Libertarian ideas and philosophy do work in real life not merely theory. They work perfectly in reality. They survive perfectly when implemented. In fact they worked in America for 86 years before the enemies of freedom started violating the limitations on government and making America less free.

Libertarian ideals aren't the anchor that sinks us. The Libertarian party itself is. The fact that they think shaking your hand and saying "good luck" amounts to supporting candidates. The LP is all about individuality and while that's great, a party that focuses so much on individuality attracts some who are freaks. People who walk around in Druid robes or butterfly wings, etc. These few people have made it tough for the serious libertarians to be taken seriously.

This plus the media outlets, and major parties practice exclusionary tactics. They will not allow us into debates and do everything they can to avoid giving libertarians equal airtime.

Most people have never heard about libertarians or if they have heard of them, it was from a third party who really knew nothing about libertarians.

Most Americans aren't very well educated. They were taught in government schools that they should rely on government for everything and that government is always doing what is best for us. They are taught to be collectivists from an early age. They have no comprehension of what freedom really means and they fear personal responsibility so much, they'd gladly serve their rights up on a platter to avoid having to take responsibility for themselves and their own actions.

This is especially true in my district.

I ran an informational campaign and a very successful one at that. I never entertained any thoughts that I'd actually win the election in such a rigged race and such a rigged system. With more money, my results would have been better. I only put in about $100 - $200 of my own money and the rest was raised online. With only $1,600 I got 8% of the vote. With real money, a campaign staff, and advertising, I'd have done better. But even if I had unlimited funds, I couldn't win in that district because of the reasons I've already listed.

So no Libertarian has ever won, that speaks volumes...

And yet you are still a total failure as a voice of political reform.

You always win when you fight against air. Don't believe me, look at the Star Wars Kid.

7 page powerpoint of Iraq status

via Michael Yon

According to the power point, everything is going down, except caches found and cleared, which is going up.

Does that mean there are more caches, or that we are finding them now?

It is an indication that the locals who know where these caches are, are telling the Iraqi Army and or us where to find them.

Re more people cooperating because the want the US out?

Sure, many do, many don't. Providing credible information of any kind, for an Iraqi, is more about trust. I'd say it's all about trust. I believe about 1/4 to 1/2 of anything I'm told by an Iraqi on first meeting. It's not because they are outright liars. They, like many cultures have a thing about saving face for others, and not being truthfully direct when first meeting people. It really is about how well known you are, and trust.

Being American, we tend to judge others intentions and motivations against our own. It seldom works well, and leads to trouble down the road if done continually.

To just say "Meh, they want us out and are thus turning over more cache sites." Would be about as accurate as information passed on first meeting the average Iraqi. Only slightly so. There is a grain of truth in there, but not the whole truth.

Radar, you're a bigger idiot for not getting the big picture. Libertarianism promotes anarchy. Whether it's individual, or corporate. Governments exist to prevent anarchy. The founding fathers were not anarchists or libertarians. The created a constitution of laws. Not perfect, but with provision for amendment. Take away the laws, you take away our liberty.

Libertarianism is not anarchy and it doesn't promote anarchy. Libertarians believe in having a government and want to keep it as small as possible. The founding fathers fit this perfectly. They founders were indeed libertarians. If you think otherwise, it only proves your own historical and political ignorance.

They created a constitution of laws, and those laws were made to place strict limits on the powers of the federal government. The federal government is given very limited and specific powers and everything it does beyond those specific and limited powers that are listed in the Constitution is unconstitutional and an attack on our freedom. Allowing the government to do anything other than those specific and limited things (even for a good reason) is a slap in the face of our libertarian founders and an attack on liberty itself and it opens the door for others to violate the Constitution for bad reasons.

Unlike you, I actually do get the big picture and unlike you, I actually understand the Constitution and the principles that guided our founders when they created it.

The founders wanted the fed to be very small and virtually invisible to regular people with the states having the vast majority of the legislative powers and 100% of law enforcement powers. They wanted people to remember that the people hold the power, not the government.

And how's that been working out for ya?

