A libertarian Du'ers view for the rest of you guys

[Castor Troy]

Hey guys,

I have been reading DU for a couple of months, and although I agree with only about half of what gets said on here, it is one of my favorite political Internet sites.

I am not really a democrat, nor a republican, I consider myself a Libertarian. I would appreciate if you guys would not try to get me kicked out, because I enjoy being able to interact with the DU'ers.

Anyway, I wanted to give my viewpoint on the main issues, explain why I think like that, and see what you guys think about it.

CIVIL LIBERTIES: I believe that we, as Americans, must do everything possible to stop the Government from encroaching on our liberties. The Patriot Act can lead us all into slavery to the state, if given enough time.

Moreover, too many times, most Politicians (Republicans AND Democrats) don't mind tossing aside the intent of the Constitution of the United States when it gets in the way of the current political cause.

FOREIGN POLICY: I believe that we have got to reconsider our place in the world now that the Cold War is over. I heard Pat Buchanan say on TV the other night that we "Should have bought our boys home from Europe at the same time that the Russians went home." I totally agree with that. Why in the hell do we have soldiers in Germany? That is costing us billions a year! We should bring our troops and our money home. I personally don't believe that Socialism or Communism is the best systems, especially Communism. It is gonna die out without the USA trying to go into countries and kill it.

ISRAEL: I believe that we should never support something in another country, that is illegal in the United States. I find it hypocritical of the Democrats and lefties who basically support the anti Israel causes in the Middle Eastern countries. If you look at the track record on Human rights and especially Women's rights, Israel stacks up on our side a helluva lot more than the Arab countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran. I realize that many Democrats support the Palestinian cause due to the fact that they don't have a place to go. I think this is incredibly naive. I feel the pain for the Palestinians, but let's be frank: The Arab people don't want peaceful coexistence, the want to destroy Israel. Israel is trying to defend itself in a very tough part of the world. It cannot afford to show weakness. At the same time, I can see the Palestinian viewpoint also. They are a people that are suffering, and they are doing what they think will bring about a better life for themselves. However, I believe that if they practiced a nonviolent path of resistance, they would achieve much more.

Both sides have a valid view. I personally think that the Wall being built over there is a great idea. The sections built so far have dramatically cut down the number of suicide bombers coming from those sections. Comparing this wall to the Berlin Wall is utter nonsense: The Berlin Wall was built to separate a single people into two separate groups. This wall is being built by a single country to protect its people from outsiders. If the wall stops the violence, build the wall.

THE WAR ON DRUGS: Quite possibly the stupidest phrase ever created. We should punish violent criminals, not drug users. A crime is an action that harms others. Although taking drugs is ignorant, it only harms one person: the user. I think the government should stay out of the private vices of its citizens. Besides, the War on Drugs is mostly a war on poor people that made bad decisions. How many rich people that do drugs end up going to jail over it.

Taxes/Welfare: Bad. I think the role of the government is to build roads and protect the country from invaders. Charity should be left to the private sector. I read somewhere that for every dollar of tax money that the government used for operations that are similar to private Charity work, that like 75 cents got tied up in bureaucracy. Private Charities only spend like half as much on the bureaucracy. It would be more efficient for the Private Charities to run things. Furthermore, I believe that people would be more inclined to give money to help the needy, if it knew the government wasn't going to do it.

My main reason for thinking like this has to do with my own personal experience. I grew up extremely poor. Poor kids need to understand that they have to work harder to make it. The government would not have been doing me any favors by shielding me from that fact until I was 18 and then throwing me out into the real world to deal with it.

POLITICS TODAY: The republicans who tried to hang Clinton were assholes who ended up hurting the country. Although definitely not to the same degree, I believe the Democrats are headed down a similar path. I think the democrats would do better to talk about there ideas and what they have to offer, instead of just attacking George Bush for being the devil. Guess what, most people (including myself) don't believe that. The Dem's saying "Vote for us: Bush is the Antichrist", is not going to get the vote of the guy saying that thinks Bush is an OK guy but thinks his policies suck. The better idea would be to say: "Vote for us: We have better ideas for the country". Remember, extremism from either side, scares off most people.

BUSH VS. KERRY: I am leaning toward voting for Kerry, even though I think the guy is stale. The reason being, I think 1 party in total control really f*cks things up. The republicans ain't exactly fiscally conservative in my book.
I would really be excited if someone from the middle would run as an outside candidate with new ideas. I am 95% certain that I would vote for this guy.

BUSH VS GORE: I voted for Bush. Al Gore seemed like an idiot.

CLINTON VS BUSH: I would have voted for Clinton. I liked his views on allot of issues, and he seemed like a cool as shit guy.

VIEWS POSTED ON DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND: I agree with allot of what is said on here. However, I think it is for different reasons than allot of these people.

For example: Foreign Policy,
My view: Mind our own business, because it makes more sense, and it causes us less trouble in the long run.

Many DU'ers view: Mind our own business, because the USA is nothing but a bunch of asshole demons.

MUSLIM TERRORISTS: I think it is a grave mistake to pretend that these guys aren't worthy foes. I know most people will not agree, but these guys are not cowards. They are enemies that must be taking seriously. We must take a long hard look at that fact.


MY VIEW ON AMERICA AS A WHOLE: This is the greatest country in the world. It really pisses me off when pampered individuals on both the extreme left and extreme right try to say otherwise. If you can think of a better place to live, move there.

[RandomKoolzip]

1. Hey, there's a thread about Libertarian hotties in the Lounge!

Check it out....but beware: in general, I think Libertarians are fucked in the head when it comes to economic issues, and a lot of DUers agree with me.

I grew up extremely poor, too, and have had several libertarian friends. But needless to say, I disagree with them on what to do with the poor.

[charlie105]

2. Welcome to DU. I think......

:hi:

[lucidmadman]

3. Hey libertarian!

..when are we gonna get rid of that pesky PURE FOOD AND DRUG ACT?
When am I gonna have the freedom to buy poison food? It's my responsibility isn't it?
I want to go to the pharmacy and take my chances on whether I'm buying poison or not.
And why aren't there more toll roads? I want the 'guys from DELIVERANCE' to be in control of little stretches of road.
Speed limits? Who needs 'em?
Let's have total war all the time.

[sweetheart]

4. libertarian discussion is welcome

This libertarian has learned some things by years on DU. I used to
believe that unions were bad, but have been convinced otherwise.
What is your view on unions? Are you a dyed-in-the-wool
libertarian?.. or are you open to changing your views?

What are your views on universal healthcare. I find it cheaper for
the society as a whole to treat and prevent deterioration in public
health... that its a wiser use of economic resources to treat ALL
people than to focus purely on wealth?

Do you think free markets are not flawed by failing to account for
factors that are not accounted for by money?

What are your views on media-propaganda and fair-time for all
political views? Do you really find that money is free speech in
campaign finance? How about the federal reserve system of white
men allocating credit for teh military industries rather than for
schools and roads?

I think your views are a start, and that libertarians with hearts and
open minds have a lot to learn on DU.

In any case welcome, and please stick around.

[Castor Troy]

21. Castor Troy's response

I think Universal Healthcare is an awful idea. Poor people in this country usually get healthcare via emergency rooms anyway. I should know, that is what my family used as a kid. I am not worse for the wear. Although I know that is not a popular viewpoint in here, I think Candada's health system has 2 year waiting lists for certain operations for a reason. Because the Health system is screwed up.

Free markets are good. They beat the shit out of collective farm economics. Of course, the Enrons of the world should be punished. I think that if you commit a crime as a CEO of a company that kills people, you should be held to the same account as a drunk driver who killed someone or a murderer who killed someone with a knife.

I think the military industry is an awful idea...and extremely expensive. If we minded our own business, we wouldn't need the so many 20 million dollar jets.

[ima_sinnic]

37. what a crock

poor people DO NOT get healthcare via emergency rooms. I know someone who has been turned away TWICE from an emergency room with symptoms of a heart attack and stroke because he has not been able to pay his previous bill. the guy will probably be dead pretty soon because he just cannot get any care--but he's poor so who gives a shit, right??

and emergency rooms are for EMERGENCIES, not for the health care of poor people.

why don't you and Neal Boortz take your SELFISH "libertarian" crap and shove it? if you had your way, the only people who would get police and fire services would be those who could afford a subscription for those services. "charity" would be at the whim of the rich. programs like Head Start and free school lunches would be nonexistent (I believe they are almost nonexistent now anyway because of "higher priorities" like "liberating" Iraqis).

Contrary to what that stinking "libertarian" Boortz says, I (making only about 20K/year) DO pay INCOME taxes (& NOT payroll taxes because I am a graduate student & the school just does not deduct SS from students' checks) and it doesn't bother me one bit that some of that COULD go toward social programs, to benefit those who can't make even what little I do--COULD, but because of the Lyin King in charge most of it now goes toward torturing and killing Iraqis and other foreigners.

libertarians' bottom line: everybody for himself, nobody for anybody else.

[dorktv]

47. I work for one of the state health care systems in Arizona.

We have a major problem with people going to the emergancy room who can not pay their bills and the state having to pay extra for those who are not eligible for Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS). We pay up to 7 dollars for a pair of latex gloves. SEVEN DOLLARS, this is what happens when you do not have universal health care. Somewhere some way the hospitals and other apperatus charge someone for the lack of payment from those too poor but not poor enough.

[wyldwolf]

97. Why the DLC avatar?

Though libertarians share a few of the same political issues as democrats, I don't find them particulary in agreement more so with the DLC.

[Redleg]

122. Why do you suggest there are only two forms of economies?

You contrast "free market" with "collective farm economics." You are aware that there are a number of forms in between, right? It sounds like you are setting up a straw man to be knocked down.

