Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive 01	50		2006/09/07, 04:39 am
	Archive 02	50		2006/09/15, 04:57 pm
	Archive 03	50		2006/09/21, 12:29 am
	Archive 04	50		2006/09/21, 12:29 am
	Archive 05	50		2008/09/13, 07:23 pm
	Archive 06	50		2008/09/13, 07:23 pm
	Archive 07	50		2008/09/13, 07:23 pm

I really think Cat nailed it. When McCain starts to get into the campaign, he is going to have to kiss ass with some pro-theocracy types and it will get ugly. He will no longer seem endearing to many fence-sitters.

It will be even more strange to watch Guiliani try to woo the same God vs. country types. That Ralph Reed thing was just weird.

While McCain is arguably the favorite to win in 2008, I have to think Guiliani has no chance. At no time in the near future will the Republican Party nominate a Pro-Choice candidate for President.

"This isnt a knock on the D's, but would JFK recognize his party? I'll bet if you went back and looked at what a true D represented 40 years ago, that most people would identify with it. AZ"

You could say exactly the same thing about the Republican party. I remember when they stood for many things that apparently don't matter to them anymore either. How many of the current crop have even heard the name "Goldwater"?

I think that McCain should ignore the Religious Right. First, they will also vote for McCain over any democratic candidate. Secondly, McCain might try and restore some balance in the Republican party. Our nation is not served very well by a Religious Right agenda rammed down our throats. As for abortion, even Bush could not overturn the judicial branch of Roe vs Wade. Hopefully, abortion will be a meaningless issue in the upcoming elections. It doesn't matter who you vote for, no one is overturning Roe vs Wade.

Mitt Romney is going to be the next President

As to Roe v. Wade I wouldn't be so sure it is not going to be overturned. Presently, it appears they are one short of doing so. Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, and Kennedy would likely vote to re-affirm Roe v. Wade whereas Thomas, Roberts, Alito (sp?) and Scalia would likely vote to overturn (if someone knows about a recent decision that suggests otherwise, I would like to know about it).

Sometime ago I posted on this board I thought with Bush's new appointments that was it, but I forgot that Kennedy had voted in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey to re-affirm Roe v. Wade, although the opinion he joined was not overwhelming in its support for Roe v. Wade. Thomas and Scalia voted to overturn Roe v. Wade; Stevens and Souter voted to re-affirm, and the rest of the votes were from justices no longer on the court. In any event, the final vote was 5-4 in favor of re-affirming, not exactly overwhelming.

Give Bush or another conservative one more appointment, particularly if Congress remains Republican, and the likelihood is Roe v. Wade would be history.

After 8 years of Bush its doubtful the Republicans will win in 08, but regardless, it won't be with a Mormon at the top of the ticket.

LAguy, was that a zonie shot? AZ

Murasaki, I had actually typed the line about R's and deleted it. You have a point, but it just doesnt seem that different. Maybe its just me, I dont feel as though I am as much an R as I used to be years ago. I am somewhere in the middle. BTW I dont see McCain kissing anyones ass. Could be wrong. AZ

McCain will never win the nomination.

I'll never vote for him just because of his antics during the Senate's immigration bill in June. On the issue of whether or not people that were in this country illegally for years should get credit for SS benefits during those years, he argued for it using the inflamatory statement, "what's next, are we going to make them ride in the back of the bus".

I second my home state Govenor, Mitt Romney.

AZguy: It was just a comment on the fact you were at an event attended by McCain and this was consistent with your handle (since McCain is from Arizona too). Sorry my obscure comment was subject to mis-interpretation.

LA, being from Arizona, I can be a little slow sometimes. (and a little quick on the keyboard) Sorry about that. AZ

So, after 4 archives I guess we finally beat the hell out of this subject. What were we talking about anyway? Just kidding. AZ

If it didn't already have it's own thread, we could rant about Foley.

BT and MitchC,

It's too late; McCain has already started sucking up to the religious right. After years of (quite fairly, I think) taking shots at Jerry Fallwell, McCain was the commencement speaker at Liberty University (Fallwell's religious right training facility) in June. The other speaker for the ceremonies was Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition and failed candidate for Secretary of State in GA. Both parties are soooo beholden to extreme constituencies it sickens me to think about the looming election.