Ooh, today the riddle: how can the US media report Iraq as a "win" without giving in to the idea that... something was successful there?

Here it is. Didn't see this one coming.

"Never Mind," says Iraqi PM

In other news -- from a blog, featuring sundry links to here and there.

Plenty of incidental blasting of the Left as unprincipled idiots, with no one left to be useful to.

Well, Undertoad, the Democratic Party footdragging on the WoT has been a national disgrace from its first moment, and their want of a strategic vision exceeds myopia and goes all the way to astigmatism. You can't win a war -- one started by rude foreigners, I never tire of pointing out to the thickheads who don't want the fascists disturbed -- by searching for substitutes for victory. That's the same non-achievement they've been at since 1954 -- and is not that a little too long? No wonder I have no faith in the Democratic Party.

Republicans made the effort to sink international Communism, and they succeeded. Democrats, not so much. We'd like to think Kennedy might've, but we'll never know. Johnson, as John Keegan writes in Americans At War, essentially fought Vietnam as a strategic retreat -- not the best way to get a success from the American military. Or, I suppose, any military. Design a war for failure, and that's what you're likely to get. Rambo put it rather well, didn't he, with his wistful "Do we get to win, this time?" The Republicans say yes, the Democrats... don't.

In the meantime, we have Barack Obama setting forth a military strategy outline in a recent speech that looks exactly like -- well, the very strategy the Administration and the Republicans would carry out. I'm pleased that the Dems are finally getting an inkling of how America might succeed, but there remain limitations to my optimism here.

The call for withdrawl was arguably the first time that Iraqis "got it" -- oh the Americans want to leave? They don't just want to stay here and keep our country? This message changed the debate for them. It was probably a necessary component of the whole thing. And all the Ds were doing was expressing the will of the public.

Furthermore, this is a nice narrative but when you look at what happened, it doesn't match up; until Petraeus the rules of engagement were part of the problem, and lack of troops was part of the problem, so saying "being allowed to win" is a double-edged sword. Do we get to win? The strategy had to change 180 degrees mid-stream, so who was making the calls when we weren't winning?

Do you remember who was against winning in Bosnia?

Goodness. And I bet Eastern Europeans never even bothered to thank them. The selfish gets.

I assume they're working on sinking it in China now? Ooh, fingers crossed Obama doesn't get in then, China might stay Communist otherwise.

The Eastern Europeans were a little too obsessed with Solidarity demonstrating how a worker's union can make real change in a society, and overthrow governments. Come to think of it, Karl Marx was proven right all along, hee hee.

I'm not sure I get the points made in posts 75 and 76. If they are moved to clarify, I'm sure I'd appreciate it.

Though deadbeater seems to be saying syndicalism rules.

And a correction: John Keegan didn't say it, Steven Ambrose did. Drat this absence of mind.

Sundae, it looks like they won't have to: the Chinese seem to be developing their way out of Communism, and will in due course abandon it as the state religion also. Good riddance, of course.

But the Democratic Party has an indelible record of nil accomplishment in tyranny removal since the Second World War. That's three generations ago now. That's too long. See why they don't deserve my support? I vote for everybody but them. That is, everybody who's smarter.

If you want the world to become better, you do a few things. You globalize, you educate women too, not just men; and you eliminate tyranny, replacing it with democracy or the constitutional-monarchic equivalent. And you're ruthless with anyone who tries to impede the great liberation.

(note: From http://www.blackfive.net/)

NPR: Was the Surge Successful?
Posted By Blackfive
I like NPR. They are one of the very few media outlets that have treated me extremely fairly.

But here, in this NPR interview with General (retired) Jack Keane, you can hear the bias of host Alex Chadwick, and the surprise in the response of GEN (ret) Keane - one of the architects of the Surge. I think it's important to hear both Alex Chadwick and Jack Keane discuss the events around the Surge.

To me, this is an indication of the level of effort being made to spin away the Surge as not successful or due to the the planning and efforts of our active military and people like GEN (ret) Keane and David Kilcullen.

