservative is Republican, possibly Jewish or Evangelical Christian, has a picture of George W. Bush hanging on his wall, and subscribes to National Review.
Neoconservatism, Social Issues, and Economics: Neoconservatism promotes socially and fiscally conservative ideology, but they're willing to spend oodles of government money to achieve those ends--hence the paradox, using (fiscally) liberal means to achieve conservative ends. [again, to the left of true conservatives--amonger]
Neoconservatism and Foreign Policy: Interventionism. Neoconservatism is hawkish on military and foreign policy. Neocons will do whatever it takes to win the War on Terror, even if it means deficit spending, supporting the Patriot Act [that is to say, non-existent exceptions to the Bill of Rights--amonger], extreme military spending, and remaining indefinitely in the Middle East.
Neoconservatism and Israel: As the only democracy in the Middle East, America has a duty to aid Israel in its War on Terror and radical jihad.
Famous figures in Neoconservatism: George W. Bush, Ann Coulter, John McCain (on foreign policy), Joe Lieberman (on foreign policy)
Rhetoric of Neoconservatism: "We live in an age of terror." [to justify their violations of the Bill of Rights--amonger] "America's Isolationism before WWII allowed Hitler to rise to power." "Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler in 1938. We all know how that turned out." "We cannot afford a policy of retreat and defeat!"
Pros and Cons of Neoconservatism: I like that neoconservatism recognizes the importance of Israel as a thriving democracy in the Middle East. What I don't like is the belief that America needs to be deficit spending in order to police the Middle East.
Paleoconservatism vs. Neoconservatism: Evaluation
I find myself in the middle of two extremes. While I do support Israel's right to exist, and even to defend itself against terrorism, I don't necessarily support pouring American government money into Israel. As for Iraq, I was not in favor of the war because of the cost, and because there were no weapons of mass destruction.
However, I am willing to vote for McCain because, with his military background, he is more capable than George W. Bush of leading this country through war. Between McCain (pro-war) and Obama (socialism), McCain is still the preferable of the two options.
===================================
Here's another quote that points out what a perversion of true conservatism that neo-conservatism is:
"As my friend Jim Lubinskas so eloquently lays out in his essay below, the Bush program is anything but conservative, as a great many of us would define that term. Yes, there are many pieces of evidence that Americans are far better off now that "grown-ups" are in charge of the levers of power, and trying to come up with some solutions to problems that accumulated during the last eight years, or more. However, as you read the following, I think it's fair to say that the "conservatives" of 20+ years ago (or longer) who supported Reagan would look at today's version of "conservatism" and recoil in horror.)"
Last edited:
All this neo that and whatchamacallit that is silly. You either follow the Constitution or you don't. Just as many "conservatives" ignore the constitution as "liberals" do. That is why we are in such a mess right now.
HEY, I thought Greg was going to "LABEL" me the other day. I want to know what I am.
HEY, I thought Greg was going to "LABEL" me the other day. I want to know what I am.
All this neo that and whatchamacallit that is silly. You either follow the Constitution or you don't. Just as many "conservatives" ignore the constitution as "liberals" do. That is why we are in such a mess right now.
HEY, I thought Greg was going to "LABEL" me the other day. I want to know what I am.
Silly, what else?
I don't understand what you mean? It matters not if you are a liberal or conservative if you follow the Constitution. Neo that or this is not important. You either follow the law of the land or you don't. Simple. Please explain what you are asking so I can answer without sounded goofy.