bebop, those are just the excuses being readied in case McCain does win. It will be very difficult for some people to accept that the voters chose McCain over Clinton/Obama based on ideas, expectations, etc. Obviously there is a BIG IF in there. This election could go any number of ways at this point.

I would say skin color doesn't mean as much as culture, ideals, and looks in American politics. As long as a person of any gender and skin color can appeal the majority in views, personality, and looks, they will most likely stand a chance.

Saying that, I do believe white America (since race is the leading divider in our country) is ready for a black skinned president but they are not ready, or will ever be, for a president that puts the black community's interests ahead of white's, urban over suburban, etc. Just looking at the population that Obama targets shows a lot.

Area also affects our perspectives on this. I go to liberal college campus so the vast majority are Obama supporters here but I don't know what the rest of the country is like.

You hit the nail on the head there. Good insight.

Only if "couldn't hack it" means, didn't want to answer to morons who know less than a tenth of what I do, and going elsewhere to earn more money, have more fun, become well-respected while actually using my brain (something you clearly have failed to do), contribute to the economy rather than drain it, and to leave and live my life under my own terms.

Narcissist much??? " become well-respected" by whom? Fellow bombers, fellow tax dodgers, fellow supporters of illegal aliens???

Hey Radar, your bomb outside the Edward J. Schwartz Federal Courthouse located in San Diego, California was a dud. But I hear they are still looking for you.

I want libertarianism to occur everywhere. Freedom is to be won by those who would have it, and not to be paid for with the blood of Americans violating Constitution. I concur with our founders who wanted America's government to abide by the limitations on its powers. Like them, I am the well-wisher of freedom and liberty to all and the champion only of ours.

America has neither the authority, nor the responsibility to win freedom for any people but those in America.

I find it amusing how the ultra-right-wing extremists accuse those of us in the center of being leftists. It's ok, the left-wing communists accuse me of being a right-winger so I know I'm on the right track.

Wrong. I also want free people all over the globe, and I believe that while our government is prohibited from taking part in any actions to free them from oppression abroad, you should be allowed to donate your time, money, and even yourself to fighting for their freedom as long as you don't expect America to bail you out if things don't go the way you wanted.

You are clearly an idiot, an asshole, a warmonger, a traitor, and someone who believes America's government has no limitations on its powers and is the only country that has powers beyond its own borders and Americans are supposed to send our children to die unnecessarily to defend the freedom of others when our own freedom is being attacked at home.

Your "America gets to determine who will have freedom and what freedom means and we'll kill anyone who stands in the way of making it happen" attitude is sickening, and makes you a lot more comparable to Hitler than me. Hitler thought he was liberating people too. All monsters and murderers think they are doing the right thing and killing truly evil people.

Unlike you, I cling to actual libertarian thought which is to say, I do not support the initiation of force for political gain or social engineering and I don't support having a government that steps beyond the limitations of its powers.

Also, nothing I've ever said is even remotely close to being isolationist. All war mongers accuse supporters of non-military interventionism (aka "libertarians") of being either pacifists or isolationists. They are too stupid to come up with anything resembling a genuine or truthful critique.

What I said is factual and libertarian. It provides the most freedom for the most people with the least costs. It's ethical and not the slightest bit isolationist.

I want to thank you for once again proving that you are a blithering idiot without the slightest grasp on reality and you know nothing about socio-economics, politics, history, libertarianism, or freedom.

Well-respected by intelligent, articulate, well-educated, decent, ethical, and honest people. In other words, those who are the opposite of you in every way.

I pay every cent of tax I owe. I don't owe any part of my income in taxes. I don't support illegal aliens. I support the Constitution which prohibits the federal government from creating or enforcing immigration laws and I support the LEGAL undocumented immigrants who come here to build a better life in exactly the same way European immigrants did 150 years ago.

I don't know anything about bombings, but I'd love to blow up every IRS building in America in a controlled demolition with nobody inside after the IRS is abolished as it, and all other unconstitutional parts of government should be.

You are an avowed tax dodging illegal alien supporter. Anyone who would support your wackiness is just that, wacked.

Making up quotes and then responding to them?

Dishonest, and a strawman.