Pure free markets do not exist and cannot exist. There will always be information (and other resource) asymmetries that one party (either the buyer or seller) will take advantage of. Plain and simple. The consumer, the employee, and the legitimate businesses all need protections from predatory business practices.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. I am right with most libertarians as far as social issues go

It's the economic ones where we part company.

Welcome to DU. :)

[Castor Troy]

22. Castor Troy's response

I think the government should stay out of my pocketbook and my bedroom.

[dorktv]

71. Enjoy not having any roads or safe food or drugs or products or

fresh air or quality gas or any of the millions of things that the government (using our tax dollars) provides for us. If the gov. stays out of yours or my pocketbooks we are not getting ANY of this stuff.
Remember "provide for the GENERAL WELFARE" US Constitution Preamble.

[Bandit]

6. BUSH VS GORE: I voted for Bush. Al Gore seemed like an idiot.

With this one statement you lost all credebility with me. Anyone who would consider a person with an IQ close to genius as an idiot and vote for Bush* because you thought him smarter is , how to put this gently, retarded. IMHO

[Killarney]

8. Me too. If you were intelligent you wouldn't rule someone out

because he "seemed like an idiot".

[Castor Troy]

29. Castor Troy's response

I think you are trying to make it sound like I made a spur of the moment decision. Of course I didn't just see them on tv one night and Go: "Bush get's my vote, the other guy has the idiot look"

I just wasn't impressed with Gore. I would have probally have voted for someone who really believed in his ideas, instead of either one.

[Vickers]

33. Wait: not impressed with Gore, meaning you WERE impressed with Bush?

Don't paint yourself in to a corner, now!

[Kool Kitty]

88. What impressed you about Bush?

I'd really like to know.

[Vickers]

18. Exactly. You thought Gore was an idiot, and you thought Bush was...?

What?

I'm really interested in your answer.

[Kinkistyle]

27. I was also Libertarian during 2000 elections - Bush was definite No-No!

I was still a Libertarian during the 2000 elections and I can tell you no Libertarian in their right mind would vote Dubya. Clinton was pretty darn satisfactory in terms of a Libertarian President, and i liked him. I mean, it wasn't like he was some kind of huge tax and spend liberal, and I was doing pretty darn well in the Clinton Economy, so paying taxes didn't hurt as bad. I was searching for a continuation of a Clinton-esque government. I DID have problems with Gore though, because of the whole censorship (V-chip) morality trip he was on, particularly after he chose Senator Palpatine himself, Lieberman as his running mate. But I knew that if Bush ever got elected, it would mean three things for this country: deterioration of personal liberties, breakdown of seperation of Church and State and WAR. 3 big Libertarian no-nos. Especially the "War" part. So because I lived in New York, I voted for Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate. But I honestly didn't think the race would be that close. I thought Gore would win in a landslide.

I learned my lesson and since then have seen the light.

[KAZ]

36. Man, I feel like I'm looking in the mirror. :) n/t

n/t

[rock]

7. Welcome

We enjoy rational discourse here on DU. This, of course, means no conservatives, but others are welcome.

[Mrs. Venation]

9. Welcome To DU

I hope we can have respectful exchanges of ideas, Castor Troy.

If I understand correctly, the libertarian philosophy is that government should not interfere with the private lives of its citizens. It this true? If so, what is your position on same-sex marriage? On the Employment Non-Discrimination Act? Would you favor adding sexual orientation as a protected class under the Civil Rights act?

Again, welcome to DU.

[BurtWorm]

10. Welcome, CT!

Excellent post. :toast:

[Wapsie B]

11. Welcome to DU!

I just hope that you and your Libertarian bretheren see the need to join forces in November and vote chimpy out.

[kentuck]

12. You voted for Bush ?

What does this say about your judgment?
How much weight should we give your opinions with that admission?

Also, you state:
"The better idea would be to say: "Vote for us: We have better ideas for the country". Remember, extremism from either side, scares off most people."

John Kerry has a very positive ad out at this time but the Repubs continue to try and paint him as an "extremist". So, who's the "extremist"? The one that calls the opponent an extremist or the one that is actually extremist but pretends to be conservative and middle America?

[Stuckinthebush]

25. Agreed

He/she voted for Bush because "Al Gore seemed like an idiot".

Damn, I wonder what Bush seemed like?

[SammyWinstonJack]

41. "Al Gore seemed like an idiot."

:eyes: Newsflash! bush* is an idiot! A proven one at that! Castor Troy should tell us what bush* seemed like to him/her.

[EdGy]

13. what would you say

to someone who went around your neighborhood proclaiming that their family was the best family in the world, pushing it down peoples' throats?

One thing that is so striking from the perspective of abroad is how idiotic, and blind this "The US is the best country in the world" BS sounds.

Yes, of course, the US has many admirable features. But so do many other countries.

And as for telling people to leave if they don't agree with you, that's a line straight out of fascism, which surprises me coming from a self-proclaimed libertarian.

Just because someone's family has its dysfunctional aspects and is not "the best family in the world," it is still their family, and they'll stick with it despite the negatives.

Just because you love your family and think it's great, does not mean it is the best family in the world. It is your family, true. But others have families that they love and cherish too, warts and all. So think what others see when they hear some US Americans proclaiming "my country is the best in the world and anyone who does not agree should just leave."

Please reconsider this short sighted and fascistic attitude.

[info being]

51. I know, spouting stuff like that just makes someone seem ignorant

[beyurslf]

14. Most self proclaimed "liberatarians" I know really don't know much about

what the party thinks. They draw in young people (I assume you are since you said you "would have voted for Clinton" as if you may not have been old enough to.)

The liberal ideas on social issues appeals to many young people. The idea that the government doesn't have any right telling me how to live my life. Drug use and gay rights are two examples. These issues often appeal to democrats too.

What I have found though, when I ask these "libertarians" if they support social security or the FDA or affirmative action or school loans for college or any other thing that the government does, they typically say Yes. Libertarians don't believe in these things. Democrats do.

[TN al]

15. IMHO

A libertarian is worse than a republican. The selfishness of a republican pales compared to the selfishness of a libertarian. Tell me have you had any luck in repealing those pesky child labor laws yet? In fact I may be willing to accept the notion that the reason I hate the GOP so much is that they have been taken over by the Libertarian wing of the party. Is the libertarian slogan still "I've got mine so you can go to hell"?

[Castor Troy]

32. Castor Troy's response

It is not selfishness.
It is a belief that it is immoral to do for any human being what he/she can do for himself/herself.

It is a belief that if I steal from one man to give to another, I am steal a thief.

You sound like: "I am taking yours, so you can go to hell."

Obviously you think that is a gross mis characterization. Diddo for what you said.

[Pithlet]

52. There is where you're mistaken.

You assume that everyone can do for themselves. People lose their jobs, and often can't find another one, especially in this economy. Some people become ill, and can no longer work. Children can't work; it's against the law.

[Castor Troy]

55. Castor Troy's response

You are crazy if you think some can't get a job that is in good physical health. I agree about the children and sick people parts, but anybody else could find a job if they are really looking.

It might not be the job they want, but they could find a job. I use to work construction. You would be amazed at how smart people would be when it came to using the system to their advantage when it comes to unemployment benefits.

I guarnatee you that 99.99% of people could go to Walmart or McDonalds or a similar place, and have a job within a week if they were consistently looking for one. I know those jobs suck, but they could get one.

[Pithlet]

58. Those jobs don't pay enough.

I could not raise my family on a job at McDonalds without help from outside sources. If you think that is possible, then you're living in a dream world. If you think that charity is enough to handle everything, then you're also naive.

[ulysses]

77. do you normally

refer to yourself in the third person?

[Village Idiot]

16. MY VIEW ON AMERICA AS A WHOLE:

If you can think of a better place to live, move there.

I did. I live in Canada, now.

[Castor Troy]

26. Castor Troy's response

Ok. I totally have respect for a person like yourself. You didn't enjoy living here, so you moved to a place that more matches up with your viewpoint. I say kudos to you. I would hope that if there was a country that matched my viewpoints on life than America, that I would have the courage to move there.

My point, is that people who say that they despise everything about America, should move to a place that better fits their ideas.

I am not saying "LOVE IT, OR GET THE FUCK OUT!!!"
I am saying "Dude, I think that if I hated it as bad as you do, I would just find somewhere else to live."

[Rainbowreflect]

35. My thoughts on this subject are.

Why should I move? This is my country too and I will work to make it a country I can be proud of. I really hate what this country has become in the last 3 + years, but I am not ready to give up on her. I strongly believe there is more good than bad and I won't give my country up to the bad.

[redqueen]

82. The last 3 years? I'd say the last 30. n/t

[robbedvoter]

17. Respect for civil rights - a good beginning. Remember others have them too

and you may actually fit in this diverse group.

[troublemaker]

19. Why criticize the blame America crowd?

I don't like the alternative conspiracy America-Sucks crowd any more than you do, but what's the basis for your claim to love America? Anyone who voted for Bush in 2000 for any reason whatsoever simply hates America. Hatred of America has been the defining characteristic and central organizing principle of the Republican party since the early 1990s.

[Castor Troy]

24. Castor Troy's response

Dude,

that seems like quite a leap to make. I think America offers more opportunities for people on the lower rungs of society to move up compared to other countries.

I agree that some Republicans hate America, and their assholes because of it. That same reasoning applies to people on the left.

and quite frankly your not gonna win any converts to the Kerry side by statements like:
"Anyone who voted for Bush in 2000 for any reason whatsoever simply hates America."

[idlisambar]

38. check this out

Social mobility in America actually peaked in the 1960's. Since then there has been a gradual decrease in mobility.

http://yahoo.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_48/b3860067_mz021.htm

[redqueen]

84. *Social mobility in America actually peaked in the 1960's*

That needed to be the subject line. Too important to miss!!!!

I hope everyone takes the time to read this. And pass it on, too.

