PDA

View Full Version : The Philosophy of Liberty



FatsRedux
10-14-2006, 12:47 PM
This is a link to flash animation about the true meaning of liberty. It is my sincere hope that you watch it and learn what real liberty is all about.
The Philosophy of Liberty (http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html)

JPB
10-14-2006, 02:12 PM
Not bad, but there is a danger that people will be misled by it. The whole thing is based on objectivism, but the group is a libertarian one. There is a big overlap between objectivism and libertarianism, but there are also some major differences. If it gets people reading and thinking the flash animation is good. It sort of bothers me that in my admittedly brief look at the website I didn't see any references to Ayn Rand's writing or websites like the objectivist center, etc.... If people are interested in the topic I think it is better that they read Rand, including what she says about libertarianism. Rand had some definite problems with libertarianism even though she provided them so much intellectual ammunition. So although I agree with quite a bit in the animation it sort of nagged at me.

FatsRedux
10-14-2006, 03:47 PM
Here's an article from Wikipedia regarding the similarities and differences between libertarian anarcho-capitalism and Ayn Rand's objectivism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_and_Objectivism

Gayle in MD
10-14-2006, 04:29 PM
This is great! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Thanks...

FatsRedux
10-14-2006, 04:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> This is great! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Thanks... <hr /></blockquote>

You're quite welcome Gayle. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

JPB
10-14-2006, 04:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote FatsRedux:</font><hr> Here's an article from Wikipedia regarding the similarities and differences between libertarian anarcho-capitalism and Ayn Rand's objectivism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_and_Objectivism <hr /></blockquote>


Pretty good wiki article really. A couple of things got short shrift in it, which is to be expected, but at least they were mentioned. For people who haven't read Rand, her views on altruism and Kant really get you in to what she is saying I think. These things were sort of mentioned in the article, but they aren't easily dealt with in a brief summary.

Drop1
10-14-2006, 06:16 PM
Mr.Redux,could you read a book,by Matt Riddley,title "The Red Queen"and get back to the forum about liberty,free will,cvic duty,and genetic determinism.

FatsRedux
10-14-2006, 11:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> Mr.Redux,could you read a book,by Matt Riddley,title "The Red Queen"and get back to the forum about liberty,free will,cvic duty,and genetic determinism. <hr /></blockquote>

I sure will Harry. Thanks for the suggestion, I'm really curious about a biologist's view of human nature, sex and social constructs.

Fran Crimi
10-15-2006, 07:09 AM
Hi Fats,
I'm sure you have the best of intentions and you mean well, but frankly, I think the Guns for Tots scam in NYC launched by the libertarians was disgraceful. Using kids to further one's political agenda---that is the epitome of selfishness and immaturity. But then again, selfishness is what libertarianism is all about, isn't it? You don't have to do anything for anyone if you don't want to. But yet, you are entitled to certain goods and services. Man, no offense, but I believe I outgrew that attitude when I was 10.

Fran

FatsRedux
10-15-2006, 09:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Hi Fats,
I'm sure you have the best of intentions and you mean well, but frankly, I think the Guns for Tots scam in NYC launched by the libertarians was disgraceful. Using kids to further one's political agenda---that is the epitome of selfishness and immaturity.
<font color="blue">The issue in the case you cite was toy guns. The city council was getting ready to impose a ban on all toy guns..squirt guns, rubber band guns, laser tag, and the like. The libertarians distributed free toy guns to kids while also distributing information on gun safety for kids.
Here is a link:
http://www.ny.lp.org/guns4tots.htm </font color>

But then again, selfishness is what libertarianism is all about, isn't it? <font color="blue">No, self-ownership is what it's all about. You own yourself no one else does. </font color>

You don't have to do anything for anyone if you don't want to. <font color="blue">Quite right, but then unless you are independently wealthy, you'll starve. </font color>

But yet, you are entitled to certain goods and services. <font color="blue">Wrong again, Fran. I think you have a very incomplete understanding of what Libertarianism is really all about. </font color>

Man, no offense, but I believe I outgrew that attitude when I was 10.

<font color="blue">Good for you Fran.

Here are some people who did not outgrow their childish attitudes: (Excerpted from LP.org)

Famous Libertarians
Famous libertarians include:

Dave Barry.
The syndicated humorist supports the Libertarian Party and advocates libertarian ideas frequently in his weekly humor column and his popular books.

Drew Carey.
The sitcom actor lists himself as a Libertarian.

Dixie Carter.
The sitcom actress calls herself a Libertarian, and has said that drugs and prostitution should be legalized.

Jack Chambless.
The Valencia College economics professor and contributor to Fox News and the Orlando Sentinel is a registered Libertarian.

Penn Jillette.
Half of the magician duo Penn and Teller, Jillette is a Libertarian Party supporter.

Edward Herrman.
Star of the anti-IRS film Harry's War, actor Herrman seeks out libertarian-interest roles, and narrated the audiobook versions of some Ayn Rand novels.

John Larroquette.
The sitcom actor who became famous with "Night Court" is registered to vote as a Libertarian. On an irrelevant personal note, he attended the same high school I did in New Orleans (though many years earlier, and only briefly before being kicked out!).

Denis Leary.
The edgy comic describes himself as a libertarian.

Russell Means.
Founder of the American Indian Movement (AIM) and actor ("Last of the Mohicans" et al.), Means ran for the 1988 Libertarian presidential nomination.

Sean Morely ("Val Venis").
The professional wrestler from Canada is a Libertarian and maintains a political newsletter called "Hardball."

Michael Moriarty.
The award-winning actor and pianist-composer advocates libertarian goals. He condemns the federal government as an emerging police state, citing Waco and Ruby Ridge as examples, and he supports drug legalization. Moriarty is an Emmy, Tony and Golden Globe award winning actor, as well as a classical and jazz pianist with three CDs released.

Howard Stern.
The famous and infamous "shock jock" media personality won the Libertarian Party nomination for governor of New York (before he dropped out of the race). Stern is a strong advocate of free speech and personal freedom.

P. J. O'Rourke.
Although the humorist calls himself a "Republican Party Reptile," it is hard to imagine a Republican advocating drugs and fast cars. O'Rourke has written for National Lampoon, Car and Driver and Rolling Stone magazines and is the author of numerous books.

Kurt Russell.
The star of Escape from New York, Escape from L.A., Big Trouble in Little China and many more is registered to vote as a Libertarian.

Tom Selleck.
The actor best known for his lead in the 1980s TV show "Magnum P.I." has been described by his father as "a registered independent with libertarian leanings."

Barry Williams ("Dr. Demento").
The radio show host and collector of unusual recordings is a Libertarian Party supporter.

Virginia Postrel.
A former editor of Reason magazine, she has appeared as a commentator on television shows such as "Politically Incorrect."

Musicians.
Many musicians, particularly in rock'n'roll, are libertarians. Rockabilly musician Mojo Nixon is a Libertarian Party supporter. Rock star and avid sportsman Ted Nugent ("Cat Scratch Fever") endorsed a Libertarian Party candidate for U.S. Senate. Blues Traveller singer John Popper describes himself as libertarian. Rush drummer Neil Peart promotes Objectivist philosophy in the band's lyrics.

Nobel Prize winners

Quite a few recipients of the Nobel Prize have been libertarians, including economist Milton Friedman.

