The Supreme Court May Finally Do Something Right!

DanaC · 07-04-2008, 06:04 AM

Quote:

You could stand to become more like me.

Could he? Really? I fucking couldn't.

xoxoxoBruce · 07-04-2008, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC

Could he? Really? I fucking couldn't.

Oooww, such language, from an intelligent, educated, worldly, genteel, Englishwomen.

Urbane Guerrilla · 07-05-2008, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC

Could he? Really? I fucking couldn't.

He could if he had an open mind, I must say that. Rusted shut is bad for anyone, regardless of IQ number actual or claimed, or of maturity stunted or in flower.

As for why you "fucking couldn't," I simply cannot find a reason -- nothing real, nothing substantial, nothing substantive, nothing anything. But what I emphatically NEVER try for is a mental clone. Uh uh. No way. Exact replication is by no means called for: I am not Radar, and not quite so impressed as he with my own individual genius..

I'm not left of center -- there's the aphorism that has quite a lengthy history, reaching back in one version or another to England in the early nineteenth century and evolving in France before coming back to England again: "If a man is not a ________ at twenty, he has no heart; if he is not a _________ at forty, no brains." The earliest English version had it Liberal and Conservative. It spent time in France being updated with every revision. DanaC and I are both over the age of, say, twenty-two. One of us is a Socialist. Is this, then, the why "I fucking couldn't?" Shrunken horizons, Dana, shrunken horizons. This American won't tolerate them.

Urbane Guerrilla · 07-05-2008, 07:22 PM

Here's something impressive from LiveJournal for the Fourth of July that really neatly expresses the view of foreign policy that I hold and radar rejects -- at, I believe, his peril:

Quote:

. . .so I will just leave you with something to ponder and I hope you do before dismissing it outright. The groundwork is actually IN the philosophy of our founding fathers to support our country's current foreign policy. We believe that ALL men are created equal...that's not just Americans. Kennedy said "We are the watchmen on the walls of world freedom". That is why we fight for other countries independence...because of what our country is founded on.

[emph mine]

And that bit of founding father philosophy will be something radar will predictably deny, reject, or prostitute his intellectual integrity to avoid seeing, because he doesn't think a free people should lift their littlest finger to free other peoples. Thank you, Xenophobia [and bad cess to you, stumblefuck].

The thread is here on LJ.

Radar · 07-05-2008, 11:23 PM

Here's an article written by Libertarian Author, two time presidential candidate, and giant among libertarians... Mr. Harry Browne. It's barely too big for one post, so I'll break it into two.

Mr. Browne does a good job of explaining why there is no libertarian justification to use the U.S. military to "liberate" those in other nations.

Like myself, Mr. Browne does a great job of shredding the pathetic and poor excuses for such foreign policy frequently put forth by those lying about being libertarians. One can not support the war in Iraq and also be a libertarian. Nor can one be a libertarian while supporting any other "pre-emptive" or unprovoked wars; especially those that do not have a Constitutionally required declaration of war.

========================================

May 6, 2003
Libertarians and War
by Harry Browne

I've been surprised by the number of libertarians who have supported the war against Iraq.

The two principal arguments I've heard from libertarian war-supporters are:

1. Saddam Hussein is a threat to the U.S. We must remove him from power before he attacks us or gives weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

2. We libertarians should be the first to support the liberation of the Iraqi people from a cruel dictator.

The Threat

With regard to the first argument, supporting a politician's pre-emptive attack violates virtually every principle underlying libertarian thought – the simple truths that are taught in Libertarianism 101.

For example . . .

1. Non-aggression: Most libertarians believe you shouldn't initiate force against someone who has never used force against you. Force is to be used only in self-defense – not used just because you don't happen to like someone, or because someone doesn't like you, or because he might become dangerous in the future, or because some third party has attacked you and you want to prove you're not a wimp. The same principles must apply to our nation – that it shouldn't use force against a nation that hasn't attacked us.

2. Credibility of Politicians: The idea that Hussein posed a substantial threat to America is based entirely on claims made by the Bush administration. When did libertarians start believing anything politicians say? Politicians routinely lie about fictitious budget surpluses, "budget cuts," drug matters, crime statistics, and almost anything else. Remember the old joke?:

"How can you tell when a politician is lying?"

"His lips move."