It is horribly false for anyone to claim that the Surge is not a success. Make no mistake, there's a long way to go, but some people on the left seemed determined to throw our progress away.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...94&ft=1&f=1001

http://cellar.org/2008/080731Iraq1_kdkahe.gif

Dwellars know, but somebody forgot to tell half of all Americans. The narrative change, for them, leads closer to election season. Oopsie! A whole lot of confused people, coming up!

13 casualties in July - lowest monthly total so far - 5 of those were non-combat

http://cellar.org/2008/kfcfallujah.jpg

KFC Fallujah.

This is not really a great return, but they've gotta start somewhere. Hopefully in a few years they can install in a mall food court.

Washington Post notices. Page A01.

Surge in numbers of troops is over:

Deployment times drop:

About time. Our guys down here are getting hammered by the deployments. And the ones that just returned, from the surge, are already slated to go again in 9 months. 3-ID out of Ft. Stewart and Hunter AF.

Am I to believe that having a KFC or a food court is a sign that things are better than not having one?

You believe whatever you like, sunshine.

You know I always do sparky.

So there's no need to actually post about it.

There is a need to question whether this is what someone wants others to believe. That is why I asked the question.

You can't discern that without asking?

I find the best way to answer a question is to ask someone who knows the answer rather than trying to guess or to be a detective. Without asking, I could only speculate as to motives, desires, or goals of others, but asking the them gives me a concrete answer that isn't merely a speculation.

What happens when the person you're asking doesn't give a shit what you think?

we call that the cellar.

:lol:

Hmmm, does this apply to your "perception" of what the writers of the constitution meant? And since they are all dead, how do you "know" what they meant?

There is no difference between my "perception" of what the Constitution means and what it actually says. I can only assume the writers of the Constitution meant what they said, and since they wrote many articles, pamphlets, letters, etc. explaining each of their positions, it sort of helps out.

This from the man who believes conducting foreign policy or any likely approximation thereof is unconstitutional. Sorry, radar, your legal thinking has not passed the giggle-test for quite some time now.

And if you cannot understand how somebody might conclude that is your view from reading your posts, then your faculty for understanding is grossly inferior and in great need of repair and a brushup.

Just like the rest of us, my friend. That was my point exactly, thank you for finally clearing that up.

The difference is that Radar believes he knows what they meant without possibility of variation. He only has to assume they meant what they said. His conviction is based in the idea that, rightly or wrongly, he knows beyond a shadow of a doubt, what some guys meant when they wrote some words more than 200 years ago.

Just figured I'd get that out there.

Since we're getting things out in the open, I should tell you that I'm not sorry about your finger.

me either, that's what you get for taunting a dolphin.

fixed
 

Fixed better

Conducting foreign policy? Is that code for "starting illegal wars"? It's most certainly not against the Constitution to trade with other nations or even to befriend them. This is the best foreign policy you can have.

My thinking is as serious as it gets, and my policies work in the real world. Your laughably stupid desire to be in a state of perpetual war against those who pose no threat to us is not realistic economically, it violates the Constitution, it violates common sense, and it violates all libertarian principles.

I'd comment on your thinking, but it doesn't seem like you do any.

Yes, I must assume. I must assume that when the founders wrote down words, they actually knew what they were writing, and they knew how to speak the English language. What they wrote was very articulate, intelligent, and cogent and leaves no doubt that they did know what they were writing and did speak and write the English language. Therefore their words mean exactly what they say.

When they say the federal government has no powers that aren't enumerated in the Constitution, they meant exactly that. I suppose an insane person might assume that they were insane when they wrote the words and didn't mean what they actually wrote. As a sane person with the same level of intelligence as our founders and exactly the same desire to strictly limit government powers, I wouldn't make any such assumption.

If you think the Constitution means anything other than what it says, and what I've consistently said about it, you prove your own stupidity.

Think you did it there for me.

So in the real world, you got elected to Congress because your ideas and politicking worked so well?

I seem to recall your Congressional run produced a post from you that under no pressure nor stimulus whatsoever assigned blame for your electoral loss to everyone except yourself. And that you picked up your ball and left the LP.