Anyone who would believe a single word you've got to say is mentally retarded, is guilty of treason, and is in need of an ass kicking that will put them in the ICU.

I'd be more than happy to volunteer for the job.

:lol2: what a pussy.

I'll be sure and pass your comments on to the IRS, I am sure someone would be interested in public threats to blow up their buildings. :rolleyes:

Feel free to publish them. They are the same as Harry Browne, Aaron Russo, and Michael Badnarik

Anytime you want to test that theory out, swing by L.A. and I'd be more than happy to turn you into a bloody stain on the pavement.

I still say they would love to check up on you. Your history is well known. :D

Yes, my history of standing up for freedom, liberty, justice, and the U.S. Constitution is very well-known. My history of proving mental midgets like you wrong on a daily basis is also well-known

Nothing wrong with that.

:behead:

*yawn*

Doing the good work, sending em home.

http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/665...y15gweb7su.jpg

You know, Radar -- when you rant, you descend to kindergarten level. I'm a grownup. My opposition has this habit of disgracing itself out of its own mouth. No wonder some people spoke of the Libertarians on this forum being conspicuous jerks when I mentioned libertarianism.

As an intermediate goal towards improvement during your fits, try hitting, oh, about sixth grade level. Then middle school. You're bringing this on yourself.

I don't have fits, and I don't rant. I tell the truth, and I set the record straight when you rant, act childishly, or tell boldfaced lies.

I always thought you were a moron with no sense of humor. Now I realize you're a moron with a sense of humor. You must have one to claim that you are an adult.

Sounds like a threat to do bodily harm to me...:rolleyes:

Sounds like an invitation for you to back up something you say for a change. No threats were involved. You accused me of being a "pussy" and I welcomed you to test that theory. Since you've been proven wrong on everything else, it would stand to reason you'll keep up your perfect record of being the single most consistently wrong person on earth by getting the shit kicked out of you. I've already pummeled you intellectually in every argument we've ever had, and there's no reason for me to believe anything different would happen in a physical confrontation.

More threats from a fat ass political failure, a failure in the military, and a general failure as a supporter of illegal immigration criminals.. nothing to see here. You have "proven" you are a dumb ass, I'll give you that one.:rolleyes: :lol2:

I served in the military and got an honorable discharge. That's a success.

Politically, I successfully registered thousands of people to vote, I was on the board of the largest state chapter of my political party, and I ran a successful information campaign for Congress. I'm also a success as a citizen who adheres to the Constitution and stands up against unconstitutional federal immigration laws.

I've proven myself to be anything but a dumbass, or a failure, and proven you to be big mouthed, failure, and a worthless, idiotic loser in every way who can't back up anything he says intellectually or physically.

Now their's a damm scary thought! :lol2:

Whatcha mean Willis? :eyebrow:

Only scary for enemies of the Constitution or champions of socialism/fascism or any other form of authoritarianism.

Well them and the majority that did not vote for you.

They are one in the same. Anyone who chose either of the other candidates over me is either a facsist who wants to violate a woman's right to have an abortion, or a socialist who hates economic freedom. Both were enemies of the U.S. Constitution which makes them enemies of America & it's people.

The important thing is that I gave my district the opportunity to vote for the best candidate who has ever run there. It's their own loss if they wasted that chance

One of the most important symptoms of pathological narcissism (the Narcissistic Personality Disorder) is grandiosity. Grandiose fantasies (megalomaniac delusions of grandeur) permeate every aspect of the narcissist's personality. They are the reason that the narcissist feels entitled to special treatment which is typically incommensurate with his real accomplishments. The Grandiosity Gap is the abyss between the narcissist's self-image (as reified by his False Self) and reality.

When Narcissistic Supply is deficient, the narcissist de-compensates and acts out in a variety of ways. Narcissists often experience psychotic micro-episodes during therapy and when they suffer narcissistic injuries in a life crisis. But can the narcissist "go over the edge"? Do narcissists ever become psychotic?

Some terminology first:

The narrowest definition of psychosis, according to the DSM-IV-TR, is "restricted to delusions or prominent hallucinations, with the hallucinations occurring in the absence of insight into their pathological nature".

And what are delusions and hallucinations?