And BTW $1=49.90000 PHP
Source http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi

Latest Headline: "Frist: Taliban should be in Afghan gov't"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061002/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan_frist_1

Is this what we have been fighting for? What are we going to hear next? Perhaps a suggestion of a presidential election in Iraq pitting Bin Laden against Saddam Hussein?

I truly believe that the religious right is ruining the country, the republican party, and religion as a whole. Religion should embrace gays and women that have had abortions. They are giving churches and religion a bad name by coming off like a bunch of judgemental jerks. I believe that the republican party would pick up as many votes as they would lose if they just threw these jokers out of their platforms, and leave these issues to the churches. I really wish there was a candidate that would stand up to them.

I am getting way off subject here, but I have to rant a bit about the gambling situation. WHAT THE FUCK! How is it that the gov has any business telling anyone they cant play online poker? Looks like that is going away. I dont get it. The lottery is ok, oh, but wait, they get that money so its ok to have a lottery. Oh, but wait, they are "protecting" us. Right, like I have a chance to hit the lottery. If they could figure a way to get a cut of the profits, which I think they did try and couldn't do it, if they could, it would be fine. I consider myself an R, but other R's are testing my fucking loyalty. Why cant they stay out of my fucking business? If you think about it, they just cant keep their noses out of our business. If the D's would get their hand out of my pocket, it would not be that far of a stretch for me to be a D. I cant believe I just said that. And dont even get me started on prostitution, drugs, our prison system, immigration and all the other ways they stick their nose in our business. I am fucking pissed now. I gotta go. AZ

For the same reason they think you should not be able to see a pussy uncoovered by a black box on this site. It's against THEIR morals , and their morals should be everyones.

If they don't want to gamble they should not visit those sites. Don't tell me what I can or cannot do . If I go to Las Vegas it's perfectly legal but not in my own home ?? Perverse logic. The I-net sites have even offered to pay US taxes on their income to be allowed to do business in the US. I guess too many congressmen have been bought off by the Vegas lobby.

I am a capitalist, and therefore I think the government should only get involved in very extreme situations between buyer and seller. Someone hires a hitman, etc. But aside from that, the government should get out of the way and reallocate wealth through taxation where appropriate.

Making acts between buyer and seller illegal has no impact other than to create grey markets, drive prices up and quality down. It also creates undue strain on our law enforcement agencies. How much a better job would they be able to do if they didn't have to worry about drug dealers, gamblers and prostitutes? Plus think how much more tax money would come in if these were all legitimate citizens within the bounds of the law.

Khur, I forgot about the black boxes, now I am even more pissed. Just think if people could clear their minds and not spend all that time sticking their nose in other peoples business how great their life could be. You know that has got to weigh them down. There isnt anyone that is more patriotic than I am, but I have to say sometimes it makes me want to get the fuck out of here. AZ

---

quote:

AZ Said
There isnt anyone that is more patriotic than I am, but I have to say sometimes it makes me want to get the fuck out of here.

---

>I consider myself an R, but other R's are testing my fucking loyalty. Why cant they stay
>out of my fucking business?
> <snip>
>And dont even get me started on prostitution, drugs, our prison system, immigration and all
>the other ways they stick their nose in our business. I am fucking pissed now.

Welcome to the Libertarian Party.

“That government is best which governs least” - Henry David Thoreau (1817–62)

I agree with Kuhn on the Vegas lobby influence. Not so much that to get more people to Las Vegas, but because of them underestimating the internet gambling craze. I feel Vegas just wants to clean out the offshores and put themselves in place. Vegas came in way too late on this stuff, so to get a competitive advantage they are bringing in the congress to do their bidding.

PHX, you may be right, I may be a Libertarian. AZ

And what has the Libertarian party done recently that has been effective in solving any of our problems?

Libertarians have never had to govern, which is why it's so easy for some to proclaim their virtues. Many free-market types think they might be libertarians, but libertarianism is a very narrow political philosophy. Being a capitalist is not the same as being a libertarian. If you believe at all in Locke's idea of the "social contract," you are probably not a libertarian.

Maybe I'll start my own party then. The first item on my platform will be free pussy whenever I want it. Look, I am already getting something for nothing. Just like any good political system. Lets see....who can I fuck over now to complete my party? It wouldnt be politics it no one got fucked.

Laguy,

I think you're confusing Locke's social contract theory with Rousseau's.