Thanks so very much for posting that link! :)

[troublemaker]

42. I'm not proselytizing

You are clearly an independent minded person who's going to vote as you wish independent of my input.

Why should I soft-peddle the truth in hopes of winning you over? There is no benign aspect of American civilization supported by a Bush vote in 2000. Any presidential vote for a Republican candidate cast since 1960 was an act of supreme nihilism and contempt for America. I despise the Democratic party and everything they stand for (assuming they stand for anything, which I doubt) and would never suggest anyone vote FOR a Democrat except for the purpose of opposing a Republican. But opposing Republicans is an absolute moral obligation for anyone who claims to love our civilization.

This is one of those a priori deals IMO. Your opinion is different. That's cool.

[troublemaker]

46. PS: I agree that Gore is an idiot

He's the dumbest 'genius' I've ever seen. But so what? Whoever Hitler was running against was a pompous ineffective fool and all-around hack politician and almost certainly corrupt. So what?

South Park Republicanism is better than the other varieties, but blinkered and self-indulgent. The right has the power to destroy this country utterly. The left doesn't, and never has. This is a fact of our national character. We are sitting ducks for fascism and nationally immune to communism. And that's a good thing! I love the traits that happen to make us sitting ducks for fascism, but recognize that our nation can only survive as the world's model of limited government by opposing the right at all times.

(If our national character ever changes in such a way that we are more vulnerable to communism than fascism I would advise always voting Republican.)

[troublemaker]

48. PPS:

Why would any libertarian vote for single party rule? Seriously... even if you don't accept my formulation re: Republican voting shouldn't you at least vote for divided government?

Even given everything I have said about Republicans my ideal government would be a one vote Republican majority in the House, a Democratic president and a 59-41 Democratic senate. That seems the combination most restraining of government power.

[tom_paine]

102. Goddamn, troublemaker! That's EXACTLY what I think!

Damn, do I have a double-personality and don't even realize I am posting under the "troublemaker" monniker?

You and I would get along just fine if we met in person, pal...

:hi:

[tom_paine]

70. "South Park Republicanism"

Damn! That hits the nail right on the head.

"Blinkered and self-indulgent", is right and they are the best the Busheviks have to offer.

Exceelent posts, troublemaker! You and I should have :beer: down in the Du Lounge. Sounds like we are on the same page on most things.

:toast:

Welcome to DU!

[info being]

62. Well said. I'm with you.

[info being]

61. Anyone who still supports Bush has a character flaw

[tom_paine]

68. tom_paine asks, "What's with talking about yourself in the 3rd Person?"

:evilgrin:

tom_paine wants to know.

tom_paine NEVER talks about tom_paine in the 3rd Person!

:evilgrin: :hi:

[ulysses]

79. I knew it! You're Bob Dole!

:D

[robbedvoter]

80. Bob Dole wants to know it too. Does he thik he is Bob Dole?

Bob Dole is pissed.

[Castor Troy]

105. Castor Troy's response: Speaking in the 3rd Person

I was just doing that so that people could find my view points. Hence the name of the original post.

I took me awhile to realize what you were refering too.
Your post is hilarious!

Gotta run for the day guys, later

[toddzilla]

113. toddzilla's response..

you sound like a complete idiot when you refer to yourself in the third person..


unless you though "jimmy" from seinfeld was just a normal guy.

[el_gato]

20. If you know anything about the history of covert operations

You would understand why America has such a bad image in the world.

As well, we love this country but the things done by the people who run the show behind the scenes behave in a way that is antithetical to the basic ideals on which this country is supposedly founded.

Maybe you should look into the real history of the CIA and the
genesis of the FBI and its true purpose.

In other words, you characterizations of the views here are rather dishonest.

[Lisa0825]

40. got some sources about this?

Maybe you should look into the real history of the CIA and the
genesis of the FBI and its true purpose.

Do you have any tips on reading materials on this subject for someone without much background knowledge on it? Something rather readable, hopefully?

[Solon]

59. Here's your sources of the CIA atrocities.

Well referenced, sources at the bottom of the page.

BTW: I did not right this.

http://mirrors.korpios.org/resurgent/CIAtimeline.html

[el_gato]

74. Here's some info

The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents from the FBI�s Secret War Against Domestic Dissent, (Ward Churchill & Jim Vander Wall). South End Press: Boston, 1991.

Agents of Repression, Updated Edition
The FBI's Secret Wars Against the Black Panther Party and
the American Indian Movement
by Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall


You can look into the Palmer Raids as well as COINTELPRO.
As well you might want to look into the political position
held by J. Edgar Hoover.
http://trac.syr.edu/tracfbi/findings/aboutFBI/fbiHistory.html

FBI History

For somewhat more than half of its history, the United States got along without a general purpose investigative agency . In 1908, over the objections of some members of Congress, Attorney General Charles Bonaparte, the grandson of the French emperor's brother, issued an executive order creating such an investigative force within the Justice Department.

The agency almost immediately became the subject of intense controversy. With the entry of the United States into World War One, the Bureau of Investigation became engaged in an embarrassing roundup of thousands of young men, only a handful of whom turned out to be genuine draft dodgers. Shortly after the war, the Bureau was the lead agency of an operation that became known as the Palmer Raids—the dragnet arrests of tens of thousands of alien radicals in 33 cities. Partly because most of the victims were arrested without a warrant, the majority were eventually released either before or after their prosecution. One of the supervisors of Palmer Raids was a young Justice Department lawyer named J. Edgar Hoover.

In 1924, following a round of additional scandals and the forced resignation of Attorney General Harry Daughterty, Hoover was selected to clean up the disgraced agency. In 1935, it was renamed the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Hoover would remain the director of the FBI until his death in 1972. During the 1930s, with the help of an aggressive public relations program, the FBI won wide support from the American people for its capture of a handful of highly publicized gangsters. With the coming of World War Two and the Cold War against the Soviet Union, the FBI's reputation as the nation's premier enforcement agency continued to grow.

But with the 1971 theft of internal documents from an FBI office in Media, Pa., and the post-Watergate Congressional investigations in the mid-1970s, the FBI's national reputation plummeted. The documents and the investigations showed that under Hoover's direction the FBI had invested a growing part of its budget and staff for political, rather than enforcement, purposes. The FBI's Counter Intelligence Program— COINTEL—began as an effort to undermine the Communist Party. The Ku Klux Klan, black political activists such as Martin Luther King, student protesters against the Vietnam War and even some early leaders in the women's liberation movement ultimately were added as COINTEL projects.

[Skittles]

23. LOL

Bush....Gore.....and you thought GORE was the idiot? That's just SAD.

[Mountainman]

28. "I voted for Bush. Al Gore seemed like an idiot"

Here is your down fall. Bush is an idiot. Why couldn't you see that like all of us did?

Everything you say is contradicted by that statement. You want us to see you as an intelligent thinking libertarian but you couldn't see the intelligence in Gore and the stupidity in Bush and the fact that he is a sock puppet.

I can't have much respect for your judgment.

[kentuck]

34. Amen...

And he seems to still think Gore was an idiot....not even asking for redemption for making such a humongous blunder....Must still think he made a good decision??

[Old and In the Way]

30. I don't think you should "assume" what 40,000 posters on DU think.

On any issue. We don't think the USA is a "bunch of asshole demons"...just the current regime that is running us into the ground. If you've been reading this board for any length of time, you'd realize that.

You're wrong on your assessment of national healthcare, too. You've bought and drank the Republican kool-aid on this issue.

Of course, you comments on Gore vs. Bush tell me you aren't nearly as politically sophisticated as you'd like to think.

Stick around, though, I think you can learn quite a bit here.

[Finch]

31. Diversity of thought is always welcome...

So Welcome to the board.... from a moderate democrat who often feels as though he is in the minoirty... that said I'm probably your political opposite, moderately centrist on social issues and prudently populist on economic issues...

[SharonAnn]

39. Great article in new Mother Jones issue on some of these issues

"His Own Private Kingdom"
By Ian Frazier
In which our self-sufficient hero says to heck with all those nitpicky, clock-punching bureaucrats.

May/June 2004 Issue

I am an independent guy. I take a lot of pride in doing for myself, like my dad and my granddad before me, and I don't need any bloated, out-of-control government holding my hand. When I found our local public schools to be less than satisfactory, I said the heck with them, and began schooling our kids at home. They've never been happier with the learning experience, and they score higher on standardized tests than 98 percent of the kids in the state. I don't waste my life waiting on bureaucracy and I never have. I own a quarter-ton pickup and a 10-foot plow blade, so I can plow our road and the right-hand lane of the freeway if necessary every winter, and with the Allis-Chalmers grader I bought at auction I keep all the local roads that I use smooth and well maintained year-round.
(etc.)
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/slant/2004/05/04_200.html

[Renew Deal]

43. Nice summary CT. Now....

I agree with you on some stuff and not as much on others. I am a left of center (liberal) Democrat.

Civil Liberties: I basically agree with your assesment of the Patriot Act. It is being used for non-terror related purposes and it's only going to get worse.

FP: I am more in the middle on that. We should bring most home, but some presence is necessary and acceptable. Of course, that system was built to fight the cold war. It is not the best way to fight terror. Terror is law enforcement and intelligence based with a military component.

Israel: I don’t think most dems or lefties agree with Muslim extremists and real terrorists. I think people want fairness and for the conflict to end. Arab people want peaceful coexistence, but there are some that don’t. The ones that don’t are the minority. Of course, these people are also fed by their own propaganda machines. But it is wrong to think people don’t want to live peacefully. There is nothing wrong with Arab people. They can govern themselves democratically with the hopes of peace if they get the chance.

I understand why they are building the wall and I don’t think it’s another Berlin Wall. It’s a bad analogy. I am wary of “walls” but I could support it if it didn’t make people feel like animals.


I will add more when I have time.

[loudsue]

44. "Dude", you're living in the past....