A delusion is "a false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary".

A hallucination is a "sensory perception that has the compelling sense of reality of a true perception but that occurs without external stimulation of the relevant sensory organ".

Granted, the narcissist's hold on reality is tenuous (narcissists sometimes fail the reality test). Admittedly, narcissists often seem to believe in their own confabulations. They are unaware of the pathological nature and origin of their self-delusions and are, thus, technically delusional (though they rarely suffer from hallucinations, disorganised speech, or disorganised or catatonic behaviour). In the strictest sense of the word, narcissists appear to be psychotic.

But, actually, they are not. There is a qualitative difference between benign (though well-entrenched) self-deception or even malignant con-artistry – and "losing it".

Pathological narcissism should not be construed as a form of psychosis because:

The narcissists is usually fully aware of the difference between true and false, real and make-belief, the invented and the extant, right and wrong. The narcissist consciously chooses to adopt one version of the events, an aggrandising narrative, a fairy-tale existence, a "what-if" counterfactual life. He is emotionally invested in his personal myth. The narcissist feels better as fiction than as fact – but he never loses sight of the fact that it is all just fiction.
Throughout, the narcissist is in full control of his faculties, cognisant of his choices, and goal-orientated. His behaviour is intentional and directional. He is a manipulator and his delusions are in the service of his stratagems. Hence his chameleon-like ability to change guises, his conduct, and his convictions on a dime.
Narcissistic delusions rarely persist in the face of blanket opposition and reams of evidence to the contrary. The narcissist usually tries to convert his social milieu to his point of view. He attempts to condition his nearest and dearest to positively reinforce his delusional False Self. But, if he fails, he modifies his profile on the fly. He "plays it by ear". His False Self is extemporaneous – a perpetual work of art, permanently reconstructed in a reiterative process designed around intricate and complex feedback loops.

Though the narcissistic personality is rigid – its content is always in flux. Narcissists forever re-invent themselves, adapt their consumption of Narcissistic Supply to the "marketplace", attuned to the needs of their "suppliers". Like the performers that they are, they resonate with their "audience", giving it what it expects and wants. They are efficient instruments for the extraction and consumption of human reactions.

As a result of this interminable process of fine tuning, narcissists have no loyalties, no values, no doctrines, no beliefs, no affiliations, and no convictions. Their only constraint is their addiction to human attention, positive or negative.

Psychotics, by comparison, are fixated on a certain view of the world and of their place in it. They ignore any and all information that might challenge their delusions. Gradually, they retreat into the inner recesses of their tormented mind and become dysfunctional.

Narcissists can't afford to shut out the world because they so heavily depend on it for the regulation of their labile sense of self-worth. Owing to this dependence, they are hypersensitive and hypervigilant, alert to every bit of new data. They are continuously busy rearranging their self-delusions to incorporate new information in an ego-syntonic manner.

This is why the Narcissistic Personality Disorder is insufficient grounds for claiming a "diminished capacity" (insanity) defence. Narcissists are never divorced from reality – they crave it, and need it, and consume it in order

I stated a fact. It's not a disorder.

Besides, you're hardly one to comment on anyone's delusions of grandeur when you are suffering from delusions of adequacy.

He's brimming with adequacity. -Mystery Quote

That would be awesome on an employee's annual review. That’s where I stole my delusions of adequacy line. I've read a bunch of really funny ones. I'll post some. :)

• "Since my last report, this employee has reached rock bottom and has started to dig."
  
• "His men would follow him anywhere but only out of morbid curiosity."
  
• "This associate is really not so much a has-been, but more of a definitely won't be."
  
• "Works well when under constant supervision and cornered like a rat in a trap."
  
• "When she opens her mouth, it seems that this is only to change feet."
  
• "He would be out of his depth in a parking lot puddle."
  
• "This young lady has delusions of adequacy."
  
• "He sets low personal standards and then consistently fails to achieve them."
  
• "This employee should go far -- and the sooner he starts, the better we'll be."
  
• "This employee is depriving a village somewhere of an idiot."
  
• "This employee should not be allowed to breed."
  
• "This man has the whole six pack but is missing the plastic thingy that holds them all together."
  