Oooops, I mean Branquinho.

Even if the libertarian party became a viable party, I don't think that I would join. During the last election, I was surprised that they gave people like me a name - swing voters. Before that, I just voted for who I thought would make the best candidate independent of party. If I did not know either candidate well, then I would leave it blank.

Sorry, Ejack. Locke was a "contractarian" as well, as was Hobbes. They all differed from one another, and it is precisely Locke's version (described in his "Two Treatises on Government") that I was referring to. I disagree with Rousseau's take on representative versus direct democracy.

WOW! This has really become a popular thread!

Since we are on the subject of the now "lost America," check this out. We now live in a country that gives the executive branch the right to torture it citizens, and encarcerate them without charge, notice or notification. Hey Bush-Big Brother worshipers, what a great country we live in heh! The passage of bills such as this, only PROVE THAT WE HAVE ALREADY LOST AMERICA; not to terrorists, but to a tyranical faction within that will make Nazi Germany look like disneyland if we all don't wake up soon.
Welcome to NAZI AMERICA! You've earned it!

Vote Democratic and Always Carry a Toothbrush
By Dave Lindorff
t r u t h o u t.org
Wednesday 04 October 2006

I've decided to start carrying a toothbrush.

Incredibly, we've reached that point in America where, thanks to a bunch of spineless traitors in Congress (Republicans and Democrats), it is only a matter of time before the state begins rounding up people like me and whisking us off to dark cells without telling anyone.

Congress, with almost no discussion, has just approved a law ostensibly about authorizing military tribunals for alleged terrorists, which actually went way beyond that bad enough end run on the Constitution to include giving the president the Congressional sanction to torture captives and, as well, the power to snatch up any American citizen and declare her or him to be an "unlawful combatant," devoid of Constitutional rights.

Such a victim of presidential whim or pique could be shuttled off to a gulag anywhere in the world, or to Guantanamo Bay, or to a military installation somewhere in the US. Nobody, not even family members, would have to be notified of this capture and detention. No lawyer would be called.

This, sad to say, is America today, courtesy of your elected representatives, a majority of whom have violated their oaths of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. Our nation has become a place that the revolutionists of 1776 would easily recognize, not as the country they brought into being, but rather as a reprise of the tyrannical colonial British rule that they struggled to break free from.

Under the guidelines President Bush is using for the made-up term "unlawful combatant," anyone who is said to be giving aid to terrorists (a very slippery term itself, which has been used to describe everyone from a lone bomber to the elected presidents of Iran and Venezuela) could be subjected to secret, indefinite detention without charge, and to torture as well.

Such "aid" could be an innocent donation of money to a charity that, unknown to the donor, turned out to somehow be providing funds to an organization associated with a terrorist organization. A Christian charity that donates some of its funds to an Iranian state orphanage might easily if inadvertently fit that bill. Writing an article critical of the Bush administration's hoked up "war" on terror (like this one here), could qualify the author for arrest, too. Certainly a piece I wrote for The Nation's online edition last week, disclosing that the Bush administration had pushed forward deployment to the Iran Theater of an aircraft carrier battle group by a month in preparation for a probable attack on Iran before Election Day, could pass the terrorist-aid test.

Likewise, a report by Time Magazine reporters the same week, revealing that Navy personnel had received "prepare to deploy" orders to be ready to sail a fleet of minesweepers to the Persian Gulf on October 1, also in preparation for war against Iran.

Once Bush begins really using his new gift from Congress of dictatorial powers of arrest without charge and detention without trial, the brigs of the country's military bases will begin to fill with journalists, anti-war activists and little old ladies who gave to the wrong charity.

Make no mistake. This is going to happen unless this catastrophic sell-out bill passed into law by Congress is repealed or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, because history has made it crystal clear that powers made available are powers used.

The less popular this president becomes - and he deservedly ranks right down there with the most unpopular leaders of all time - the more desperate he will be, particularly because he has already committed so many offenses against this nation and against the Constitution that his impeachment by a Democratic Congress is increasingly probable.

We are at a critical moment in American history.

With the passage of the new anti-terrorism bill, Election Day on November 7 could well be the last chance for the American people to reassert their faith in the Constitution that our Founding Fathers and the blood of tens of thousands of revolutionary soldiers provided us with over 200 years ago.