Science fiction writers.
Many science fiction authors are libertarian, including L. Neil Smith, J. Neil Schulman, Victor Koman, James Hogan, the late Robert Heinlein and many others.

Kinda Sorta Maybes

In addition to self-described libertarians, there are many famous personalities who have expressed sympathy with libertarian ideas or expressed those ideas themselves.

William F. Buckley.
Although the writer is usually considered a conservative, he wrote a book titled, "Happy Days are Here Again: Reflections of a Libertarian Journalist," and has advocated drug legalization.

John Carpenter.
A television station called the Escape from L.A. director a libertarian.

Hugh Downs.
Downs' commentary in the "Perspective" nationwide radio program has included opposition to the drug war and Internet censorship, as well as a call to have Harry Browne in the 1996 presidential debates. "Some Americans who have read his book Why Government Doesn't Work are wondering why they ever voted for those other two parties," said Downs, after commenting favorably on the LP's longevity, electoral successes and general beliefs.

Robert Duvall.
The acclaimed actor who has played roles in more than 80 movies, from Lt. Kilgore in "Apocalpyse Now" to Tom Hagen in "The Godfather," was called "fiercely libertarian" by "60 Minutes." However, he is a Republican.

Clint Eastwood.
The famed actor has said he "leans libertarian," and "I like the libertarian view," and he has criticized the government's actions in Waco and Ruby Ridge, but he is a Republican.

David Letterman and Sandra Bernhardt.
In 1988 on Late Night with David Letterman, Letterman asked Berhnardt who she was voting for for president. Bernhardt replied, "That Libertarian guy," and Dave said, "Yeah me too." Letterman has generally been one to mock rather than support government agencies.

Mary Matalin.
The well-known Republican political commentator once said of Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne, "I support Browne in the debates, he has lots of good ideas, I don't agree with them all, and I'm not going to vote for him ... or wait ... maybe I will vote for him!"

Dennis Miller.
The erstwhile Saturday Night Live cast member and political commentator has been described as libertarian.

Camille Paglia.
The controversial feminist author and scholar has called herself a "radical lesbian libertarian".

John Stossel.
The television reporter promotes libertarian ideas wherever he can.
</font color>

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

Fran Crimi
10-15-2006, 09:54 AM
Fats, are you assuming that I don't know what the Guns for Tots was all about? Shame on you for thinking that. Yes, I've done my homework. The bill isn't about children, and you know it. For you, it's about taking away yet another right, and that right being the right to own a toy gun. Using children as pawns in protest is despicible. The Guns for Tots scam is childish, immature and selfish. Hell, with all those famous Libertarians, can't one of them come up with a more intelligent and mature way to protest a bill other than using children as pawns?

Fran

FatsRedux
10-15-2006, 10:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Fats, are you assuming that I don't know what the Guns for Tots was all about? Shame on you for thinking that. Yes, I've done my homework. The bill isn't about children, and you know it. For you, it's about taking away yet another right, and that right being the right to own a toy gun. <font color="blue">Yes but perhaps more correctly it's about parents having the right to decide whether or not they will allow their kids to play with such toys.</font color>

Using children as pawns in protest is despicible. <font color="blue"> Perhaps, but using children as the reason to deprive people of rights is IMO even more despicable. "Oh we're doing this for the children! Someone has to protect the children from those awful toy guns!" And so, because it's "for the children" the sheeple go right ahead and let government strip them of yet another right. </font color> The Guns for Tots scam is childish, immature and selfish. Hell, with all those famous Libertarians, can't one of them come up with a more intelligent and mature way to protest a bill other than using children as pawns?
<font color="blue">The same could be said of the control freaks who wanted to shove this bill down people's throats. After all did they not use the children as pawns to whip up hysteria as a means to usurp parental rights? </font color>

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

Libertarianism: Your Way to Freedom, Abundance, Peace, Justice

http://www.libertarianism.com/what-it-is.htm

Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians strive for the best of all worlds - a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential.

The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life - as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same .

Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others.

Libertarianism is thus the combination of liberty (the freedom to live your life in any peaceful way you choose), responsibility (the prohibition against the use of force against others, except in defense), and tolerance (honoring and respecting the peaceful choices of others).

Live and let live. The Golden Rule. The non-initiation of force.

Libertarians believe that this combination of personal and economic liberty produces abundance, peace, harmony, creativity, order, and safety. Indeed, that is one of the central lessons of world history. Virtually all the progress the human race has enjoyed during the past few centuries is due to the increasing acceptance of these principles. But we are still far from a truly libertarian world. Libertarians believe we would see far more progress, abundance and happiness if the ideas of liberty were fully accepted and allowed to work their miracles.

Our goal as libertarians is to bring liberty to the world, so that these wonderful and proven ideas can be put into action. This will make our world a far better place for all people.

cushioncrawler
10-15-2006, 03:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote FatsRedux:</font><hr> ....Nobel Prize winners... Quite a few recipients of the Nobel Prize have been libertarians, including economist Milton Friedman.... <hr /></blockquote>
Fats -- Yukkk -- i was starting to like the sound of libertarians -- now i will have to find out what "it" meenz. madMac.

Drop1
10-15-2006, 05:57 PM
Fats,I have been taking a poll,and everyone said they believe in Liberty,own their lives. This whole philosophy of Liberty,souds slicker than snot on a door knob,until you put it into the real world. You can't be hungry and free,you can't be uneducated,and own your life,you can't be old and sick,or have aids,or make less than a dollar a day,as half the world does. Libertarian just sounds like a convenient label for aging yuppies,to avoid cleaning up the world they made. I saw Tom Cruise,the famous Scientologist,being displayed. What are some of the causes the Libertaians seek money for?

Fran Crimi
10-15-2006, 06:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
FATS: The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life - as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same .

Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others.
<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Yeah yeah, sure sure. Me me me me me me me me me....it's all about me, as long as I don't do anything to directly harm you. You guys must really love the Good Samaritan Law /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>


[ QUOTE ]
Our goal as libertarians is to bring liberty to the world, so that these wonderful and proven ideas can be put into action. This will make our world a far better place for all people.
<hr /></blockquote>


<font color="blue"> Ain't happening, pal. Human nature won't let it happen. Thank goodness.

We're going to continue to make sacrifices for each other whether you like it or not. The problem with you guys is that you all don't believe in a soul.

Fran </font color>

JPB
10-15-2006, 08:41 PM
<hr /></blockquote>


<font color="blue"> Ain't happening, pal. Human nature won't let it happen. Thank goodness.

We're going to continue to make sacrifices for each other whether you like it or not. The problem with you guys is that you all don't believe in a soul.

Fran </font color> <hr /></blockquote>


Would you force one person to make a sacrifice for another? What is your definition of sacrifice?

cushioncrawler
10-16-2006, 02:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote FatsRedux:</font><hr> This is a link to flash animation about the true meaning of liberty. It is my sincere hope that you watch it and learn what real liberty is all about.
The Philosophy of Liberty (http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html) <hr /></blockquote>
Fats -- Nope -- i stopped watching the animation when i came to the bit about liberty being the freedom to turn nature into something usefull.

But, help me out here -- what duz liberty think about overpopulation -- or the environment -- or the billions of intelligent people who are doomed to follow us (to follow we silly-looking pink-arsed-apes). madMac.

Fran Crimi
10-16-2006, 05:45 AM
What is your definition of 'soul?' Do you believe people have them? You and I have been down this road before. Your selfish Randist model doesn't work.