In your first post, you said:

"I read somewhere that for every dollar of tax money that the government used for operations that are similar to private Charity work, that like 75 cents got tied up in bureaucracy."

First of all, that was a figure pulled down from the 1970's, when suddenly we had racial integration, and it was apparent that there was an entire NATION of underprivileged African Americans, Hispanics, and uneducated/illiterate white folks who had, for generations, been left behind. It was the "new awareness" of the LOVE generation that had protested to get tax $$ AWAY from the government military/industrial complex, and corporations who were polluting and killing people (i.e., the "establishment"), and put those tax dollars to work supporting our fellow Americans.

Due to this new awareness, there came a veritable explosion of new governmental agencies, top AND bottom heavy, clumsy and un-streamlined, designed to "undo" so many of the historical/societal mistakes of the previous generations.

It WAS NOT that the programs were WRONG! It was that the government was "new" at reallocating the tax dollars. Ever since the 1970's, the "liberals" who advocated on behalf of those downtrodden/oppressed Americans, have been BLAMED BLAMED BLAMED and FLAMED FLAMED FLAMED for being "tax and spend" socialists.

Yet all the new money that was put into the hands of the growing number of government employees, AND the money that was put into the hands of those most in need of help, went back into the economy to buy bread, appliances, cars, phones, TV's, etc., and CREATED the kind of economy you grew up in: the kind of economy where you COULD, indeed, work to get ahead.

The big government, and the big tax dollars, were obviously not a problem that could not be corrected once society matured and stabilized in our new direction. There was NO NEED to throw the baby out with the bath water, and leave many our citizens without services.

You also said:

"Private Charities only spend like half as much on the bureaucracy. It would be more efficient for the Private Charities to run things. Furthermore, I believe that people would be more inclined to give money to help the needy, if it knew the government wasn't going to do it."

That's REAL nice! But it's a lie. Private charities, at least the ones that are big enough to truly organize a nation-wide system of distribution of services, cost as much or more than the government. But there are no guidelines that would keep them from being discriminatory against any group they so choose. If you have to get baptized as a Baptist to get services, or if you have to dye your skin color, it's NOT charity...it's coercion.

In another post you said:

"I think Universal Health care is an awful idea. Poor people in this country usually get health care via emergency rooms anyway. I should know, that is what my family used as a kid. I am not worse for the wear. Although I know that is not a popular viewpoint in here, I think Candada's health system has 2 year waiting lists for certain operations for a reason. Because the Health system is screwed up."

During the era you grew up in, that option was still available to poor people. Now, fewer and fewer of the hospitals are public, and private hospitals don't have to admit anyone to the emergency rooms if they don't have means to pay for it....and if you haven't noticed, the cost of an emergency room visit has SKY-ROCKETED! If you were relying on that method of health care today, you'd be shit out of luck. Again, you grew up during an era that, just a decade before, had seen a social revolution in favor taking care of poor folks.

As far as Canada's (or Europe's) health care systems go, America doesn't have to "adopt" another country's methods. New methods that work for everyone, can be adopted. And STILL, the dollars from that type of support (for doctors, nurses, bandage-makers, etc.) gets plowed BACK into the economy.

You also mentioned in another post further down, that you were able to work your way into a job, and that you didn't have it handed to you. However, the fact that so much was being plowed back into the economy you were looking for a job in, THAT IS WHY you were able to realize "the American Dream". If your health care, education, and basic services had not been there, you'd have been "left behind", like so many millions of Americans were BEFORE the revolution of the 60's. Triple that lack of hope if you had been born with dark skin.

You, Dude, are a PRODUCT of the "social welfare" system that Libertarians rail against....simply because the government services WERE in place when you were growing up. But now that you've gotten yours, I guess the poor kids who can't get into an emergency room these days should just do without?

This is MY country....and everybody in this country makes up the country. I don't mind paying my share so that we can all "live", because it ALWAYS comes back! It's a LIBERAL system, it is spread around liberally, and that's why LIBERAL works!! It liberates all of us to realize whichever dream we might conceive. And it's those "dreams" of individuals that cause innovation.

In fact, there's probably some poor African American kid, RIGHT THIS MINUTE, that might die of, say, appendicitis, 'cause he can't get into an emergency room: let's say his family makes too much to qualify for medicaid, but not enough to qualify to pay for a huge hospital bill. THAT KID may be the THE KID whose innovation could some day save me from SARS, or the Eubola virus.

For me, helping that kid get medical help is an 'INVESTMENT' this country should be more ready to make, than building just one more bomb.

:kick::kick::kick::kick:

[sendero]

45. Welcome to DU...

... and I hope you can stay - but I'll tell ya flat out that I think Libertarianism is a joke of the highest order.

It is just like Communism in that:

It lays out a simple overriding principle for everything. Communists believe that an entire economy can be planned and controlled by the state, Libs believe the state should stay out completely.

Both are silly attempts to make complex systems simple, both willfully ignore basic human nature and motivation, and neither will ever result in a functioning economy.

[info being]

64. It is a need for easy answers to leads one to Libertarianism.

You are right. If charity was the answer...well...why isn't charity solving most of the worlds problems? To even debate the need for a force that regulates and plays referee to Capitalism is beneath me. The problem IS corporate power, and these goofballs believe that corporate power will solve our problems.

[info being]

49. As a Green, I agree with most of what you stand for

BUT:

How is the free market going to prevent pollution that is slowly destroying our world?

How is the free market going to care for mentally ill? Are you suggesting we should let the needy among us just die? Charity is great, but if was all that was needed...well, why isn't it solving the problem today?

America as a whole: it isn't the best place to live. Have you travelled?

[info being]

63. Figures...he can't respond to my questions

[Castor Troy]

86. Castor Troy's response

I agree that the government should have a resposiblity in all of these issues. I am not against all government, I just think it should be limited.

I think you green guys go overboard on the enviroment sometimes though. But if you guys weren't around to balance things out, then who knows what would happen.

I haven't travelled. Like I said, I am not exactly rich.

But millions of people aren't exactly escaping to Mexico or Iran each year are they?

I don't mean that some places wouldn't be nice to live. I would probally enjoy living in places other than America. However, I believe in America, in what is stands for, and the "American Dream".
That is what I meant.

[JHB]

50. A self-described "Left Libertarian" responds:

Hi, Castor, welcome to DU.

I am not really a democrat, nor a republican, I consider myself a Libertarian. I would appreciate if you guys would not try to get me kicked out, because I enjoy being able to interact with the DU'ers.

Do you mean "Big-L" Libertarian (the party), or "small-l" (the more general viewpoint)?

CIVIL LIBERTIES: I believe that we, as Americans, must do everything possible to stop the Government from encroaching on our liberties. The Patriot Act can lead us all into slavery to the state, if given enough time.

That is, in my opinion, a myopic view of the realities of liberty. There are many forces that encroach and restrict our liberties (corporations, churches, other individuals who have some sort of leverage, etc.). Government has to be restricted to minimize its own encroachments, but it is also the means of protecting those liberties from encroachment.

But the Patriot act is an abomination that was railroaded through by means entirely antithetical to the proper conduct of government, and must be removed. Parts of it can be replaced with more carefully-considered legislation, but the whole is too dangerous to keep.

Moreover, too many times, most Politicians (Republicans AND Democrats) don't mind tossing aside the intent of the Constitution of the United States when it gets in the way of the current political cause.

...which is not always a Bad Thing, you know. The Founders were learned men, but they weren't demigods.

FOREIGN POLICY: I believe that we have got to reconsider our place in the world now that the Cold War is over. I heard Pat Buchanan say on TV the other night that we "Should have bought our boys home from Europe at the same time that the Russians went home." I totally agree with that. Why in the hell do we have soldiers in Germany? That is costing us billions a year! We should bring our troops and our money home.

Welcome to the Peace Dividend. The current political consensus may be against it, but there's one thing you can bank on: for at least the next two decades, any vote for the Republican party at the national level will have the effect of expanding that cost, both human and financial. They've welded themselves too completely to the idea that strength means an enormous military budget, and they'll have to politically crash and burn over it to change.

I personally don't believe that Socialism or Communism is the best systems, especially Communism. It is gonna die out without the USA trying to go into countries and kill it.

Depends on what you mean by "Socialism" and "Communism". Some self-described "(L)libertarians" are in the habit of labeling programs like Social Security or single-payer health insurance with those words.

Right now, the biggest threat to individual liberties by ideology-driven economic crusaders is by those pushing a "free-market" utopia (or nearest thing thereto), not "the workers' paradise".

ISRAEL:

Do you realize that the two paragraphs you wrote contradict each other? "Arabs don't want peace" vs. "both sides have a valid point"? I think it reflects a lack of historical depth on your part.

I don't have any magic solution myself, but I don't think it's too hard to recognize that there are fanatics on both sides, and no matter how small a minority they may be, they're willing to destroy everything to get their way (or at least keep "the enemy" from getting theirs).

THE WAR ON DRUGS: Quite possibly the stupidest phrase ever created. We should punish violent criminals, not drug users. A crime is an action that harms others. Although taking drugs is ignorant, it only harms one person: the user.

Well, there are some effects that affect others, but those situations can be handled through ordinary laws. Otherwise, no argument here.

Taxes/Welfare: Bad. I think the role of the government is to build roads and protect the country from invaders. Charity should be left to the private sector. I read somewhere that for every dollar of tax money that the government used for operations that are similar to private Charity work, that like 75 cents got tied up in bureaucracy. Private Charities only spend like half as much on the bureaucracy. It would be more efficient for the Private Charities to run things. Furthermore, I believe that people would be more inclined to give money to help the needy, if it knew the government wasn't going to do it.

I think it's telling that you specifically link taxes and welfare but not taxes and any other purpose, including those you favor.