• "He certainly takes a long time to make his pointless."
  
• "He doesn't have ulcers, but he is a carrier."
  
• "He's been working with glue too much."
  
• "He would argue with a signpost."
  
• "He has a knack for making strangers immediately."
  
• "When his IQ reaches 50, he should sell."
  
• "Is apparently very careful with equipment, as his tools show very little signs of wear."
  
• "He is 25 years old, and still has to get his mother's permission to leave the house."
  
• "He stated in his resume that he knew the things required to do the job. Unfortunately it now has become painfully clear that the skills he possesses involve nothing but bragging and know-it-all attitudes."
  
• "This employee seems inadequate of accomplishing anything at all during work hours, beyond flirting with co-workers and doing her nails."

But the real issue is if he has an "acceptable name"?

Without that, he would never get hired in the first place, let alone a review. ;)

I come to praise Hillary, and to bury her.....
 

I just saw Edwards endorsement of Obama. He did start off with a ringing endorsement of Hillary. I have to say it was the one of the strangest political moments I've seen.

"Though the narcissistic personality is rigid – its content is always in flux. Narcissists forever re-invent themselves, adapt their consumption of Narcissistic Supply to the "marketplace", attuned to the needs of their "suppliers". Like the performers that they are, they resonate with their "audience", giving it what it expects and wants. They are efficient instruments for the extraction and consumption of human reactions.

As a result of this interminable process of fine tuning, narcissists have no loyalties, no values, no doctrines, no beliefs, no affiliations, and no convictions. Their only constraint is their addiction to human attention, positive or negative.

Psychotics, by comparison, are fixated on a certain view of the world and of their place in it. They ignore any and all information that might challenge their delusions. Gradually, they retreat into the inner recesses of their tormented mind and become dysfunctional.

Narcissists can't afford to shut out the world because they so heavily depend on it for the regulation of their labile sense of self-worth. Owing to this dependence, they are hypersensitive and hypervigilant, alert to every bit of new data. They are continuously busy rearranging their self-delusions to incorporate new information in an ego-syntonic manner.

This is why the Narcissistic Personality Disorder is insufficient grounds for claiming a "diminished capacity" (insanity) defence. Narcissists are never divorced from reality – they crave it, and need it, and consume it in order"

Yea, I agree, and I am not sure how much it is going to contribute to the overall movement. Some of those are endorsements are more about the person giving them vs. those on the receiving end.

One can only hope that Edwards will convince more superdelelegates over to the Obama side so they can finally end the Democratic Primary and get to the part where Obama beats McCain.

That was a speech with a purpose. The purpose was to say, "I love you both and I'll make a great VP."

I had that feeling too...and he would make a fine V.P.. He may even become President if those backwards, redneck, racist, assholes in West Virginia stop fucking their sisters long enough to take their huntin' rifle to shoot Obama.

:corn:

That was one of the most entertaining, politically-based, cockfights I've seen in the past hour. I applaud both Radar and TheMercenary.

My cock is a lover, not a fighter.

Someone needs to cut it off and give it to Obama for his mantal in the White House.

Ha. Obama in the White House.

Get used to that idea. It will be a reality in January.

McCain has as much chance of beating Obama as Michael Jackson has of beating Mike Tyson on a street fight. In both cases, the black guy will win.

I hope he wins and the dems take a complete majority for the next 8 years. The American people will get just what they asked for.

I'm not a Dem or a liberal or a conservative, but no matter what he does, he can't be worse than Bush 1 & 2 or Reagan. He will win.

wow. welcome back from the territories, or the Kuiper Belt, or... wherever... long time no see.

Out of bitterness? Or religion? Or because it would annoy everyone else in Bugsplat Junction to shoot somebody more local?

You aren't particularly scary to these: unlike me, you are neither willing to shoot socialists/fascists, nor to see them shot, as we are doing daily in the Iraqi and Afghan theaters of war. You become very, and irrationally, angry at the very prospect. Too much fascistosocialist sympathy on your part, I say. Don't prate to me about not coercing them -- for the fascists are coercing already, and they must stop -- or so say the libertarians. Being a disciple of freedom, I say the antidemocrats' survival is very, very secondary to their halting their coercions. Yea, tertiary. Quaternary.