Fran

Qtec
10-16-2006, 06:06 AM
Does a bear have a soul or is this phenomenon/priviledge restricted to one species, out of all the the animals on Earth?

Q ...

Drop1
10-16-2006, 10:15 AM
Its restricted to bears.

FatsRedux
10-16-2006, 01:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
FATS: The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life - as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same .

Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others.
<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Yeah yeah, sure sure. Me me me me me me me me me....it's all about me, as long as I don't do anything to directly harm you. You guys must really love the Good Samaritan Law /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

<font color="purple">So does this mean that you don't believe that individuals should have the right to choose how to live their lives, that they should not have the right to acquire property and do what they want with it so long as their actions do not cause harm to others?

Do you really believe that people who don't care about others will be magically transformed into caring humanitarians by government imposed laws.

A good person is a good person and a prick is a prick regardless of how many "Good Samaritan" type laws are put in place. That's just the way it is.

Please spare us the "holier than thou" nonsense.

Here is an excerpt from an essay by Dr. Jason Sorens. Jason Sorens received his doctorate in the Yale Political Science Department and is now a lecturer in the department. :

Libertarianism versus Conservatism
by Dr. Jason Sorens

There are two ways to define 'libertarianism': philosophical and political. The philosophical definition refers to a theory of natural rights, which holds that it is necessarily wrong to interfere coercively with voluntary exchange and private acts. (There is another philosophical definition that refers to a belief about freedom of the will, which I do not address here.) The political definition refers to the ideology of small government, free markets, individual liberties, peace, toleration, and decentralization. Political libertarians need not be philosophical libertarians; for example, Milton Friedman is a utilitarian, conceding in principle that big government could be justified if it maximized social welfare, but arguing that in practice, free markets are best.

There are some common misconceptions about both philosophical and political libertarianism. Neither variant requires that respecting others' rights be the sum of morality. Libertarians can, and usually do, maintain that people have obligations to be charitable to each other, although some of these obligations should not be enforced legally. Libertarianism also does not require treating children and adults the same. A libertarian could easily maintain that adults do not enjoy a positive right to provision and do enjoy a right to be left alone, even when they pursue self-destructive behaviors, but that children have both more and fewer rights than adults - more rights to positive provision (shelter, food, education), and fewer rights to be left alone (no right to buy or use drugs, for example). Libertarianism takes no position on abortion; like most Americans, libertarians are split on abortion because they are split on the question of whether and at what point fetuses enjoy rights. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Our goal as libertarians is to bring liberty to the world, so that these wonderful and proven ideas can be put into action. This will make our world a far better place for all people.
<hr /></blockquote>


<font color="blue"> Ain't happening, pal. Human nature won't let it happen. Thank goodness.

We're going to continue to make sacrifices for each other whether you like it or not. The problem with you guys is that you all don't believe in a soul.

Fran </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="purple">Thank goodness for what? For continuance of ineffective global leadership? For repression and war? For the eventual destruction of our world in a nuclear holocaust? For oppresion of women, ethnic minorities? For the continuing existence of slavery in the world? Exactly what should we be thankful for?

As to your denouncement of Libertarians as being unwilling to sacrifice..what proof do you have that libertarians are any less prone to sacrifice when it's called for?

I can't speak for other Libertarians regarding their religious views. There are highly religious Libertarians and there are atheist Libertarians. I'm an agnostic. I'm curious as to what sort of mystical device you have that allows you to peer within people and detect a soul, or lack thereof.

I think you have an incorrect and uninformed view of what libertarianism and libertarians are all about. I'm not looking to convert you. And I will always support your right to your own opinions, but perhaps you'd like to attend one of the monthly Libertarian meetings in Manhattan so that you can see for yourself what we Libertarians are like. At the very least you would gain a greater understanding of our philosophy.

Manhattan LP
New York County

Jim Lesczynski
info@manhattanlp.org

Manhattan Libertarian Party
212-252-3449

Stop in at their monthly meetings from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on the second Monday of the month (recently changed), at the Ukrainian East Village Restaurant, on 140 Second Ave. (between 9th St. and St. Mark's) The first hour is a business meeting, and it will start PROMPTLY. The second hour usually features a guest speaker. Food and drinks are available.

You'll also see many of us on the first Thursday of each month at the Junto lecture series, currently held at the General Society Library, 20 West 44th Street, NYC Between 5th and 6th Avenues, near the Grand Central Terminal.


</font color>

FatsRedux
10-16-2006, 01:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote FatsRedux:</font><hr> This is a link to flash animation about the true meaning of liberty. It is my sincere hope that you watch it and learn what real liberty is all about.
The Philosophy of Liberty (http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html) <hr /></blockquote>
Fats -- Nope -- i stopped watching the animation when i came to the bit about liberty being the freedom to turn nature into something usefull.

But, help me out here -- what duz liberty think about overpopulation -- or the environment -- or the billions of intelligent people who are doomed to follow us (to follow we silly-looking pink-arsed-apes). madMac. <hr /></blockquote>

So am I to assume that you don't wear clothes, that you live outdoors, that you don't eat, that you don't drive a car, or do anything else that may involve using nature to benefit yourself? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

cushioncrawler
10-16-2006, 03:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote FatsRedux:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr> Fats -- Nope -- i stopped watching the animation when i came to the bit about liberty being the freedom to turn nature into something usefull. But, help me out here -- what duz liberty think about overpopulation -- or the environment -- or the billions of intelligent people who are doomed to follow us (to follow we silly-looking pink-arsed-apes). madMac. <hr /></blockquote>
So am I to assume that you don't wear clothes, that you live outdoors, that you don't eat, that you don't drive a car, or do anything else that may involve using nature to benefit yourself?... <hr /></blockquote>
Its difficult to know exactly what Libertarian is all about -- Wikipedia didnt really help me -- lots of simple "feel good" statements dont really tell me much.

For example -- "zero welfare".
Here, friedman (i like this spelling better) would say "yes, whats the good of having an intentional 8% unemployed to keep inflation down when the government actually pays them to be unemployed, pay'em zero, then we might have deflation -- sput, sput, sput".
But, madMac would say -- "zero welfare, yes, if the unemployment rate was zero % then we would have zero welfare -- sput, sput, sput".

Re the nature bit -- anyone who drafts something that stinks like that gets my hackles up -- there is zero chance that they will redeem themselves down the line.

But, Libertarians are missing a great opportunity -- here is my suggestion -- do what the banks did. Con the Nobel committee to create a new category of prize -- eg Liberpolitikenomics -- fully funded (wont cost Nobel one cent) -- now, the real problem would be to find someone who has the gall to wear a tux on stage and accept the fake-prize -- wait, i know, friedman.

Fran Crimi
10-16-2006, 03:19 PM
Well, your post is really really long and dragged out. Sorry, I didn't read much of it, but I got the basic idea. Anyone who disagrees with you is uninformed and ignorant. Don't worry...I don't take it personally. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Are you teaching pool anymore or have you given that up along with your previous ideologies?

Oh, and no offense taken on my end. I don't mind being considered stupid. It makes life interesting.

Cheers!
Fran

FatsRedux
10-16-2006, 10:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Well, your post is really really long and dragged out. Sorry, I didn't read much of it, but I got the basic idea. Anyone who disagrees with you is uninformed and ignorant. Don't worry...I don't take it personally. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

<font color="red">Yeah you're right Fran whatever.. </font color>

Are you teaching pool anymore or have you given that up along with your previous ideologies?