And surely you know in this day and age how much pure horseshit gets shoveled to justify various positions, so you should really check into WHERE you read about those statistics, and do some more reading to see if they are actually true or not. At least verse yourself in the counterarguments.

I think there were some legitimate issues over how welfare and assistance programs were structured and managed, but if you "believe that people would be more inclined to give money to help the needy, if it knew the government wasn't going to do it", then you might try looking up whether or not that was true in the past.

My main reason for thinking like this has to do with my own personal experience. I grew up extremely poor. Poor kids need to understand that they have to work harder to make it. The government would not have been doing me any favors by shielding me from that fact until I was 18 and then throwing me out into the real world to deal with it.

That would depend on what sort of programs were in effect and whether they were shielding you from reality or ensuring you had an opportunity to make use of your own talents.

I'm not commenting further on taxes, because you haven't offered your opinion on them, their fairness, structure, and effects.

POLITICS TODAY: The republicans who tried to hang Clinton were assholes who ended up hurting the country. Although definitely not to the same degree, I believe the Democrats are headed down a similar path. I think the democrats would do better to talk about there ideas and what they have to offer, instead of just attacking George Bush for being the devil. Guess what, most people (including myself) don't believe that. The Dem's saying "Vote for us: Bush is the Antichrist", is not going to get the vote of the guy saying that thinks Bush is an OK guy but thinks his policies suck. The better idea would be to say: "Vote for us: We have better ideas for the country". Remember, extremism from either side, scares off most people.

The problem is, the Democrats have tried to do that for the last 20 years, only to be subjected to increasingly rabid attacks from the Republicans. I'll take your point about maintaining the smiley face in public, but frankly it behooves the Democrats to be more agressive on all fronts.

BUSH VS. KERRY: I am leaning toward voting for Kerry, even though I think the guy is stale. The reason being, I think 1 party in total control really f*cks things up. The republicans ain't exactly fiscally conservative in my book.

Dude, the Republicans have abandoned any notion of fiscal responsibility. Look at the budgets (and make sure you get all the "adjustments" that come along after the headlines are long gone).
You seem to be in your 20's, so don't kid yoursself: it's your future that's being looted.

I would really be excited if someone from the middle would run as an outside candidate with new ideas. I am 95% certain that I would vote for this guy.

Name someone.

BUSH VS GORE: I voted for Bush. Al Gore seemed like an idiot.

Yeah, he couldn't overcome all that "liberal media bias".

CLINTON VS BUSH: I would have voted for Clinton. I liked his views on allot of issues, and he seemed like a cool as shit guy.

I've gained more respect for him as I've discovered just how many of his "scandals" were driven by pure horseshit, from many of the very same people now running the government. (kinda why we have that "Bush is evil" vibe going).

Many DU'ers view: Mind our own business, because the USA is nothing but a bunch of asshole demons.

While there's all kinds, I think those "many" DUers have a view which is identical to yours, but they're better versed in some of the more unsavory practices we've used over the years in various countries, especially since many of those practices eventually blow back in our faces as anti-American turmoil around the world.

MUSLIM TERRORISTS: I think it is a grave mistake to pretend that these guys aren't worthy foes. I know most people will not agree, but these guys are not cowards. They are enemies that must be taking seriously. We must take a long hard look at that fact.

What forums do you hang out in? Where do you get this "most"? {b]Most DUers in my experience agree with what you said, and fault the Bushies for NOT doing so. We do, however, try to make a distinction between "muslim terrorists" and "muslims". It's the other word that makes them a threat to society, and they come in all religious flavors.

MY VIEW ON AMERICA AS A WHOLE: This is the greatest country in the world. It really pisses me off when pampered individuals on both the extreme left and extreme right try to say otherwise. If you can think of a better place to live, move there.

What do you count as "try(ing) to say otherwise"? We tend to get hit with that when we point out that our past actions may have had a hand in forming some crisis overseas, and when pointing out when some parts of our society are singled out for some rather un-pampered treatment.

[tom_paine]

54. Heh heh, you beat me to it by one minute, JHB

Take a gander at my post below.

[tom_paine]

53. Welcome to DU, Castor Troy!

:hi: :hi:

:toast: :toast:

Don't worry about not agreeing with everything on here. It happens to everyone. It happen any time you get a few thousand people together to exchange views.

I happen to agree with many of your views. It makes sense. You are a Right-Centrist-Libertarian Type and I am a Left-Center Moderate with a strong Libertarian streak.

Let me go down the list

CIVIL LIBERTIES: Agree totally.

FOREIGN POLICY: Partial agreement. International engagement is not about containing the Commies alone, doubly so now. That would be a good thread topic to post "what is the proper level and role of US International Enagagement?"

ISRAEL: I believe that we should never support something in another country, that is illegal in the United States. Total disagreement there. I do agree that there is far too much Israel-bashing here, though given that Sharon is almost Iraeli Bush, it's not surprising.

Both sides have a valid view. Agreed. I personally think that the Wall being built over there is a great idea. I disagree with your positive view of The Wall. Even if in the short term it does reduce the number of suicide bombers, I believe that in the long run, the ultimate negative effects will far outstrip the short-term positive, but that is just an opinion. Time will tell.

Your point about the Berlin Wall is well-taken, but largely semantic. The innocent people in the vast majority on the other side of the wall don't care why they are being walled. They just know they are being punished for the crimes of others and having their freedom restricted. It doesn't matter to them if there is even a partially valid reason, as it wouldn't to you if the Bushevik built a wall around your hometown and you hadn't done anything to warrant it. Think about it.


THE WAR ON DRUGS: Total Agreement.

Taxes/Welfare: Total disagreement, but we'd need our own thread to flesh out our many differences. I might add I am not the opposite of your opinion and would NOT agree that taxes are the solution to everything. Post a thread on this issue sometime and I'll join it if I see it.

POLITICS TODAY: Disagree. The Busheviks have shown that ALL of Goebbels' rules for lying are still effective. No time for half measures. Totalitarianism must be challeneged VIGOROUSLY or it will set in cement. The Democrats aren't being tough enough even still, in my opinion. Now if the Busheviks were Americans of the Old School and were more loyal to America than The Party, it would be different. But they are closer to Soviets than Old School Americans, IMHO.

BUSH VS. KERRY: You and everyone else just about would vote for a Moderate Outisder. The problem is, the Busheviks have purged or silenced all of theirs.

BUSH VS GORE: You are wrong wrong so very long. But you were probably drinking deeply from Bushevik Pravda at the time (most of us were) and bought into the lies. Start a thread asking for debunking of the Gore Myths. You should get an education. Unlike Nazistromtrooper.com, most of what is told to you will be backed up and sourced to credible links.

CLINTON VS BUSH: Don't know what to say. I agree, sort of.

VIEWS POSTED ON DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND: Many DU'ers view: Mind our own business, because the USA is nothing but a bunch of asshole demons. Many, perhaps. But far from a majority. Remember, you are talking about thousands of people with different opinions. Sure, we've got some Comrades. Ignore them. That's what the "ignore" button is for.

MUSLIM TERRORISTS: I've never heard anyone at DU say that they thought that Muslim Terrorists are patsies or pushovers.


MY VIEW ON AMERICA AS A WHOLE: Agree Totally. That is why we must save it from Bushevik Orwellian Totalitarianism.

Welcome to DU, Castor Troy!

:hi:
:toast:

[Castor Troy]

57. Castor Troy's response about Muslim Terrorist

This is what I meant about Muslim Terrorists.

I wasn't speaking directly about DUers. I meant that it seems to me, that the country as a whole try to see these guys as a bunch of phsyco coward savages who are not equal to us as human beings.

I believe that is the totally wrong attitude to have. First of all, many of these guys are well educated. They aren't ignorant beasts. They know exactly what they are doing. Most importantly, I believe We as a country, should realize that these people not misguided people who just need minor correcting. They are an intelligent worthy enemy that must be taken seriously and treated with respect.

That is what i meant.

[tom_paine]

60. Oh. I understand and I also agree

It ain't the Keystone Kopps we're up against.

[DrWeird]

56. On civil liberties:

are you one of these people who think a restauranteur should be able to reject service to "whoever he wants to?"

[Castor Troy]

75. Castor Troy's response

Actually, Yes!

I think he would be an asshole not to serve everyone. And I would boycott any resteraunt doing such a thing.

But, I don't think it is the Government's place to tell someone how to use private property.

I do think that it should be illegal to use discriminatory practices when hiring though.

[convict_9653]

101. so it's okay to only serve whites

at Denny's? Not in your mind, but in the Government's? But, wait, aren't we a government of the people, by the people? Perhaps civil rights laws are around because WE AS A PEOPLE should not discriminate against others based on age, sex, race, religion, or disability.

[trotsky]

124. Oh but of course!

You see, in libertopia, all forms of discrimination will go away when business owners simply realize that they won't get the business of the folks they discriminate against.

Because that very method was working so well to bring about racial equality in the South in the 50s and early 60s, you know.

[theoceansnerves]

65. sorry

i just can't go along with an ideology that thinks "business knows best" and would let them have free reign over our air, water and land.

[rman]

66. what's your stance on corruption in business and politics,

and conflict of interest between business and politics?

[seabeyond]

67. hey castro troy

that was fun. and i was able to go thru easily and listen further to what you were saying with castro reply. cool dude.

i am with you on a lot of things that you say and disagree with other. in a lot of ways i am liberterian (sp) and some ways dem and some way repug. or what repugs use to be. i have always enjoyed the flexibility of being a mutt.

i like to hear from EVERYONE, and love to listen to all different points of view. what makes you so enjoyable is you have your ideas and thoughts, yet you are not offensive or abrasive as you share

just waving a hi

[Solon]

69. I have a question...

Being a libertarian, do you agree that all people have the right to organize unions?

[Castor Troy]

72. Castor Troy's response on Organized Labor

Thanks for asking, I use to be in a Laborers Union, so I have first hand knowledge about Unions.