It's hardly un-libertarian to shorten slavemakers' lifespans, isn't it?

It's unlibertarian to initiate aggression, even against someone who is using aggression against a third-party who didn't ask you for help. It's unlibertarian to use force against anyone who is not using it against you first. It's also unconstitutional to start wars with a defensive military, especially without a Constitutionally required formal declaration of war has not been made by Congress.

Libertarians are against government stepping beyond its limited authority. Libertarians are also against forcing our brand of freedom on to others.

I, and other libertarians, do support your right to go on your own or to put together a private militia to go about overthrowing monsters in other countries as long as you don't expect any support from America when you do it.

Also, I'm very willing to shoot socialists and fascists as long as they are attacking people right here in America. The people in other countries have to worry about their own monsters unless they can find suicidal, unlibertarian, war-mongering, idiots to come into their own country to help them overthrow their oppressors. Before I worry about the freedom of people in other countries, I prefer to worry about the freedom of my own countrymen. America is far from the free country it started as, and it's getting less free all the time.

Thanks!
To Radar: why are you lumping socialists and fascists together? They are two distinct political ideologies that fought against each other.
To Merc, re: the 8 years and Democrats comment: I have hopes that it won't be worse, though politicians in general are not to be trusted. But really, they're going to have to work to make them worse than the past 8.

In the end, both socialists and fascists are authoritarians. Both assume that your property and earnings belongs to the state, both tell you how to live, both have no qualms about killing, etc.

Headsplice, one thing you really should understand about socialists and fascists: they are not merely brothers under the skin, they are identical twins under the skin. Google "beefsteak Nazi" for some expatiation. Fascists and Socialists fought against each other in WW2 not because they were antitheses -- they were competitors. See also Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's Leftism Revisited. Believe me, you'll never look at the various brand names of antidemocracy the same way again. You'll probably have to hunt it up in university library stacks or online used book dealers; I believe it is unfortunately still out of print. I last read it about 1990.

Woo! -- maybe not! Check this on Amazon.

I am really very pleased with the behavior of this Republican President: unlike any Democratic one since LBJ, he is trying to remove undemocracies (at which LBJ quite failed), and he is concentrating the Federal government on international matters and foreign policy, rather than in meddling with internal matters and trying to push the Bill of Rights aside, as Clinton so signally did. For seven years I've heard a great deal of yelling about how Bush is destroying our civil rights, yada yada yada he did this and he did that -- while the evidence on the ground clearly shows me that no he isn't. Look around the Cellar -- are we in any wise censored? Is anyone? How many guns can't you buy, and is that number, if greater than zero, any different than it was under Clinton's misrule? It is somewhat greater than under Nixon's, if you like -- that ought to be fixed. When was the last time you were made to incriminate yourself in a court of law? When was the last time anybody was? And so on and so forth down through the Bill of Rights. It is little appreciated by the Dem Kool-Aid swillers that this Administration isn't interested in trammeling them. They're busy. Successful, too: no more planes in any more buildings. Reagan, and the younger Bush: they are both into limited government, and that is how they will go down in history. Some pundits remark that Bush less resembles Reagan than he does Truman -- a Democrat -- in that while he suffered heavily in popularity polling, he's set up and founded the policies and institutions that will pay off in the present conflict, enabling our victory. Truman did this for the Cold War, Bush for the War on Terror. The biggest detail difference I see in these protracted conflicts is the first revolved around nation-states and the second features transnational terrorists demonstrating that the power to destroy is increasingly available to aggrieved private persons, and that what used to need a nation's resources now can be attempted by a millionaire.