And now we're looking at completing withdrawal in December 2011, per agreement, and busily getting a new Iraq and a national government completely up and running by then.

Just about the way we always said we wanted to do these things.

Oh horseshit, there was no plan. This exit strategy is a new development after Petraeus pulled their fat out of the fire. Up until he took over they were just going in circles, not knowing what to do next. :rolleyes:

No, no, you're wrong Bruce! The whole thing was carefully planned and executed exactly according to that plan. That whole 'going round in circles' bit was just a double-bluff to fool the insurgents!

Oh dear, silly me. :blush:

Combat deaths in Iraq so far this month: 7

Combat deaths in Afghanistan so far this month: 10

Deja vue Nam!

We need a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan. No more war for rubble!

Just think of it as strangling fascism and you'll be fine with it -- like I am. It is, after all, hardly unlibertarian to remove libertarianism's most determined foes, or democratic republicanism's as an intermediate step in the development of a more libertarian society in a country that not only could use it, but is probably incapable of being run any other way, between geography and psychology.

A libertarian democracy's foes ought to get removed and stay removed -- consider forever as only barely long enough. Take the world away from tyrants and let that liberty that is humanity's birthright be the only thing that reigns.

[And UT, don't imitate tw's needlessly eccentric spelling of dejà vu -- he can plead all the ignorance and incapacity he needs to, but the rest of us don't have those excuses.]

That, UG, depends on whether what ends up there is a Democratic Republic. Most pundits say it won't. Does that change your usual?

Why would it? That would presuppose that his usual is in some way affected by facts :p

Well technically, it's déjà vu. Y'know, if we're being picky. Did you get a handle on Philippines yet?

Technically we also won in Nam because body counts also proved we were winning. No poltiical settlement in Nam or Iraq? Deja Vue. We just ignore basic military poltical principles to declare victory. Clearly a light at the end of the tunnel. UT tells us it is so.

Welcome my friend! We've been waiting patiently for your first post in the thread. I must say this one disappoints, however. It's far too short to be a rant, only contains one baiting, does not mention mental midgets, big dic, etc.

There weren't US casualty counts this low in Nam until we left. But please, continue to predict the worst possible outcome! There'll always be *something* negative to crow about, so keep on jerking that knee. I'm depending on it!

Tw is ever the apologist for tyranny, never the partisan of democracy. It's what I loathe about the man -- his habit of kowtowing to tinpot dictators suffering from delusions of adequacy. Or of benevolence, take your pick. Well, the stupid anti-Republican bigotry just plunges him deeper into the abyss.

There's been a generation or two of hollering from certain disreputable quarters about those mean ole conservatives and/or Republicans; they're this and they're that. Then you look at the record and at the conservative Republicans' writing and it is to be reliably presumed their thinking, and you find the accusations just aren't justified.

Well, the peckerslaps of the Left stopped fooling me quite some time ago.

Why, déjà.;) Gee, it would have been meilleur vu in a font color other than white. :p

Nothing has changed strategically. Many parties are stocking more weapons for what nobody wants but may be necessary. Shiites are removing Sunnis from positions of power. Once the Americans are gone, Sunnis will be completely disenfranchised and unrepresented in government. Only thing keeping that from happening is American troops. Also unknown is what the Shiites will do with the Kurds who have all but separated from Iraq. Will the Shiites attack the Kurds to take back the oil fields?

What we do know. Shiites what the Americans out. Shiites such as Sahdr are stocking weapons, training soldiers, and preparing for what may be necessary - open civil war. UT just ignores that. UT confuses tactical victories with a strategic objective - deja vue Nam. UT confuses body counts with victory - deja vue Nam.

Why no political settlement? Because an American created civil war will not end when Americans leave if no political solution exists. A lesson well proven in history. UT ignores what also happened even in Nam. He does this by mocking posts that only define those well proven principles from history.

Petraeus even said so. He cannot create a political solution - the strategic objective. He can only make it possible a tactical solution to permit a political solution to happen. Nothing new and still ignored by UT. There is no political solution ongoing. Just a demand by Shiites that Americans leave and have no remaining bases. Then a political solution may begin.