1st of all, I believe that any group of workers should be able to Organize and go to the Owners of a company to negotiate working conditions, wages, etc. I believe it is a great way to use the power of numbers for leverage.

I think that government should do nothing that would make this practice illegal. However, I also believe that the unions shouldn't be legally any more important than any other organization. By that, I mean that there shouldn't be laws requiring a Business Owner in a certain state to only use Union workers.

In my own experience, Unions seem to be a great way for the worker to have some control. In my experience, I sometimes felt that our union was taking advantage of the Companies that we would do work for. I firmly believe that if someone pays you for a service, say a 10 hours worth of work, that you have the moral obligation to work hard for that 10 hours. The culture seemed to be: "Stick it to the man, fuck him." I think there is something wrong with that.

Also, there is allot of corruption in the Union leadership. In the union that I worked in, I didn't encounter it. My friend is in a Pipefitters Union, and he told me a story of being on a certain job where you had to pay the steward 20 dollars a week for a in house lottery (if you wanted to keep your job). It wasn't an actual policy written on the wall, but if you didn't play ball then you would be looking for a job quickly. Anyway,I have seen allot of these lotteries on construction sites and most of them are legit (although illegal. What made this one unique was that no one ever won. The high up union guys were basically embezzling 5 to 10 thousand a week from the guys they represented. Now you might be tempted to say that this type of behavior is a rarity, but I have heard to many stories to believe otherwise.

Really I think Union's just need to be cleaned up. I think the government should be watching them like hawks, the same as outlaw Ceo's like Enron, Worldcom, etc. The reason is, because otherwise, the Union bosses end up screwing the actual workers.

Summary:
1) Union's should be legal.
2)Business should be able to deal with them if they want or have too for business purposes. It shouldn't be the government making them.
3) Outlaw Union Bosses are as corrupt as Outlaw Ceo's.
4) Union culture appears to not promote "an honest day's work for an honest day's pay" in my experience, and in the experience of many of my friends.

[Kool Kitty]

85. I disagree with your item number 4.

The union I belonged to believed in an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. (The IBEW.) Too broad a brush, there.

[Castor Troy]

89. Castor Troy's response on Organized Labor: part 2

Kool Kitty,

Actually that is kind of Ironic, because most of the male member's of my family are Electricians, and my 1st cousin is in an apprenticeship program with an IBEW local.

Here is a story that he told me that illustrates my point:

He was working with a single journeyman one day, and they had to do some work that required a scaffle about 4 foot high. They gathered up all of there tools and went to the part of the jobsite that the work was at. When they got there, the scaffle was not built yet, but all the parts were there. My cousin said it would have taken 5 minutes to build the scaffle themselves. Instead they waited there for SIX HOURS for the carpenters to come build it. They weren't being slackers either, that is what they were supposed to do in that situation.

Now I don't blame this type of behavior on the my cousin or the journeyman. But, that is the type of atmosphere that Unions create allot of the time.

I think it is wrong for the Guy or Company paying the salary of these guys, to have to pay for 6 hours of standing around.

I agree that these guys should be able to band together and use their leverage to negiotate. That is the American way. It shouldn't be an excuse to screw somebody over though.

[Kool Kitty]

91. I still don't understand how that makes

all unions suspect. But maybe I'm just thick. I guess I have a bad response to (what seem to me to be) blanket statements about how unions are all about taking the easy way out and not really working.

I have another question for you, sorry, but I don't get to talk to many libertarians. What are your feelings about how the environment should be handled? (If you already answered this, I apologize.)
On edit- Never mind. I read through the responses and you said that the greens are a little too overboard regarding the environment. I guess that includes me, because I think we should have clean air, clean water, etc., and leave the same to our kids. I also think that the corporate pigs should clean up their messes. Oh, well.

[Castor Troy]

96. Castor Troy's response: Unions, Enviroment

Kool Kitty,

I didn't mean all (100%) of unions. I am just talking about my experience.

Enviroment:
This is the way I see it. I believe the government should not regulate any person (or company in this case) in any area of their life UNLESS that person is causing harm to another person or person's property.

Hence, it should be illegal to shoot someone or burn down someone's house. Likewise, the Government should stop companies from destroying our natural world (which belongs to all of us). If a company is found to be dumping toxic chemicals into a river, they should pay a severe price for it. If the executives of that company knowingly caused it to happen, then they should go to jail. This type of behavior should be dealt with like any other criminal act.

I think this is an area the government should definatly be involved in. Like I said earlier, the government should limited, but not nonexistant.

I think that sometimes the Green's take it to far though. I don't think the Government should spend millions of dollars each year (and impose millions more in Operating Costs on Businesses) to insure that Mercury levels ar at 0.00000000001 percent in drinking water as opposed to 0.0000000001.

[Kool Kitty]

100. Not even when you know what kind of threat

mercury poses to everyone's health (most particularly children)?
I think that instead of paying the CEO's horribly inflated wage and bonus plan, better the money should be spent making sure that things are safe.

[Castor Troy]

103. Kool Kitty, Read this

Kool Kitty,

I've got to run for the day, so I don't have time to respond. I have enjoyed the conversation though, and I would like to continue it at another time.

On another note, Are you an electrician? I am a recent college grad. Right now I am working as an Engineer (in order to pay off the 50 k of student loans for me and my wife), but eventually I would like to work with an Electrical Contractor, and hopefully one day start my own business. Like I mentioned earlier, I use to work as a Union Laborer, and allot of my time was spent as a gopher or doing menial work for Pipefitters, boilermakers, and Electricians. I always enjoyed working with the Electricians the most, the work you guys do is interesting. Hope I am in the field one day!

You can email me at [email protected] if you want.

later

[leftofthedial]

73. I'm glad you're here

Personally, I think libertarians are about five brain cells away from becoming neocons. But you do make for an interesting side show once in awhile. Look! See the two-headed snake! (Sorry. I'm an asshole and I long ago quit trying to hide it.)

At least your worship of your own property hasn't (for the most part) crossed into the fascist neocon obsession with taking everyone else's property by force. We absolutely agree on most civili liberties issues, the "war" on some drugs, etc.

I have one other issue with your post.

ISRAEL: I believe that we should never support something in another country, that is illegal in the United States.
.....
I personally think that the Wall being built over there is a great idea.

Make up your mind. Both statements can not be true.

[Castor Troy]

78. Castor Troy's response

ISRAEL: I believe that we should never support something in another country, that is illegal in the United States.
.....
I personally think that the Wall being built over there is a great idea.

Make up your mind. Both statements can not be true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

So if Canada or Mexico were hostile to the United States (not reality, but just follow me here) and they were sending suicide bombers, that it would be illegal for us to build a Wall across the border?

I realize that Isreal's wall is not on the outskirts of a country. It is however, close the dividing point between Isreal and the eventual Palestinian state.




=====================================================================
At least your worship of your own property hasn't (for the most part) crossed into the fascist neocon obsession with taking everyone else's property by force.........
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As for Castor Troy, the NeoCons AND you.

Castor Troy: "I keep my stuff, you keep yours."

NeoCons: "I keep my stuff, I take yours and use it as I see fit."
You: "I keep my stuff, I take yours and use it as I see fit."

I see a pattern


QUESTION: How are you highlight stuff? This is my first month on DU as an actual poster.

[leftofthedial]

93. yes it would, if we built the wall in Canada or Mexico

or on porperty we don't own, or in violation of international law, domestic law, or treaties we had signed

All of which are true about the Israeli fascist's wall.

[ulysses]

76. already gotten that view, thanks.

(hey, is CharacterAssassin still around?)

Hope you're able to stay for a while. You'll be fun to play with.

[Hamlette]

81. Incorrect assumption

"I read somewhere that for every dollar of tax money that the government used for operations that are similar to private Charity work, that like 75 cents got tied up in bureaucracy. Private Charities only spend like half as much on the bureaucracy."

Federal law prohibits "bureaucracies" from spending more than 15% on...well...bureaucracy (administrative expenses). All the rest must go to benefits. There is no such limit on private charities some of which spend as much as 95% on "bureaucracy." Granted some charities are wonderful but many are complete and total rip offs, even some that are associated with religious organizations.

Less than 2% of the entire federal budget goes to "welfare". Of that, the VAST majority of the money goes to food stamps and child care. Very little goes to direct cash assistance to families and none goes to cash assistance to people who do not have children. You can't get child care unless you are working.

Our "average" client (on public assistance) is 27 years old and has 1.7 children and her husband left her and she has 3 or more barriers to employment.

The only option available under the only private charity of old was for the mom to put her kids in an orphanage. Read Dickens if you want to learn how private charity worked. I have no problem with 2% of my tax money going to children.

When you accept the notion that Dems are "tax and spend" you let ideological preconceptions prevent you from seeing things clearly, IMHO. The real difference between liberals and conservatives is how we see the role of government. Conservatives believe that governmental institutuions can not be used influence culture because it is ineffectual. Liberals believe that you have to at least try. Which makes it SO ODD that the GOP is trying to turn the middle east into a democrary by the imposition of governmental programs. What's up with that?

[ulysses]

83. ok, so let's talk schools.

They're not roads or the military, so should we privatize schools entirely? What do you expect the outcome to be if so?

[Castor Troy]

99. Castor Troy's response: Schools

Yeah, definatly education.

I didn't mean "Roads, military, AND ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE!"
What I meant was that government should be limited to specific subset of tasks.

I think public schooling should be important. However, I believe that the control of the classroom and the materials taught should be at the local level. My wife is a teacher, and she thinks that control should be with the principal. Not the Congress or the NEA. I agree with her.

[ulysses]

104. ulysses' response re: local control

Should there not be any kind of canon that American kids are taught? Should local officials be allowed to remove evolution, say, from the curriculum?