The Bush administration has already been caught in numerous falsehoods concerning Iraq:

claiming Iraq was consorting with Al-Qaeda (refuted by the CIA),
saying Iraq was acquiring aluminum tubes to make nuclear bombs (refuted by scientists and UN inspectors)
producing satellite photos of alleged chemical-weapons sites (that on-the-spot investigations proved to have no chemical weapons)
citing mobile chemical-weapons labs (that turned out to have no chemical weapons)
giving worthless leads to UN weapons inspectors
claiming that Iraq was seeking enriched uranium (citing documents that turned out to be crude forgeries)
referring to a British dossier as evidence (a dossier that turned out to have been plagiarized from a 12-year-old thesis written by a college student)

. . . and much more.

jinx · 07-06-2008, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Quote:

Kennedy said "We are the watchmen on the walls of world freedom".

And that bit of founding father philosophy...

Kennedy wasn't a Libertarian either. Nor was he a founding father.

This is from Ron Paul's site - it explains the philosophy of liberty, not as colorfully as Radar does, but it gets the job done.

Radar · 07-06-2008, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx

Kennedy wasn't a Libertarian either. Nor was he a founding father.

This is from Ron Paul's site - it explains the philosophy of liberty, not as colorfully as Radar does, but it gets the job done.

I used to have this animation as my signature in here. Ron Paul borrowed it from the ISIL (International Society for Individual Liberty)

They offer it in several languages: http://isil.org/resources/philosophy...rty-index.html

Radar · 07-06-2008, 08:46 PM

I especially like this part...

07-05-2008, 11:23 PM	#5
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	Here's an article written by Libertarian Author, two time presidential candidate, and giant among libertarians... Mr. Harry Browne. It's barely too big for one post, so I'll break it into two. Mr. Browne does a good job of explaining why there is no libertarian justification to use the U.S. military to "liberate" those in other nations. Like myself, Mr. Browne does a great job of shredding the pathetic and poor excuses for such foreign policy frequently put forth by those lying about being libertarians. One can not support the war in Iraq and also be a libertarian. Nor can one be a libertarian while supporting any other "pre-emptive" or unprovoked wars; especially those that do not have a Constitutionally required declaration of war. ======================================== May 6, 2003 Libertarians and War by Harry Browne I've been surprised by the number of libertarians who have supported the war against Iraq. The two principal arguments I've heard from libertarian war-supporters are: 1. Saddam Hussein is a threat to the U.S. We must remove him from power before he attacks us or gives weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. 2. We libertarians should be the first to support the liberation of the Iraqi people from a cruel dictator. The Threat With regard to the first argument, supporting a politician's pre-emptive attack violates virtually every principle underlying libertarian thought – the simple truths that are taught in Libertarianism 101. For example . . . 1. Non-aggression: Most libertarians believe you shouldn't initiate force against someone who has never used force against you. Force is to be used only in self-defense – not used just because you don't happen to like someone, or because someone doesn't like you, or because he might become dangerous in the future, or because some third party has attacked you and you want to prove you're not a wimp. The same principles must apply to our nation – that it shouldn't use force against a nation that hasn't attacked us. 2. Credibility of Politicians: The idea that Hussein posed a substantial threat to America is based entirely on claims made by the Bush administration. When did libertarians start believing anything politicians say? Politicians routinely lie about fictitious budget surpluses, "budget cuts," drug matters, crime statistics, and almost anything else. Remember the old joke?: "How can you tell when a politician is lying?" "His lips move." The Bush administration has already been caught in numerous falsehoods concerning Iraq: claiming Iraq was consorting with Al-Qaeda (refuted by the CIA), saying Iraq was acquiring aluminum tubes to make nuclear bombs (refuted by scientists and UN inspectors) producing satellite photos of alleged chemical-weapons sites (that on-the-spot investigations proved to have no chemical weapons) citing mobile chemical-weapons labs (that turned out to have no chemical weapons) giving worthless leads to UN weapons inspectors claiming that Iraq was seeking enriched uranium (citing documents that turned out to be crude forgeries) referring to a British dossier as evidence (a dossier that turned out to have been plagiarized from a 12-year-old thesis written by a college student) . . . and much more. __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

07-06-2008, 08:46 PM	#8
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	I especially like this part... __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)