<font color="red">No Fran I have not. It's a labor of love for me. I get people up to a certain level and then I recommend a professional instructor. Are you still teaching? Perhaps I could send some people your way. Then again, I might be doing them a disservice as I would like them to get advanced training from someone who is at least as good at listening as at lecturing.
</font color>

Oh, and no offense taken on my end. I don't mind being considered stupid. It makes life interesting.

<font color="red">Well I guess you're stupid if you say so. I certainly never said or even meant to imply that you are, you chose to take it that way.

In any case I'm a straight up guy and I don't kiss anyone's arse regardless of gender, race, creed, or color, so don't expect me to kiss yours. Fair enough?
</font color>

Cheers!
Fran


<hr /></blockquote>

Cheers,
Fats

Fran Crimi
10-17-2006, 04:48 AM
Nah, I don't need students from you or your half-baked referrals, and I could care less whether you're teaching or not. I just wanted you to know that I remember who you are, just so you don't think you're typing behind a veil of anonymity.

This is my opinion, Fats. I've done my homework and I have a right to my opinion:


The Libertarian party does not consider humaneness or conscientiousness. It does not encourage these attributes. It does not care. It only cares about preserving what the person has decided is 'theirs.' It operates under the guise of following the Constitution, however, it fails in that endeavor---Hence the sarcastic 'Guns for Tots' campaign. If we were robots, the libertarian model might work. We are not robots.

Oh, and Fats, now make sure you break down my post into little bitty pieces so you can respond to each line. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fran

FatsRedux
10-17-2006, 12:06 PM
Gee I really was trying so hard to remain incognito! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

You most certainly do have a right to your opinion(s), and if you had bothered to read my posts you would have noted that I stated as much. Like you, I too have a right to my opinions-it's a two way street.

As far as your (IMO, incorrect) characterization of libertarians as lacking humaneness that is simply your opinion. You cannot offer credible evidence to support that opinion because no such evidence exists.

I see faulty logic at work in your responses, for instance pray tell me, how does self ownership and respect for individual rights amount to a society of robots? I think there is a greater danger of being turned into a bunch of robots by pig headed, statist, fascist, anti civil rights, ultra conservatives, or their polar opposites on the far left.

Will you be getting your chip implanted? Will you march happily in lockstep as you are led into oblivion?

I won't, they'll have to kill me first.

hondo
10-17-2006, 02:32 PM
Wow, what a motley crew! I wouldn't have printed that list!

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote FatsRedux:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Hi Fats,
I'm sure you have the best of intentions and you mean well, but frankly, I think the Guns for Tots scam in NYC launched by the libertarians was disgraceful. Using kids to further one's political agenda---that is the epitome of selfishness and immaturity.
<font color="blue">The issue in the case you cite was toy guns. The city council was getting ready to impose a ban on all toy guns..squirt guns, rubber band guns, laser tag, and the like. The libertarians distributed free toy guns to kids while also distributing information on gun safety for kids.
Here is a link:
http://www.ny.lp.org/guns4tots.htm </font color>

But then again, selfishness is what libertarianism is all about, isn't it? <font color="blue">No, self-ownership is what it's all about. You own yourself no one else does. </font color>

You don't have to do anything for anyone if you don't want to. <font color="blue">Quite right, but then unless you are independently wealthy, you'll starve. </font color>

But yet, you are entitled to certain goods and services. <font color="blue">Wrong again, Fran. I think you have a very incomplete understanding of what Libertarianism is really all about. </font color>

Man, no offense, but I believe I outgrew that attitude when I was 10.

<font color="blue">Good for you Fran.

Here are some people who did not outgrow their childish attitudes: (Excerpted from LP.org)

Famous Libertarians
Famous libertarians include:

Dave Barry.
The syndicated humorist supports the Libertarian Party and advocates libertarian ideas frequently in his weekly humor column and his popular books.

Drew Carey.
The sitcom actor lists himself as a Libertarian.

Dixie Carter.
The sitcom actress calls herself a Libertarian, and has said that drugs and prostitution should be legalized.

Jack Chambless.
The Valencia College economics professor and contributor to Fox News and the Orlando Sentinel is a registered Libertarian.

Penn Jillette.
Half of the magician duo Penn and Teller, Jillette is a Libertarian Party supporter.

Edward Herrman.
Star of the anti-IRS film Harry's War, actor Herrman seeks out libertarian-interest roles, and narrated the audiobook versions of some Ayn Rand novels.

John Larroquette.
The sitcom actor who became famous with "Night Court" is registered to vote as a Libertarian. On an irrelevant personal note, he attended the same high school I did in New Orleans (though many years earlier, and only briefly before being kicked out!).

Denis Leary.
The edgy comic describes himself as a libertarian.

Russell Means.
Founder of the American Indian Movement (AIM) and actor ("Last of the Mohicans" et al.), Means ran for the 1988 Libertarian presidential nomination.

Sean Morely ("Val Venis").
The professional wrestler from Canada is a Libertarian and maintains a political newsletter called "Hardball."

Michael Moriarty.
The award-winning actor and pianist-composer advocates libertarian goals. He condemns the federal government as an emerging police state, citing Waco and Ruby Ridge as examples, and he supports drug legalization. Moriarty is an Emmy, Tony and Golden Globe award winning actor, as well as a classical and jazz pianist with three CDs released.

Howard Stern.
The famous and infamous "shock jock" media personality won the Libertarian Party nomination for governor of New York (before he dropped out of the race). Stern is a strong advocate of free speech and personal freedom.

P. J. O'Rourke.
Although the humorist calls himself a "Republican Party Reptile," it is hard to imagine a Republican advocating drugs and fast cars. O'Rourke has written for National Lampoon, Car and Driver and Rolling Stone magazines and is the author of numerous books.

Kurt Russell.
The star of Escape from New York, Escape from L.A., Big Trouble in Little China and many more is registered to vote as a Libertarian.

Tom Selleck.
The actor best known for his lead in the 1980s TV show "Magnum P.I." has been described by his father as "a registered independent with libertarian leanings."

Barry Williams ("Dr. Demento").
The radio show host and collector of unusual recordings is a Libertarian Party supporter.

Virginia Postrel.
A former editor of Reason magazine, she has appeared as a commentator on television shows such as "Politically Incorrect."

Musicians.
Many musicians, particularly in rock'n'roll, are libertarians. Rockabilly musician Mojo Nixon is a Libertarian Party supporter. Rock star and avid sportsman Ted Nugent ("Cat Scratch Fever") endorsed a Libertarian Party candidate for U.S. Senate. Blues Traveller singer John Popper describes himself as libertarian. Rush drummer Neil Peart promotes Objectivist philosophy in the band's lyrics.

Nobel Prize winners

Quite a few recipients of the Nobel Prize have been libertarians, including economist Milton Friedman.

Science fiction writers.
Many science fiction authors are libertarian, including L. Neil Smith, J. Neil Schulman, Victor Koman, James Hogan, the late Robert Heinlein and many others.

Kinda Sorta Maybes

In addition to self-described libertarians, there are many famous personalities who have expressed sympathy with libertarian ideas or expressed those ideas themselves.