It is, at this point, imperative that the voters of this country think strategically, forget petty ideological differences and intellectual debates over whether or not the Democratic Party can ever be reformed, and simply vote for the Democrat in every election district. Even the cowardly Democrats who supported the terror bill must be returned to office, I'm afraid (we can deal with them later).

The key is to gain a Democratic Party majority in both houses of Congress, and to remove the rubber stamp Republican Party from control.

As nauseating as it may be to find one's self voting for the likes of Texas Rep. Chet Edwards or Illinois Rep. Melissa Bean (two of 34 Democratic representatives who joined Republicans in voting for the terrorism bill), it is nonetheless crucial that both be re-elected so that Democrats can add at least 15 seats to their total in the House and take over control of that institution. Ditto in the Senate. A Bob Casey may be pro-Iraq War and anti-abortion, but if he is not elected to replace Sen. Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania, there is no chance Democrats will retake control of the US Senate in November.

A Democratic Congressional victory on Election Day will not herald a return to some 1960s liberal America, or even a Clintonian pseudo-liberal era, much less to a new New Deal, and nobody should be under such an illusion. But it would be a major defeat for the Bush dictatorship, as a Democratic Congress could be expected to begin seriously investigating Bush administration crimes, could start to undo the creeping coup that has been eroding American democracy and long-held democratic freedoms, and could protect us from being saddled with yet another pro-authoritarian Supreme Court justice. (For that to happen, given the lame nature of the Democratic Party, will require a powerful mass movement through the course of the next two years, after Election Day.)

Meanwhile, just in case, I'm carrying that toothbrush. I care too much about the health of my gums and about keeping my teeth to want to lose them to a period of military detention.

--------

Dave Lindorff is co-author, with Barbara Olshansky, of The Case for Impeachment (St. Martin's Press, June 2006). His work can be found at www.thiscantbehappening.net.


"When the people fear the government you have tyranny; when the government fears the people you have liberty."
--Thomas Jefferson

"This country..belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
--Abraham Lincoln

SP

Branquinho, there is clearly some confusion somewhere is your assertions.

Possibly you're confusing Libertarian philosophy with anarchy, or maybe there's a confusion between current definitions of liberalism and the original "classical liberalism," etc., I don't know.
________________________
From the 1985 preface to Ludwig von Mises' book "Liberalism: The Classical Tradition" written originally in German in 1927...

The term "liberalism," from the Latin "liber" meaning "free" referred originally to the philosophy of freedom. It retained this meaning in Europe when this book was written (1927) so that readers who opened its covers expected an analysis of the freedom philosophy of classical liberalism. Unfortunately, however, in recent decades, "liberalism" has come to mean something very different. The word has been taken over, especially in the United States, by philosophical socialists and used by them to refer to their government intervention and "welfare state" programs....."
______________________________________

For clarity, I'll post the definition from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian
___________________________
Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others. Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation (or threat) of physical force against another person or his property, or the commission of fraud, is a violation of that principle. Some libertarians regard all initiation of force as immoral, whereas others support a limited government that engages in the minimum amount of initiatory force (such as minimal taxation and regulation) that they believe necessary to ensure maximum individual freedom. Force is not opposed when used in retaliation for initiatory aggressions such as trespassing or violence. Libertarians favor an ethic of self-responsibility and strongly oppose the welfare state, because they believe forcing someone to provide aid to others is ethically wrong, ultimately counter-productive, or both.

Note on terminology: Some writers who have been called libertarians have also been referred to as classical liberals, by others or themselves. And, some use the phrase "the freedom philosophy" to refer to libertarianism, classical liberalism, or both.
________________________________________

Here are links to discussions of "classical liberalism" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

and the "social contract" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

For further understanding of the Libertarian philosophy you might begin by studying Ludwig von Mises writings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises

You should find that there is very little contradiction between Locke's social contract and basic Libertarian philosophy.

EJack1-

Read Locke (not what Wikipedia, the "Reader's Digest" of the internet says), then read the dominant libertarian philosphers, such as Hayek. You'll find that they have almost nothing in common. The social contract of Locke is nothing like that proposed by most libertarians. That is precisely why libertarian and contractarian thought are regarded as two entirely separate schools of political philosophy. Turning to Wickipedia for thoughtful discourse in philosophy?

Wow