[gpandas]

87. how about some sources for numbers and statements that lead..

to your wild-assed conclusions. i really don't know where to start to debunk your post, or if i want to,because it would be a waste of time since it's obvious your mind is made up, and you won't be confused by fact. i'll toss out a few anyway. what of the fact that your beloved israelis forced 800,000 palestinians from lands they lived in all their life? what of the fact that israelis have a state religion? what of the fact that all the civil rights in israel only apply to israelis? what of the fact that israel conquered land (which they did only because of american arms and money) and refuse to give it back in spite of the fact that the entire world says they should? what of the fact that an israeli citizen can stop anyone not a jew and demand to see their 'papers'. talk about supporting someone who doesn't meet our standards? you're laughable in your defense of israel. what if in 1948 some foreign country said that america actually belongs to the american indians. would you meekly move out, or fight.? the palestinians are fighting for the same reasons, but since they dont have weapons of mass destruction, they are forced to fight this oppression the only way they can. i personally know a few palestinians who came to america when they were forced out of their own lands. do you know any? have you personally researched to find the true story, or are you forming your opinion from u.s. and israeli propaganda. this is only one part IMO of your outrageous post. i could go on and on. BTW, do you really believe that duers actually think * is the devil? it's called humor my friend, lighten up.

[Castor Troy]

90. Castor Troy's response

Some of what you are saying makes sense. I don't have time to go through the whole thing with you though.

Let me ask you this though, What do you think Isreal should do? Just give up all the land, and move all the jews out.

I realize that this is not a black and white situation over there.
I still believe that Isreal has the right to insure it's survival as a country though.

[gpandas]

94. that's easy-they should pattern themseves on a true democracy

the way america was, before*,and let all people of all religions and opinions share in the management of this land. no one really owns land, they only rent it for a while.

[troublemaker]

110. One state solution

A west-bank sliver state can never be a real Palestinian nation.

Israel effectively annexed territory over the bitter objections of Moshe Dyan and other sane hawks. Having annexed it, they don't want to REALLY annex it because that would require letting the Palestinians vote. The Palestinians cannot be taken into Israel because they would dilute the Jewishness of the state.

What's so god-damned cool about a 'Jewish state' anyway? A 'white' state or a 'Christian' state sound like what they are--revolting 19th century racism. Everyone runs the risk of becoming what they oppose and the Israelis are just a new class of Nazi. Who uses violence to protect the racial purity of their nation? Nazis, old-school South Africans, Milosivic, Israelis, Confederates...

If Israelis didn't want to add a bunch of Palestinian voters to the mix they shouldn't have occupied the west bank. Duh! Too late now, guys. Suck it up and make the Palestinians Israeli citizens. Then democratic Israeli policy will represent both sides and a political solution is possible.

[convict_9653]

92. I have a problem with a lot

but mostly with this:

MY VIEW ON AMERICA AS A WHOLE: This is the greatest country in the world. It really pisses me off when pampered individuals on both the extreme left and extreme right try to say otherwise. If you can think of a better place to live, move there.

This is stupid. If I don't like policies that the US Gov't enacts, why should I move, rather than try to influence these policies, one way, is by dissent?

[Classical_Liberal]

95. Libertarians are supposed to believe in protecting property so

I don't see how you can support the Israeli wall, since it isn't on the green line, and basically steals Palestinian land, or support Israel given the settlements. The Palestinians are the ones defending themselves from theft. Furthermore, I don't understand why American taxpayers must support this land theft from Palestinians. While Palestinians would be better off persuing passive resistence, I don't see Americans behaving passively given the same behavior involving land theft.

[blindpig]

98. so, how do you feel about conservation & biodiversity?

It's been my impression that libertarians don't give a fuck about anything that a buck can't be made from. That the Commons are to be exploited for individual gain. And that a species' existence is relevant only to it's utility.
I find views like these abhorrent.

[Castor Troy]

106. Castor Troy's response: I AM VOTING FOR BUSH!!!!!!

Just kidding!

I wrote that so you guys would read this!

I have got to leave for the day, but I have very much enjoyed interacting with you guys. Debate is fun. Especially MasterDebating!

later

~Castor Troy (Nick Cage's character from Face-off)

[IronLionZion]

107. I agree with you on civil liberties, drugs, and politics today

but if you start spewing your "free trade" crap here, we'll tear you several new ones. :evilgrin:

Welcome to DU :toast: :hi:

[bigbillhaywood]

108. Congratulations on bringing up nearly every DU hot-button issue in one

post! Anyway, check out the Libertarian Socialist thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1491497&mesg_id=1491497

It's a different take on what "libertarianism" should mean economically.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

109. The libertarian philosophy in a nutshell:

"I wanna do what I wanna do, no matter what, but the government should facilitate my driving and protect me from the inevitable enemies that will result from my overriding selfishness."

[wyldwolf]

111. wow! So true!

[Q]

112. Bush* isn't the 'devil'...

..he's a fucking criminal.

- And if you're a 'libertarian'...I'm Howard the Duck.

[TheDonkey]

114. The government ain't gonna protect the nation and build roads for free

That is why we have taxes.

As for the war on drugs, I disagree. Drugs DO hurt other people. But I think the war on drugs besides sounding ridiculous is wrong. Drug users should be penalized but not at the rate and severeity they currently get now.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. :cheers:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

115. One by one responses to your opinion

CIVIL LIBERTIES: I believe that we, as Americans, must do everything possible to stop the Government from encroaching on our liberties. The Patriot Act can lead us all into slavery to the state, if given enough time.

Moreover, too many times, most Politicians (Republicans AND Democrats) don't mind tossing aside the intent of the Constitution of the United States when it gets in the way of the current political cause.

No major issues with this argument until we start touching upon laws such as affirmative action that merely are there to equalize the fact that certain civil liberties have been granted all along to white American males such as credit, eating and drinking where they please and attending school and work free of harassment and antagonism simply because of gender and color.


FOREIGN POLICY: I believe that we have got to reconsider our place in the world now that the Cold War is over. I heard Pat Buchanan say on TV the other night that we "Should have bought our boys home from Europe at the same time that the Russians went home." I totally agree with that. Why in the hell do we have soldiers in Germany? That is costing us billions a year! We should bring our troops and our money home. I personally don't believe that Socialism or Communism is the best systems, especially Communism. It is gonna die out without the USA trying to go into countries and kill it.

To some extent I agree but not totally. Being the superpower that we are and HAVING the benefits of availability of resources that we use, it is also incumbent upon us to give something back...sometimes our military presence is giving something back...other times it is simply there to intimidate or control...sorry to answer in such a general manner but your points were general as well.

I do think ultimately our foreign policy should be a healthy mix of protection (strength) and benevolence (generosity). An example would be Somalia...although it was a complicated mess, I feel we have a duty to attempt to stop genocide where it is imminent.


ISRAEL: I believe that we should never support something in another country, that is illegal in the United States. I find it hypocritical of the Democrats and lefties who basically support the anti Israel causes in the Middle Eastern countries. If you look at the track record on Human rights and especially Women's rights, Israel stacks up on our side a helluva lot more than the Arab countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran. I realize that many Democrats support the Palestinian cause due to the fact that they don't have a place to go. I think this is incredibly naive. I feel the pain for the Palestinians, but let's be frank: The Arab people don't want peaceful coexistence, the want to destroy Israel. Israel is trying to defend itself in a very tough part of the world. It cannot afford to show weakness. At the same time, I can see the Palestinian viewpoint also. They are a people that are suffering, and they are doing what they think will bring about a better life for themselves. However, I believe that if they practiced a nonviolent path of resistance, they would achieve much more.

Both sides have a valid view. I personally think that the Wall being built over there is a great idea. The sections built so far have dramatically cut down the number of suicide bombers coming from those sections. Comparing this wall to the Berlin Wall is utter nonsense: The Berlin Wall was built to separate a single people into two separate groups. This wall is being built by a single country to protect its people from outsiders. If the wall stops the violence, build the wall.

I think you over simplify. I don't have all year but the basic issues as I see them are that both sides are deal breakers. Both sides cannot be counted on to broker honestly and as long as the Palestinians have no independent security forces against Israeli aggression, they will resort to terrorism. In essence, terrorist organizations have been granted legitimacy through the resistance of having other valid means to protect the Palestinian population.

I also disagree with your assessment of the wall..but again...don't wish to turn this post into a novella.


THE WAR ON DRUGS: Quite possibly the stupidest phrase ever created. We should punish violent criminals, not drug users. A crime is an action that harms others. Although taking drugs is ignorant, it only harms one person: the user. I think the government should stay out of the private vices of its citizens. Besides, the War on Drugs is mostly a war on poor people that made bad decisions. How many rich people that do drugs end up going to jail over it.

I don't think wars should be declared on medical conditions and people who commit victim less crimes should not be incarcerated. That is the extent of our agreement on the matter.

I DO think the government should intervene n cases to TREAT drug addiction. One does not live in a personal society..one LIVES in a world with other people and if those people are addicted, they are not functional in society. It is in society's best interests to regulate NOT criminalize vices unless and until they harm another.


Taxes/Welfare: Bad. I think the role of the government is to build roads and protect the country from invaders. Charity should be left to the private sector. I read somewhere that for every dollar of tax money that the government used for operations that are similar to private Charity work, that like 75 cents got tied up in bureaucracy. Private Charities only spend like half as much on the bureaucracy. It would be more efficient for the Private Charities to run things. Furthermore, I believe that people would be more inclined to give money to help the needy, if it knew the government wasn't going to do it

WRONG WRONG WRONG AND BULLSHIT

I believe this is the area in which I would prefer to lock horn with you if we were going to.