William F. Buckley.
Although the writer is usually considered a conservative, he wrote a book titled, "Happy Days are Here Again: Reflections of a Libertarian Journalist," and has advocated drug legalization.

John Carpenter.
A television station called the Escape from L.A. director a libertarian.

Hugh Downs.
Downs' commentary in the "Perspective" nationwide radio program has included opposition to the drug war and Internet censorship, as well as a call to have Harry Browne in the 1996 presidential debates. "Some Americans who have read his book Why Government Doesn't Work are wondering why they ever voted for those other two parties," said Downs, after commenting favorably on the LP's longevity, electoral successes and general beliefs.

Robert Duvall.
The acclaimed actor who has played roles in more than 80 movies, from Lt. Kilgore in "Apocalpyse Now" to Tom Hagen in "The Godfather," was called "fiercely libertarian" by "60 Minutes." However, he is a Republican.

Clint Eastwood.
The famed actor has said he "leans libertarian," and "I like the libertarian view," and he has criticized the government's actions in Waco and Ruby Ridge, but he is a Republican.

David Letterman and Sandra Bernhardt.
In 1988 on Late Night with David Letterman, Letterman asked Berhnardt who she was voting for for president. Bernhardt replied, "That Libertarian guy," and Dave said, "Yeah me too." Letterman has generally been one to mock rather than support government agencies.

Mary Matalin.
The well-known Republican political commentator once said of Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne, "I support Browne in the debates, he has lots of good ideas, I don't agree with them all, and I'm not going to vote for him ... or wait ... maybe I will vote for him!"

Dennis Miller.
The erstwhile Saturday Night Live cast member and political commentator has been described as libertarian.

Camille Paglia.
The controversial feminist author and scholar has called herself a "radical lesbian libertarian".

John Stossel.
The television reporter promotes libertarian ideas wherever he can.
</font color>

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

<hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer
10-17-2006, 03:21 PM
While the Libertarians pose no immediate threat to the mighty Republican party....some of their stated ideals pose an anathema to the right, and these unpopular goals could even appeal to many Americans:
"Libertarians believe the answer to America's political problems is the same commitment to freedom that earned America its greatness: a free-market economy and the abundance and prosperity it brings; a dedication to civil liberties and personal freedom that marks this country above all others; and a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade as prescribed by America's founders."
Heresy to the troika rule that the right is leading us to.
Geez...they even want us out of Iraq !!

FatsRedux
10-17-2006, 03:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> While the Libertarians pose no immediate threat to the mighty Republican party....some of their stated ideals pose an anathema to the right, and these unpopular goals could even appeal to many Americans:
"Libertarians believe the answer to America's political problems is the same commitment to freedom that earned America its greatness: a free-market economy and the abundance and prosperity it brings; a dedication to civil liberties and personal freedom that marks this country above all others; and a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade as prescribed by America's founders."
Heresy to the troika rule that the right is leading us to.
Geez...they even want us out of Iraq !! <hr /></blockquote>

Thanks for noticing a few good things about Libertarians. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Here is a link to the LP's Iraq exit strategy paper:
Iraq Exit Strategy -- America's Path Forward (http://www.lp.org/exitplan.pdf)

Here is the Libertarian FAQ:
Libertarian FAQ (http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/libertarianism.html)

cushioncrawler
10-17-2006, 06:35 PM
Quote from www.huppi.com (http://www.huppi.com) re Friedman &amp; Co......

"The history and award process of the Nobel prize

The Nobel prize for economics is not one of the five original prizes that Alfred Nobel created in his 1895 will. The economics prize was added in 1969, but not by any of the Nobel prize-awarding institutions (such as the Swedish Academy, the Norwegian parliament, etc.). It was actually created by the Bank of Sweden. For this reason, it is not really the "Nobel Prize for Economics." It's real name is "The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel." The prize money does not come out of the Nobel inheritance, but is paid for by the Bank of Sweden.

The creation of a Nobel prize in economics has raised many criticisms. Some protest that the Bank of Sweden has no legal or moral right to use Nobel's name. Others argue that a radical idealist like Alfred Nobel would have never approved of an award defending capitalist economics. Others claim that the award was created to legitimize capitalism at a time of great social protest against it. These are, to be sure, superficial criticisms, but there are more substantial ones that can be leveled at the Nobel newcomer.

Perhaps the most troubling is that the selection process for economics does not resemble the other five. Although the economics committee boasts that it uses the same procedures, a closer look reveals this to be untrue. In the other five categories, the process starts by gathering nominations from as many as 3,000 scientists, which are then assessed by 15-member prize committees. The committees must then argue their own selections before a Nobel Assembly of 50 scientists before reaching a final decision. Usually the discussion of a prize lasts from 5 to 10 years before the prize is awarded.

There is a potentially weak link in this process: the 15-member prize committee. It is free to select any nominations it wishes -- and with thousands of scientists making the nominations, it basically has its choice. And the committee is more expert in its scientific category than the Nobel Assembly, so whatever case it makes is bound to be persuasive. At any rate, the Nobel Assembly has generally rubber-stamped the committee's recommendations.

Where the economics committee differs from the others is that it does not seat 15 members, but only six -- nearly two-thirds smaller. This greatly increases the possibility of bias. How much so becomes apparent in Assar Lindbeck's own description of his committee's selection process:
"So far, the proposals of the prize committee to the [Swedish] Academy have been unanimous. A consensus has in fact developed quite 'automatically' within the committee, as if by some kind of invisible hand." (6)
This is an astonishing admission, for two reasons. First, the "invisible hand" is one of the most famous and sacred economic concepts of the far right, and to say that an invisible hand guides the committee's consensus is an open taunt to the left. Second, there is probably no field of science as wracked by controversy as economics. For the committee to advance unanimous recommendations year after year is possible only if a perfect bias exists in the committee. And even then, were six libertarians to sit on the committee, it is still implausible that their proposals should be unanimous -- even libertarians have bitter disputes. What is more likely is that the "invisible hand" guiding the committee is the iron hand of Lindbeck himself.

Why would committee members defer to Lindbeck? Because Lindbeck's positions create a conflict of interest. Lindbeck serves in two powerful positions: both as head of the Nobel committee and the prestigious Institute for International Economic Studies. If you are a Swedish economist and are serving either on the Nobel committee or in the Nobel Assembly, you must kowtow to Lindbeck if you want your research funded or your career advanced.

Circumstantial evidence? You bet. But the chain of implausibilities required to believe that the committee is acting without bias is too long to be seriously believed. And at any rate, even if it were, the Bank of Sweden needs to initiate immediate reforms to correct a very strong appearance of bias."

I notice that "libertarians" get a mention here -- not sure, but i think it iz meant to be a derogatory mention. madMac.

cushioncrawler
10-17-2006, 06:57 PM
Some more stuff -- I wonder, do u have to be rich to be a libertarian, or do u become rich ?? madMac.