Radar, the antidemocratic antilibertarians have initiated the aggression -- neither you nor I need be worried about that, really ever. As antilibertarian antidemocrats, they should also be viewed as enemies of mankind. You don't seem to grasp this, and thus you are reluctant to actually replace antidemocratic antilibertarians with libertarian democrats by whatever means the savage fascists make needful. Countervailing violence is not made illegitimate by the numbers of people doing the countervailing nor whether they're in uniform, Radar. I read your opposition to removing the sources of mankind's political troubles as you making one rationalization after another to conceal a deeply xenophobic streak in your makeup. I am not crippled by xenophobia, have no need to veil it with an infinity of rationalizations for never removing a single fascist, and thus I think more clearly and more morally than you do -- or perhaps can. (I'm assuming while there's life in you, there is also a possibility of redemption.) My working assumption is that good, libertarian governance is good for any human society anywhere, and ought not to be denied anyone, anywhere, simply because they're furriners. As corollary, I consider human liberation and its consequent tendency to prosperity (viz.: America) of such importance that I cannot see a moral difference or delegitimization whether a native group performs the tyrant-excision, or an outside group like the US Army performs it. It's all being done by humans, making other humans free. Freer, if you're actually willing to accept Plan B. After all, that freedom makes prosperity is a libertarian tenet. (That prosperity demands and begets freedom is a T.P.M. Barnett one.) What kind of libertarian finds excuses, rationalizations, for not pushing freedom? Might it be a xenophobic, narcissistic one?

In fact, I don't know of any reason to deny a free society to them at all, and consider that any attempt to do so on anyone's part, regardless of how native they be, an act of at least moral violence and improper aggression, to be met with a successful campaign to neutralize such oppressors and remove the threat they present. Don't stop short of hanging such miscreants to capital-city lampposts if you want their threat removed and the success achieved. No one weeps for fallen oppressors, and highly motivated sociopaths who make it to head of state -- all too frequent a phenomenon, right? -- only create sociopathic states.

Just the kind of outfits that make us libertarians feel needed.

Then too, I distrust radicalism, even as a leavening of the lump(-enproletariat, even): the more radicalized and extremist a society is, the less sustainable its stability or its radical condition; the pendulum always swings to center. The centerpoint itself slowly, evolutionarily, incrementally travels, apparently under impetus of a people desiring not to repeat history. Though there may be something to Marx's quip about history's repeats: first as tragedy, then as farce. It would lead one to expect two-fers. A democratic society, tending as it does to longterm stability, evolves less in great sweeping changes than by increments; day-to-day stuff that passes almost unnoticed. I'm patient enough to work with that. Societal tantrums are trouble. They also tend to destroy those who spark them.

Urbane, a lot of people disagree with you. Bush had a chance to finish off al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, but due to the foray in Iraq, bin Laden, the Doctor and most of al-Qaeda hierarchy found relative haven in Waziristan.

Bush called Iran, Iraq and North Korea part of the 'Axis of Evil'. Seeing Bush invade Iraq for what it turned out to be spurious reasons, N Korea and Iraq revitalize their nuclear programs, forcing Bush to halt his world-wide crusade in Iraq.

Bush got two terrorist groups elected into foreign governments (and both are a stone's throw from Israel no less). Bush stood helpless as Hezbollah killed and kidnapped Israeli soldiers, precipitating in a war that all but set Hezbollah up to take over all of Lebanon.

Bush all but invited Sunni terrorists to move into Iraq ('Bring them on!').

Bush also started with a surplus and ended up with an even worse deficit than Reagan. At least Reagan's deficit spending served its directives, and consumer confidence was still high. Bush have very little to show with his deficit spending and consumer confidence is waning. At this rate of his declining popularity, the 'five percenters' would refer not to a sect of the Nation of Islam, the Nation of Gods and Earths, but instead to backers of George W Bush. Small wonder why McCain is trying to shed off the image that his presidency would constitute a third Bush term.

If Bill Clinton did all that, you would be screaming for his head, forget about impeachment. But then, all that is okay if you're a Republican.

-1)Socialists are quite different than Leninists/Stalinists.
-2)The metrics of 'freedom' are not whether we can post statements on the internet and how many guns we can buy. There's also things like the expanding power of the executive, specifically the use of signing statements and the expansion of the President's Article II powers.
-3)As a libertartian, do you support the largest expansion of the federal government in the history of the United States (hint: the DHS)?
-4)Democratic societies do NOT lend themselves to long-term stabilities. That's why the US, when it was founded, was known as the 'Great Experiment.'
-5)I challenge you to name one way in which the United States is better, domestically or internationally, as a direct result of the policies of George W. Bush.

Socialism and fascism are antithetic to each other.