On welfare - we live in a capitalist society. Our economy calls for a certain percent of the population to be unemployed at any given time or else wages will become inflated thereby harming business. as long as the economic model we TOIL under CREATES hardship for certain members of society, there should be a safety net for humane purposes ADMINISTERED EQUALLY by the government to PROTECT those that are MANDATED to suffer via our economic paradigm...with all the goods that capitalism offers, it is a small price to pay. Leaving it up to non secular charities who can pick and choose who they will deliver to is de facto discrimination and de facto discrimination runs counter to that constitution you admire SO in your civil liberties post.

On TAXES...again...our economic system makes it possible for those with capital to be the LEAST PRODUCTIVE MEMBERS of society since they can simply live off the interest of their money and as we can see with the current economy...that interest DOES NOT always equate to an investment in the greater good NOR DOES IT CREATE jobs thereby "trickling down" benefits. If by design, a system offers greater rewards then those rewarded the greatest for the least contribution should pay more for those privileges...it's like getting a box seat at a baseball game and paying the price versus the cheap seats in the nosebleed section.


POLITICS TODAY: The republicans who tried to hang Clinton were assholes who ended up hurting the country. Although definitely not to the same degree, I believe the Democrats are headed down a similar path. I think the democrats would do better to talk about there ideas and what they have to offer, instead of just attacking George Bush for being the devil. Guess what, most people (including myself) don't believe that. The Dem's saying "Vote for us: Bush is the Antichrist", is not going to get the vote of the guy saying that thinks Bush is an OK guy but thinks his policies suck. The better idea would be to say: "Vote for us: We have better ideas for the country". Remember, extremism from either side, scares off most people.

Based on my rebuttals to your arguments thus far, I view libertarianism as a form of extremism so I don't agree. Furthermore, hiding behind a bible while offering up a litany of lies is tantamount to the devil who was known to quote scripture.


BUSH VS. KERRY: I am leaning toward voting for Kerry, even though I think the guy is stale. The reason being, I think 1 party in total control really f*cks things up. The republicans ain't exactly fiscally conservative in my book.
I would really be excited if someone from the middle would run as an outside candidate with new ideas. I am 95% certain that I would vote for this guy.


While I have some disagreements, you already said you were leaning toward voting for Kerry...that's good enough for me.


H VS GORE: I voted for Bush. Al Gore seemed like an idiot.

Seems to me this was an uninformed vote for a person who wishes to portray that his opinions are informed.

All one needed to do was to look at George Bush's LACK of public service versus Al Gore's focus on public service and look at George Bush's policies in Texas (you already said you didn't like his policies as president) to see what would occur were he elected.

Skipping a few points to cut to the chase

VIEW ON AMERICA AS A WHOLE: This is the greatest country in the world. It really pisses me off when pampered individuals on both the extreme left and extreme right try to say otherwise. If you can think of a better place to live, move there.

As a non pampered individual who also worked my ass off for everything I got including a private college and law school education as well as paid trips to several Latin American countries, every major beach in the US and a few island nations when I surfed semi-professionally all I can say is...you need to get out more.

America is a great nation, but there are countries where the working class (from which you claim you came from) get far more time off, health care, and can live on ONE SALARY. This does not make America BAD but it indicates we have a long way to go to make sure the dream is possible for MANY in this generation and most of the next generation.

Telling people who would dissent to leave is a bit hyperbolic but I have to assume you are young...work your ass off a bit more for a few million years..watch the benefits trickle up to subsidize what is supposed to be a "free market" while the poor are blamed for everything that ails America and come back and tell me in a few years that you still believe everything you said to be true.

Signed..

A 45 year old, highly accomplished lesbian female limousine liberal.

[Castor Troy]

116. Some of your points are well made.....

I don't really want to give my rebuttal (especially since your a lawyer! :)

However, I will say that a few of your ideas atleast give me reason to think. Your probally right about the travelling part. I am only 25 years old, and I have never been out of the country. As I posted elsewhere, I didn't mean that America is a great place to live and everywhere else sucks. What I meant was that America is great because of the American spirit. I am sure allot of people will say that is sappy bullshit, but i totally believe it.

We have in this country a great system for any individual to make it.
I don't know your whole situation, but based on what you posted, I would say you are a good example. You are a female, that through hard work and the America we live in, was able to work your way up to be a lawyer. I say that is the America I am talking about.

On to Welfare: Like I have posted elsewhere, I am not Libertarian in the sense that i say "ALL GOVERNMENT SUCKS!". What I believe is that Government should be small and not a burden on the people. I believe that all welfare assistance should be well thought out, and be a "hand up" not a "hand out". I think that it is immoral for the government to do things for people that they could do for themselves, because it breeds dependency.

SURFING: I live in central florida close to Daytona Beach in Brevard County. You ever been surfing down here? I think surfing looks awesome. I just moved here not to long ago, and I thought I would try surfing out. I guess I was thinking that it would be pretty easy and not dangerous at all. I couldn't have been more wrong. It seemed like it would be pretty easy to drown, get your neck broke, or get knocked out by the board.

Anyway, check out some of my other posts in this thread that have "Castor Troy responds" to get a general idea of my views.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

119. Back at you

On to Welfare: Like I have posted elsewhere, I am not Libertarian in the sense that i say "ALL GOVERNMENT SUCKS!". What I believe is that Government should be small and not a burden on the people. I believe that all welfare assistance should be well thought out, and be a "hand up" not a "hand out". I think that it is immoral for the government to do things for people that they could do for themselves, because it breeds dependency.

You're using a few buzz words in there and that is what I am uncomfortable with. I agree dependency can be bred into people but I also think there are people who truly are dependent..not by nature but as a form of disability so to speak. There will always be some abuses and in a nation as large as ours, they will seem large simply due to being proportional. I have no issue with you having an issue with abuses to that system but I think for far too long we have focused on what is a relatively SMALL problem compared to WEALTHFARE...or subsidies that are just as dependency creating in what is supposed to be a free market...a perfect example would be those that say we pay LESS for gasoline than Europe. In fact, when one adds up the cost of subsidoes to oil companies, the minimal fines they have paid for polluting versus the punishments you and I would pay as individuals for similar spoilage and add up the costs of wars for oil or Plan Columbia which was a way to militarize Columbia on behalf of companies such as Occidental under the guise of the drug war...when people add up the HUGE PREMIUM we have paid on privatizing so many aspects of the military only to find them LESS accountable to the populace than a government organization would be...we are paying FAR MORE for gas in our cars than Europe...that is why sensible regulation of fuel efficiency (which many Libertarians would argue against) IS called for.

It also goes to the heart of the argument of what is the role of government..if we can subsidize companies making billions in profits already to further enrich people living off the interest on their money...we can afford to take care of the least of us..the game is already rigged in their favor.

So I do think WEALTHFARE is far more costly than welfare and equally dependency creating...I also feel that the Libertarian philosophy by streamlining regulation has in effect enabled the defense industrial complex to raid our coffers...

We could go on and on but frankly, you sound in many ways much more like a moderate Democrat than a tried and true libertarian.

On the surfing thing....just remember to keep your head down, tuck your board a bit at an angle into a wave...and this

The hardest part of surfing is paddling out

[ulysses]

117. you're a lesbian limousine liberal?

Someone should update LynneSin. :D

Fantastically well-said here -

On welfare - we live in a capitalist society. Our economy calls for a certain percent of the population to be unemployed at any given time or else wages will become inflated thereby harming business. as long as the economic model we TOIL under CREATES hardship for certain members of society, there should be a safety net for humane purposes ADMINISTERED EQUALLY by the government to PROTECT those that are MANDATED to suffer via our economic paradigm...with all the goods that capitalism offers, it is a small price to pay.

Thank you. Thank you. And I did read the whole thing, this just really stuck out. :)

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

118. Hey CT, there is one question you did not answer,

and it's an important one for us, trying to discern how to win votes to our side. That is, why did you vote for Bush last time? You already said you "weren't impressed by Gore" but you didn't say you WERE impressed by Bush.

Choices would include (among others):

1)WERE impressed by Bush, either his stated positions, record as a businessman and governor:puke: , general appearance and demeanor, or other

2)Generally had a tendency or history of voting for the Republican "brand", not sure how it started, or through the influence of family, peers, television or other, and so therefore voted Bush when unimpressed by Gore even though Bush was not particularly impressive either,

or... ????:wtf:

[Castor Troy]

120. Castor Troy's response: Why I voted for Bush

There were a few reasons:

1) I think someone should accomplish something in life outside of the public arena before they become President. George and Al were both born rich, Bush atleast did something outside of politics at one time.
He was the managing partner of the Texas baseball team he bought into. I think he turned his 500 thousand investment into like 12 million. Al Gore has been a Politician for most of his adult life.

Before you guys even post back, let me say this: I totally believe that if George Bush (or Al Gore) were born Average Middle Class Joe, that he would have been working in the factory or selling insurance.

I think the best example that I can give is John Edwards. Although I don't agree with Trial Lawyers for the most part, I have respect for this guy. Here was a guy who worked he way up in life and made it on his own. He understands what it takes to succeed in life. He definatly would have got my vote in 2000.

2) Gore just doesn't seem like a leader to me. I just got a bad vibe from him. Most people who defend Gore, would defend ANYONE as long as they were a Democrat. It wasn't because he was AL GORE, it was because he was A DEMOCRAT. Since I ain't a democrat, I didn't have that strong conviction to vote for him.

Let me ask you this: If in 2000, instead of Gore, the Dems had of put Edwards, Clark, or Leiberman out there. Who do you think would have won?

I would have bet on the Democrat. IMHO, Bush didn't win it, Gore just lost it.

[blondeatlast]

123. Ran two companies into the ground AND traded Sammy Sosa.

Yeah--whatta admirable record.

[FDRrocks]

121. Libertarian philosphy is just that.

Philosophy. In practice it would bring this country to ruin. We would be lucky if we could defend ourselves against Micronesia if need be. People voluntarily helping the poor? Yea, right. Corporations regulating themselves? Oh man.