"The argument for laissez-faire capitalism is built on a contradictory view of liberty. Right-wing libertarians understand that state control of all economic activity is tyrannical: that the power to determine if and how people make a living is the power to enforce conformity. But they don't see that the huge transnational corporations that own and control most of the world's wealth exercise a parallel tyranny: not only do these behemoths unilaterally determine qualifications, wages, hours, and working conditions for millions of workers, who (if they're lucky) may "choose" from a highly restricted menu of jobs or "choose" to stop eating; they make production, investment and lending decisions that profoundly affect the economic, social, and political landscape of communities and indeed entire countries -- decisions in which the great majority of people affected have little or no voice. Murray defines economic freedom as "the right to engage in voluntary and informed exchanges of goods and services without restriction." Fine -- but if an economic transaction is to be truly voluntary and informed, all parties must have equal power to accept, reject, or influence its terms, as well as equal access to information. Can anyone claim that corporate employers and employees have equal power to negotiate their exchange? Or that consumers have full access to information about the products they buy? And if we're really interested in freedom, the right to voluntary and informed engagement in economic transactions has to be extended beyond their principals to others affected -- whether by plants that reduce air quality or rent increases that chase out shoe repair shops in favor of coffee bars. The inconsistency of the belief that economic domination by the state destroys freedom, while economic domination by capital somehow enhances it, is often rationalized by attributing the self-interested decisions of the corporate elite to objective, immutable principles like "the invisible hand" or "supply and demand" -- just as state tyranny has claimed to embody the laws of God or History. But the real animating principle of a free society is democracy -- which should include a democratic economy based on enterprises owned and controlled by their workers."
-- Ellen Willis

FatsRedux
10-17-2006, 08:59 PM
Wow you're really hung up on Friedman aren't you?

There are many strains of libertarianism. Political, Philosophical, Free Will.

The very term Libertarian was coined by Austrian School economist Murray Rothbard. Rothbard was influenced by the teachings of Von Mises and the other Austrian School economists. Friedman is a member of the Chicago School. Both schools have influenced the development of modern libertarianism. Some other influences include classical liberalism, and Ayn Rand's objectivism.

Libertarians do not all think, talk, walk, and act the same, and neither for that matter do Republicans or Democrats.

FatsRedux
10-17-2006, 09:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr> Some more stuff -- I wonder, do u have to be rich to be a libertarian, or do u become rich ?? madMac.

&lt;snip&gt;

The inconsistency of the belief that economic domination by the state destroys freedom, while economic domination by capital somehow enhances it, is often rationalized by attributing the self-interested decisions of the corporate elite to objective, immutable principles like "the invisible hand" or "supply and demand" -- just as state tyranny has claimed to embody the laws of God or History. But the real animating principle of a free society is democracy -- which should include a democratic economy based on enterprises owned and controlled by their workers."
-- Ellen Willis
<hr /></blockquote>

Nah, you don't have to be rich. You just can't be a socialist (read: Communist) like Ms. Willis. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

cushioncrawler
10-17-2006, 10:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote FatsRedux:</font><hr>..Nah, you don't have to be rich. You just can't be a socialist (read: Communist) like Ms. Willis.... <hr /></blockquote>
Hmmm -- to tell the truth i like communism, but it only exists in theory (Marx would see the USA as proof of his theory anyhow i reckon) -- and, a little, democracy, but it too only exists in theory -- socialism ??, well of course -- fascism has potential -- what i really really like is Royalty (but i think that the queen stinks) -- look, Fats, i hope i wasnt out of line with those little quips about libertarianism (but i dont want to sit at the same table as friedman&amp;Co). madMac.

Gayle in MD
10-18-2006, 07:42 AM
Hey, Fats, you never answered my question. Do you think the Corporations should have to abide by any environmental laws?

Thanks,
Gayle

FatsRedux
10-18-2006, 07:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Hey, Fats, you never answered my question. Do you think the Corporations should have to abide by any environmental laws?

Thanks,
Gayle <hr /></blockquote>

From the Libertarian FAQ :

What would libertarians do about concentrations of corporate power?

First of all, stop creating them as our government does with military contractors and government-subsidized industries. Second, create a more fluid economic environment in which they'd break up. This happens naturally in a free market; even in ours, with taxes and regulatory policies that encourage gigantism, it's quite rare for a company to stay in the biggest 500 for longer than twenty years. We'd abolish the limited-liability shield laws to make corporate officers and stockholders fully responsible for a corporation's actions. We'd make it impossible for corporations to grow fat on "sweetheart deals" paid for with taxpayers' money; we'd lower the cost of capital (by cutting taxes) and regulatory compliance (by repealing regulations that presume guilt until you prove your innocence), encouraging entrepreneurship and letting economic conditions (rather than government favoritism) determine the optimum size of the business unit.

BTW - I also posted a link to the LP Iraq exit strategy. Did you read it?

Fats

JPB
10-18-2006, 08:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote FatsRedux:</font><hr>..Nah, you don't have to be rich. You just can't be a socialist (read: Communist) like Ms. Willis.... <hr /></blockquote>
Hmmm -- to tell the truth i like communism, but it only exists in theory (Marx would see the USA as proof of his theory anyhow i reckon) -- and, a little, democracy, but it too only exists in theory -- socialism ??, well of course -- fascism has potential -- what i really really like is Royalty (but i think that the queen stinks) -- look, Fats, i hope i wasnt out of line with those little quips about libertarianism (but i dont want to sit at the same table as friedman&amp;Co). madMac. <hr /></blockquote>

No, communism exists and has existed. There are plenty of examples of how it works and waht it does. It is a cop out for the commies to say at every failure"but it wasn't real communism." It was and it is evil. It fails, but before failing millions of people are killed or hurt. Stalin was the essence of communism, not some aberration. The camps in Cambodia embodied communism. There is nothing redeeming or cute or worthwhile about communism. Don't be faked out by some seemingly reasonable guy with his beard and beret who appears to understand things. I don't care if it looks nice that he can quote Marx and Hegel in German. It is all crap.

Gayle in MD
10-18-2006, 08:38 AM
Thanks, but doesn't this

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> we'd lower the cost of capital (by cutting taxes) and regulatory compliance (by repealing regulations [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

mean no accountability for the environment, and/or the poisoning of our natural resources, and all the cancer causing chemicals, from Corporate polution? The killing of rain forests, etc.?


I read your link. It sounds good, but I don't know if there is any way to erase the thirst for revenge, and the grudges between the Sunni and Shiitte, which have worsaened since your article was written, I think, but assumming that that part could be worked out, don't you think the plans that Bush/Cheney and American Oil have made in secret would prohibit leaving the oil to the Iraqis, without American presence? I, for one, do not thing Bush went to Iraq because of suspected WMD's, he went to get his hands, and his oil friend's hands into that black gold. JMO...

Gayle in Md.

cushioncrawler
10-18-2006, 02:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote JPB:</font><hr> ...No, communism exists and has existed. There are plenty of examples of how it works and waht it does. It is a cop out for the commies to say at every failure"but it wasn't real communism." It was and it is evil. It fails, but before failing millions of people are killed or hurt. Stalin was the essence of communism, not some aberration. The camps in Cambodia embodied communism. There is nothing redeeming or cute or worthwhile about communism. Don't be faked out by some seemingly reasonable guy with his beard and beret who appears to understand things. I don't care if it looks nice that he can quote Marx and Hegel in German. It is all crap... <hr /></blockquote>
The communist native tribes all around the world went quite well (40,000 years in Ozz), with little inflation or unemployment or environmental problems -- untill the PAA arrived (pinkarsedapes).

I reckon that if Marx were to vizit USA today, he would feel that it was a goodish form of communism (thats what i meant earlyr).

I reckon that everything is democratic, communism, even Royalty (they had an election early on) -- the thing is that nowadays nothing works properly unless there are checks and balances, the most important of which is freedom of speech, and seperation of powers (gov, army, police, justice).

It would be nice to be able to take a broken-down country (iraq??), and organise it, and draft a perfect democratic constitution, from scratch, and at the same time proov that the western style democracy is best. This is in fact a description of events in Germany leading up to Hitler.

Things are glum -- there is only one country in the world doing anything decent about the world's No1 problem -- overpopulation -- and that is China -- so i guess that their system is best -- things are glum. madMac.

Drop1
10-18-2006, 05:56 PM
So its safe to say,what you do under pressure is what you are,and the rest of the time is for talking about what you think you are. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

DickLeonard
10-19-2006, 06:11 AM
Fats I read your posts and I know your living in La La Land just like I am. There is no way to break the cycle of the rich donating the money to get the crooks elected. As long as they control the Congress and the Presidentcy. No laws will be passed that will allow a deviation from what we have now.

As I have posted before the Constitution now reads We the Corporations in Order.

You can see it in the Corporations driving down their stock prices, then buying out their stock back and taking them private to avoid the laws that were put in place after the stock market crash in 1929.

I think we are witnessing the end of the United States as a World Power. It has happened to all of the World Powers and it will happen to ours, only sooner than we thought.####

Qtec
10-19-2006, 06:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
It would be nice to be able to take a broken-down country (iraq??), and organise it, and draft a perfect democratic constitution, from scratch, and at the same time proove that the western style democracy is best.
<hr /></blockquote>

Yes it would but look whats happened. The first thing the US-ie GW and Co does- is approve Chalabi to be Minister of Oil. This guy is the biggest crook in Iraq and fed the US false info to encourage an attack on Iraq. He is a traitor to the American people!

Wiki,
[ QUOTE ]
Ahmed Abdel Hadi Chalabi,1 (Arabic: &amp;#1575;&amp;#1581;&amp;#1605;&amp;#1583; &amp;#1575;&amp;#1604;&amp;#1580;&amp;#1604;&amp;#1576;&amp;#1610;) (born October 30, 1944) was interim oil minister in Iraq[1] in April-May 2005 and December-January 2006 and deputy prime minister from May 2005 until May 2006. Chalabi failed to win a single seat in parliament in the December 2005 elections, and when the new Iraqi cabinet was announced in May 2006, he was not awarded a post. Once dubbed the "George Washington of Iraq" by American Neoconservatives, he has fallen out of favor and is currently under investigation by several U.S. government sources. He is also wanted for massive bank fraud in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. <font color="blue"> This was well known at the time! </font color>

Chalabi was also part of a three-man executive council for the umbrella Iraqi opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress (INC), created in 1992 for the purpose of fomenting the overthrow of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. Although the INC received major funding and assistance from the United States, it never had any influence or any following to speak of in Iraq after the 2003 invasion. The INC's influence gradually waned until the December 2005 elections, in which it failed to win a single seat in Parliament.

Chalabi is a controversial figure for many reasons. In the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, under his guidance the INC provided a major portion of the information on which U.S. Intelligence based its condemnation of Saddam Hussein, including reports of weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to al-Qaeda. Much of this information has turned out to be false. That, combined with the fact that Chalabi subsequently gloated about the impact that their falsifications had in an interview with the British Sunday Telegraph, led to a falling out between him and the United States.

Initially, Chalabi enjoyed cozy political and business relationships with some members of the U.S. government, including some prominent neoconservatives within the Pentagon. Chalabi is said to have had political contacts within the Project for the New American Century, most notably with Paul Wolfowitz, a student of nuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter and Richard Perle who was introduced to Chalabi by Wohlstetter in 1985. He also enjoyed considerable support among politicians and political pundits in the United States, most notably Jim Hoagland of The Washington Post, who held him up as a notable force for democracy in Iraq. Chalabi's opponents, on the other hand see him as a charlatan of questionable allegiance, out of touch with Iraq and with no effective power base there.<hr /></blockquote>

GW claims now that its a good thing S is gone and the Iraqis have Democracy!
The US goes into Iraq to 'free' the Iraqis- and in the process doubles the US national debt and sacrifices young American lives - only to replace a corrupt Govt with another corrupt Govt!!!!?
Chalbi would be in jail if he didn't have the goods on the Rep PAC guys about how they conned the US into supporting an unneccessary war.

Q

Gayle in MD
10-20-2006, 07:04 AM
Tap Tap Tap...

Q, I don't know if you have read up on the fake intelligence used by this administration, to frighten this country into the war, but the Break in at the Niger Embassy in England, shortly before Bush began his campaign for the presidency, the phoney documents regarding Niger-Yellow cake and Saddam, were linked to friends of the Bush neocons, and there had been a break in at the Niger Embassy, and the suspected culprits were a shady group in Italy, with links to Michael Ledeen, who hi8mself, ended up in an 11th floor office at the American Enterprise Institute, in Washington. Home to Irving Kristol, Lynne Cheney, Richard Perle, and countless other stars in the Neocon firmament, the A.E.I. is one of the most powerful think tanks in the country. It has sent more than two dozen of its alumni to the Bush Administration.



The trail of the phoney Niger documents, which Bush used in his speech, leads right back to the White House, Ledeen, and the American Enterprise Institute.

This war was predetermined before Bush got into office, and the neocons created false intel, and insisted on using it, even after they were told over and over that they were using intel which was considered by most in the intelligence community, to be laughable.


From Vanity Fair Magazine, and all of this, BTW, re-confirmed in Michael Isakoff and David Corn's book, Hubris, among other books.

"A week after Bush's speech, on February 4, the Bush Administration finally forwarded electronic copies of the Niger documents to the I.A.E.A. Astonishingly, a note was attached to the documents which said, "We cannot confirm these reports and have questions regarding some specific claims."

On March 7, the I.A.E.A. publicly exposed the Niger documents as forgeries. Not long afterward, Cheney was asked about it on Meet the Press. He said that the I.A.E.A. was wrong, that it had "consistantly underestimated or missed what it was Saddam was doing." He added, "We know Saddam has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, re-constituted nuclear weapons."

On March 14, Senator Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote a letter to F.B.I. Chief Robert Mueller asking for an investigation becuase "the fabrication of these documents may be part of a largber deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq."

But Senator Pat Roberts, of Kansas, the Republican chair of the committee, declined to co-sign the letter.

Then on March 19, 2003, the war in Iraq began.

On July, 2003, faced with public pressure to investigate the forgeries, Roberts issued a statement blaming the C,I,A, and defending the White House. "So far, I am very disturbed by what appears to be extremely sloppy handling of the issue from the outset by the C.I.A.," he said.

Under Roberts's aegis, the Senate Intelligence Committee investigated the Niger affair, and came to some extraordinary conclusions. "At the time the President delivered the State of the Union Address, no one in the intelligence community had asked anyone in the White House to remove the sentence from the speech," read the report. It added that "CIA Iraq nuclear analysts....told Committee staff that at the time of the State of the Union, they still believed that Iraq was probably seeking uraniium from Africa."

In November 2005, Rockefeller and Democratic senator Harry Reid staged a dramatic shutdown of the Senate and challenged Roberts to get to the bottom of the forgeries. "The fact is that at tny time the Senate Intelligence Committee pursued a line of questioning that brought us closer to the White House, our efforts were thwarted," Rockefeller said.

So far, the Republican-controlled Senate committee has failed to produce a more extensive report."

The group in Italy, which broke into the Niger Embassy, afterwhich BTW, nothing was missing but except their official stationary, and their official postal stamp, were known for creating and selling false intelligence to various Governments. They are linked to Ledeem, and to the White House.

I'm sure you remember the week when Cheney, Rice, Bush, Rumsfeld, were all making the rounds yapping about the Mushroom Cloud. Now they're out there, still, using fear as their banner for maintaining control, after implementing the most disasterous foriegn policy decision in the history of our country...and getting an F in American Protective Measures for thwarting another attack.

The British Newspaper was right...

"How can Forty Million People Be So Dumb?"

Gayle in Md.

FatsRedux
10-20-2006, 07:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> So its safe to say,what you do under pressure is what you are,and the rest of the time is for talking about what you think you are. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Please explain what the heck you're talking about.

FWIW, what you do under pressure (how you react to pressure) does in fact speak volumes about who you really are. It's all good and well to pay lip service to things such as principles and steadfastness and quite another to stick by them when push comes to shove.

Fats

FatsRedux
10-20-2006, 07:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Hey, Fats, you never answered my question. Do you think the Corporations should have to abide by any environmental laws?

Thanks,
Gayle <hr /></blockquote>

If corporations engage in any type of activity which deprives others of their rights then they should be prosecuted vigorously.

Fats

Gayle in MD
10-20-2006, 07:53 AM
I agree, but doesn't sound like their (Libertarians) philosophy. As in the quote I provided, in my former post, from your link. I'm just asking, because that was the only part that I didn't agree with in the basic philosophy.

When I first began to post on Political issues here, I said, that I was basically Libertarian, however, I do think the government has a responsibility to legislate in accordance with principles which address the common good. None of Bush's policies have been for the commom good, IMO.

As we live in a world in which actions, even on the other side of the world, have an affect on the air, we breath, the water we drink, the survival of our natural resources, and yes, even the survival of our planet, I see that the Corporate Powers, which buy our representatives, through lobbying, and bribes, have had a field day with this president, but, all our representatives are on the take, and the system lays the groundwork for such corruption, and irresponsibility, IMO.

The question remains, how the earth, and the people who inhabit it, can survive corporate/political/religious greed and corruption, ie, Corporate Fascist Pigs. They do not care if their Chemicals kill others, or if their policies ruin the retirement plans of their employees, or if they support candidates who are bad for the common good, but good for their bottom line.

The Love Of Money Is The Root Of All Evil...not money, the love of money.

People, must come before money, if the planet is to survive.

How do we acheive this? We know that our Representatives will not police their own greed. Our only hope, as I see it, is revolution, which changes our system, does away with a system which invites corruption, and goes to publicly financed campaigns and elections. But, that does not remove the possibility for bribery, does it? However, it does improve chances for less of it, and coupled with limited terms, both would atleast improve the situation.

BTW, Have you seen the documentary, "The Corporation"?



Gayle in Md.

JPB
10-20-2006, 09:01 AM
"When I first began to post on Political issues here, I said, that I was basically Libertarian, however, I do think the government has a responsibility to legislate in accordance with principles which address the common good. None of Bush's policies have been for the commom good, IMO."

Your philosophy cannot be considered libertarian if you really think in terms of the "common good." A libertarian with an essentially objectivist philosophy favors minimal government, but would supporrt regulation that prevents harm to others. For instance, it is OK to have rules against spewing mercury into the air. Why? Because it hurts INDIVIDUALS. An INDIVIDUAL has the right not to be assaulted with mercury. The government can ban that, but could not properly subsidize cleaner energy or prevent a merger between two companies. Why? Because a subsidy steals from one person by force to help somebody else and a corporate merger doesn't hurt anybody, contrary to what the collectivists say.

Public finance of campaigns is wrong. I don't want my money stolen for that. And every year there is a vote on it via the income tax return. People can send in a couple of bucks. They don't. In overwhelming numbers. There is only one way to stop corruption. ANd it is simple, but not at all easy. As long as the government has powers it oght not have, as long as the government can take from one person by force and give it to another person for some asserted reason, there will be corruption. Why? Because it is inevitable that people will hire lobbyists, pay bribes, whatever, to assure they are on the better end of the bargain. If the government only stuck to reasonable laws and regulations there would be less corruption. I suppose some company might try to lobby to be allowed to spew mercury into the water, but that happens now and things would be a lot more clear.

Gayle in MD
10-20-2006, 09:58 AM
Interesting post. I agree with much of what you have written. And, you are correct, that my own beliefs, do not coinside completely with any particular Party. I will say though, that subsidising the Oil Corporations, as Bu$h has done, is also stealing from some taxpayers, to give to someone else. That money could have paid for implementing all the security measures recommended by the 9/11 commission's panel, straightened out Social Security, and a number of other worthwhile policies that were for the common good, such as interest on college loans, raised by the Bush Administration, for the benefit of the rich. The Money is going to the rich, not for the common good.

If Government is going to collect taxes from everyone, the money collected should be for the benefit of everyone. When one sees a huge amount of the money taken in, landing in the hands of a very few, what does that indicate?

Many from the right, IMO, will rant over government which factors benefits fro the disadvantaged among us, but yet, they show no disapproval over the Government taking money from the Middle Class, to give it to the rich. Isn't that exactly what Bush did with the oil subsidies? Isn't that exactly what he did when he refused to allow Americans to buy their drugs from Canada? Oil, and pharmeceuticals, contributed huge amounts to his campaigns. The cost of our drug prescriptions had doubled! The veterans Administration, which is allowed to shop price, pays half what we pay for their pharmeceuticals. What about the no bid contracts. Isn't that also a form of scooping up excess tax payers dollars, and sending them into the hands of a very few? Money which could have been used for the common good, was squandered through the corruption of Halliburton, and others, and continues so this day. No accountability has been demanded from the Republican Congress, for missing money, and wasted money. Those dollars were contributed by all of us.

Estimates are that 80 billion dollars a YEAR, of Corporate profits, are hidden in Carribbean bank accounts. Money that is earned by American Corporations, for which they pay no taxes. Illegals, send most of their money, back home, to their relatives, but the cheap labor the Corporations enjoy, are the higher goal of this government, so the result is that not only have the wages of the lower and middle class dropped, but Corporate earnings have simultaneously, gone through the roof. Partly due to cheap labor, and partly due to Government subsidies.

Small businesses represent 80% of our business, and big Corporations, represent 20%. Which, though, is suffering? Which is scooping up the huge profits? which is filing for bankruptsy at the greatest rate?

People who suffer exhorbitant medical expenses, can no long protect themselves from losing their home, thanks to George Bush. Credit Card Companies, were more needy, than those struggling with Cancer?

Just a few thoughts...

Gayle in Md.

JPB
10-20-2006, 11:31 AM
Gayle, I agree that GWB has made a lot of mistakes, and I don't think he is conservative. I don't think he has a clear political philosophy. Nor do most people on both the right and left. So I agree that the right is often guilty of inconsistency. I am not a statist. Many people on the right are. All people on the left are. Most people have an inconsistent approach that is issue driven more than thought out.

Gayle in MD
10-20-2006, 12:43 PM
Well, as definitions have been so bastardized by this administration, what's your definition of a statist? LOL, I find, these days, given the massive right wing atack on the definitions of the Dictionary, lol, I have to ask people their definitions, unfortunately!

Gayle in Md... /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif