If you aren't guilty, what are you afraid of?
[SIZE=3]If you aren't guilty, what are you afraid of?[/SIZE]
By Harry Browne
The Homeland Security bill is now law – following in the footsteps of all the new government intrusions of the past 14 months. And as concerns are raised about the new powers of the government, we continue to hear the familiar refrain, "If you aren't guilty, you have nothing to fear. These restrictions are necessary to catch terrorists, but they won't hurt innocent people."
Sure.
The well-known phrase, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you," could easily be reworded to read, "I'm from Congress and this program will turn out exactly as we promise it will."
Government has failed to educate our children properly, it has made a mess of our health-care system, it can't balance its budget, it can't keep its spending in line, it can't keep drugs out of its own prisons – but we're assured that it will run a squeaky-clean homeland security program.
It's bad enough that government wastes so much of our money, but it's even worse that almost anyone could wind up in prison – even someone who has committed no act of violence against anyone else. Look at the hundreds of thousands of pot-smokers who took seriously the statement that "a woman [or man] has a right to control his own body."
The guilty and the innocent
Why should we think the so-called War on Terrorism will be conducted with more regard for individual rights than anything the government has done up to now?
And yet, no matter how bad the government's record, whenever Congress passes a new piece of draconian legislation, we're assured that only the guilty will be hurt by these laws.
If only that were so. The truth is that innocence is no protection against government agencies that have the power to do what they think best – or against a government agent hoping for promotion and willing do whatever he has to do in order to get it.
In fact, it is almost always the innocent – not the guilty – who suffer most from government's intrusions.
[list][*]Tell the most unprejudiced businessman he has nothing to fear from the piles of forms he must file to prove he doesn't discriminate.
[*]Tell a homeowner he has nothing to fear when his property is seized by the government in a mistaken – or contrived – drug raid.
[*]Tell a taxpayer he has nothing to fear when the IRS drags him into a "taxpayer compliance" audit that eats up a week of his life, costs him thousands of dollars in accounting fees, and threatens him with unbearable penalties. [/list]
Being innocent doesn't allow you to ignore the government's demands for reports – or to say "No, thanks" when a government agent wants to search your records, your place of business, or your home – or to refuse to observe regulations that were aimed at the guilty, not you.
How laws go wrong
How many times have we seen the following pattern?
[list=1]
[*]The press and politicians demand that something be done about violent crime, terrorist acts, drug dealing, gun deaths, tax evasion, or whatever is the Urgent Concern Of The Month.
[*]A tough new take-no-prisoners law or policy is put into place.
[*]The guilty make it their business to understand whatever new policy might affect them – and they take steps to sidestep the inspections and background checks, and to keep their property out of reach of asset forfeiture laws. The innocent know little about such laws – having been told they have nothing to fear – and are surprised and helpless when some zealous law-enforcement agency, looking to pad its arrest and prosecution records, moves in on them.
[*]After the dust settles, the initial "problem" continues unabated, because the guilty have slipped through the net. But the innocent are left burdened with new chores, expenses, and dangers. If they're lucky, they suffer only from having more reports to file, less privacy, reduced access to products and services, higher costs, heavier taxes, and a new set of penalties for those who shirk their duty to fight in the War On ________ (fill in the blank). But those who aren't so lucky may wind up in prison – as have thousands of non-drug-using individuals who were convicted on drug charges.
[*]Needless to say, the ineffectual law is never repealed.
[/list=1]
When government force is used to solve social problems, we all suffer and nothing good is ever achieved. But coercion is wondrously effective at harming the innocent. All our lives are diminished.
Even worse, every year, a few million innocent people suffer special burdens – greater than those the government places on all of us. The dismantling of the Bill of Rights allows the government to disrupt their lives, confiscate their property, or even kill them – even though they've committed no crimes.
I hope you never become one of them. But no one can guarantee that.
Well, I'm kinda afraid of spiders ...
Oh, wait, that's not what your post meant. :D
Unfortunately entirely too many people have the "i'm not doing anything wrong so 'they' won't bother me" blinders firmly installed on their worldview.
I'll be the first to stand up and say the war on drugs has been and will always be a complete and total failure. But I don't consider terrorism a "social issue".
Attacking our civil rights in the name of security isn't a new idea. It's been done for hundreds if not thousands of years. Our founding fathers knew full well the dangers involved with this ideology.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
I just don't get people who think that in order to stop others from taking our freedom we must allow our government to take it first.
And the worst part is these intrusions on our lives and civil rights don't even provide the security they promise. If we didn't have our military spread out all over the world in a show of offensive force like the Roman Empire trying to bully everyone else for our own imperialistic ends, we wouldn't have as many people wanting to attack us.
If our military was here in America doing their job as a DEFENSIVE force rather than an OFFENSIVE one spread out all over, we'd have almost no worries.
Why do we need a homeland security department? Our military has only one purpose and that's to defend American ships and American soil. Not to be the police of the world, not to settle disputes among other nations, not to defend our allies, not for humanitarian aid missions, and certainly not to overthrow the leaders of other sovereign nations because we don't like them.
If the homeland security department is supposed to defend American soil, what's the military for? Defending the empire?
Harry Browne for P in 2k4!
Harry Browne will not run for President in 04. He's all about the bling bling. A hobbled national LP with dwindling membership is not fertile fundraising grounds, especially if your second round was so much crappier than your first.
Harry Browne isn't about the "bling bling". He's a wealthy investment banker and doesn't need the money. Unlike socialists like the Republicans, Democrats, and Green party who begged for federal matching funds, Harry Browne is the only candidate in American history that qualified for federal matching funds and refused to take them on principle because it would make him just as corrupt as the other parties.
And for your information the Libertarian party is the fastest growing party in America, has more members in elected offices than all other third parties combined, and isn't linked to special interest groups like those other parties. Also the major two parties are shrinking as more and more of their members wake up to the reality that there's virtually no difference between Republicans and Democrats. Both attack our civil rights. Both increase the size, scope, cost, and intrusiveness of government.
Harry isn't running because he's getting a little old to do it again. His showing at the last election is hardly representative because many people crossed party lines to make sure GWB didn't get elected only to find out the election was fixed by Jeb.
There are plenty of great Libertarian people who would make a better president than any in the last 100 years. I like Bill Masters a lot and would love to see him run in 2004 or 2008.
I'm going with Mickey Mouse next election...
Yes. So wealthy that he couldn't afford to pay his staff, after only attending a dozen state conventions in 1999, spending over $1M in donated campaign money, and temporarily stopping the campaign.
He won't run in 04. The clique is discredited. Perry Willis is gone. Dasbach is quitting. The Howell campaign left a big stinking turd in Massachusetts.
You don't want me to pull rank on you soldier. You don't know who you're talking to.
I envy democracy in Russia now. The people choose their own leader without an electoral college to work as a middle-man to screw things up. They also automatically get the choice 'NONE OF THE ABOVE" on their ballots. If "none of the above" wins a new election is forced and the original candidates can't take part.
I think I'm going to go potted plant.
<h4>Radar</h4>
When I was living in Mi, there was a state rep that was a libertarian. He was not from my district and I can't remember his name. He was occasionally referred to on local radio as "Representative NO". He voted no on nearly everything.
RN voted for 2 bills in his term. One was for the the reduction of state congressional pay!
For the most part RN was totally useless, he voted against everything, but we need more RN's now. We need US Senator Nos.
<h4>We need a "President No"</h4>
Yes. So wealthy that he couldn't afford to pay his staff, after only attending a dozen state conventions in 1999, spending over $1M in donated campaign money, and temporarily stopping the campaign.
He spent millions on his first bid for the presidency and was only going to use donated funds for the second election. And he would not accept any corporate donations or any private donations of more than $1,000 per household per year. It's a matter of integrity and principle.
He won't run in 04. The clique is discredited. Perry Willis is gone. Dasbach is quitting. The Howell campaign left a big stinking turd in Massachusetts.
There's nothing discredited in the LP. Dabasch is leaving for personal reasons. And Carla Howell got 45.4% towards getting rid of state income tax in Taxachussets. That's an amazing accomplishment. And the Republicans who supposedly want to lower taxes and have smaller government came out strongly opposed to getting rid of state tax. What a shocker!
And I'm all about the LP. I don't think you know who you're messing with either.
I see Bill Masters as a great guy and think he'd be great to lead this country.
SLANG: A Libertarian president would use a truckload of pens to veto everything that passed their desk. A Libertarian would veto anything that wasn't specifically listed in the constitution and work to get rid of the unconstitional parts of government already around.
We've got waaay too many laws. So many that our elected officials call themselves "law makers". I'd much rather have a law eraser than a law maker.
"And Carla Howell got 45.4%"
AND, she'd make Mass safer by throwing out all the stupid gun laws. :)
Have I crossed the line into nuisance yet?
Carla Howell got 1% and her cloudy boyfriend got 19% for Senate in a two-way race and you know it. The Green party candidate beat Howell like a rented mule, getting three times as many votes. Even your spin point is a loser at 45%.
Let the Kool-aid wear off man!
Carla Howell spent most of her time trying to get Question 1 passed. She knew she didn't have a good shot at winning the election so she worked on ending income tax in Taxachussets which is an even greater accomplishment in my book. And she very nearly did it despite having limited funds for radio ads, newspaper ads, etc. and the Globe and other newspapers coming out against her.
At the very least she ensured that there will be no tax increase in Taxachussets by the new governor or other people in office this term.
Slang: You're correct, gun registration and rectriction laws are both unconstitutional and cost a lot in terms of lives.
OK, thanks Radar. Counting you , I think the total number of people here that DONT think I'm delusional is at.....what, 4?
We are not growing in membership. Put down the glass.
Slang, you're mostly sane at least on health care and guns, also any paranoia about Homeland Security is completely justified .
Oh please god no, no gun control debate.
We are not growing in membership. Put down the glass.
The Libertarian party is not only growing but growing faster than any other party. I should know, my efforts are responsible for 1% - 2% of the newly registered Libertarians in the state with the most Libertarians. I've done youth outreach stuff at raves, political rallies, etc. with a team of other guys.
I'm the membership chair in my region which happens to be one of the most active regions in America.
The LP is dead, dead, dead. The ideals it stands for have a small and dwindling contituency in the US, and the LP itself hit its high point in 1972. The two-party system in the United States is far too stable and entrenched to be budged using methods available within the system. And it is set up so most outside influences strengthen it as well.
The LP is alive and well. In fact we've got the most members and registered voters we've ever had and more elected members than all other third parties combined.
There's NOTHING stable about the two major parties. In fact they are bringing instability and even destruction to America and perhaps the world.
More and more members are leaving the two major parties as they become disenchanted and realize there's virtually no difference between the two parties.
There's your "most members and registered voters we've ever had" LP historical membership statistics, dude.
I can be such a dick when I know I'm right.
Oh, and if the Cloud/Howell campaign spun their sub-20,000 vote total as "oh, we were busy on the TAX question" --
-- then why didn't the "Howell for Senate" full-page ads in the LP News direct people to fund a committee for the question, instead of her campaign?
Firstly, getting 45% on a yes/no question where the "no" means "less taxes" is not something I would seek to take credit for. Unless of course I was seeking it amongst a group that was terribly ignorant about politics...
Secondly, if she did so much for the benefit of the question, would not some of the millions of votes cast as NO lead to coat-tails for her? No, her vote total was tiny.
Sorry to bust yer balls. Someday you'll thank me for it.
Wow, an unlabeled chart from an unknown source. Gosh I'm convinced! Convinced you're talking out of your ass.
I can be such a dick when I know I'm right.
I have a feeling you don't have to be right to be a dick.
-- then why didn't the "Howell for Senate" full-page ads in the LP News direct people to fund a committee for the question, instead of her campaign?
Because the 3 full page ads in the Boston globe explained what Question 1 was and how they should vote on the issue. The LP News ad was to get donations and volunteers for her campaign which is less likely in a Boston globe ad.
Firstly, getting 45% on a yes/no question where the "no" means "less taxes" is not something I would seek to take credit for. Unless of course I was seeking it amongst a group that was terribly ignorant about politics...
Getting 45% to remove an entrenched state tax despite millions upon millions being spent to scare people into thinking the state would collapse without it and while having a meager budget is something to be very proud of.
Secondly, if she did so much for the benefit of the question, would not some of the millions of votes cast as NO lead to coat-tails for her?
Because Taxachussets isn't a strong state for Republicans and since it was the first election after the highly questionable elections in 2000 voter turnout was extremely low and polarized on the two major parties.
I don't mean to burst your bubble chief but you don't seem to know as much about the LP as you think.
Originally posted by Radar
Wow, an unlabeled chart from an unknown source.
The source isn't unknown...it's from UT. He's actually capable of charting numbers.
Are you challenging his LP membership numbers? Where are yours?
Originally posted by Radar
The Libertarian party is not only growing but growing faster than any other party. I should know, my efforts are responsible for 1% - 2% of the newly registered Libertarians in the state with the most Libertarians.
Should we be impressed?
Tonight I'm gonna start the Aloysius Party. We currently have one member, me.
I bet by tomorrow, I could have a 300% increase in membership. Then <I>I'd</I> be responsible for the fastest-growing party in America!
Originally posted by Radar
I have a feeling you don't have to be right to be a dick.
He's got point there, Shepps. :)
Maybe it's time to change your User Text.. "Sometimes wrong" is getting old; "Such a dick" has a much better ring to it!
Radar ... Just remember, Toad DID warn you.
(Sits back, makes popcorn, and prepares to enjoy the fun...)
Originally posted by Radar
More and more members are leaving the two major parties as they become disenchanted and realize there's virtually no difference between the two parties.
People have been saying that for decades. The system will never change. You'll never get enough people to agree that the two parties are so bad that we need a third.
I consider myself more libertarian (lowercase) than conservative, but I'd only vote Libertarian as a protest vote if the Republican was an idiot.
Even if I thought the Libertarian would do better, I'd still vote Republican, for two reasons:
<OL><LI>I want my vote to count. I know the Libertarian couldn't win, so I won't vote for him. You may disagree with that logic, but that's the way most people who actually vote think.</LI>
<LI>The Ralph Nader effect. In 2000, a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. Bush is president because of Nader (and Elian Gonzalez, for that matter). Maybe if we had a ranking system instead of voting for one only, the LP would have a snowball's chance in hell. But <I>that</I> will never happen, because the two parties wouldn't want it. It's a vicious cycle, man.
</OL>
UT's chart appears to come from
here, and shows the number of dues-paying members of the party.
You live in California according to your profile, Radar, so...
--14.6 million registered voters as of 1998
--87,183 registered Libertarians...I'm also assuming from 1998 (Source for this and the previous stat:
State of California)
--89,125 registered Libertarians as of Sept. 2002 (Source:
Libertarian Party of California)...a drop from a peak of almost 95,000 two years ago...and a drop from 92,000 in March, according to their recent counts.
That's a 6% drop since 2000...where's the increase?
Originally posted by Tobiasly
Tonight I'm gonna start the Aloysius Party. We currently have one member, me.
I'll join...why not? There...100% increase already. :)
By the way Radar, you're kinda new here.. we're always hardest on people who actually make coherent, intelligent posts (that we happen to disagree with).
So don't think UT or anyone is really being a dick. This is obviously something you're rather passionate about. It's all good.
Woohoo! Syc and I actually in the same party! Who'd'a thunkit?
I want my vote to count. I know the Libertarian couldn't win, so I won't vote for him. You may disagree with that logic, but that's the way most people who actually vote think.
If you vote for a Republican or democrat, your vote doesn't count. Either way you'll get the same thing. You'll get people who attack your civil rights, and make government larger, more expensive, and more intrusive. You'll never get anything different if you always vote for the same thing. And saying you won't vote for someone unless they can win is like saying, "I won't vote for that guy unless he doesn't need my vote". Politics isn't a horse race where you use your vote to bet on a winner.
That's a 6% drop since 2000...beyond a "standard" margin of error. Why the drop?
Assuming those numbers are correct it's easily explainable in the people's republic of california which is full of socialist idiots.
And if they're correct I stand corrected with regard to it being the most registered voters the party has had of all time. That would be back in 1999 and 2000 when Harry Browne was running for office. Either way the party is growing right now nationally even if not in the state of California.
I bet by tomorrow, I could have a 300% increase in membership. Then I'd be responsible for the fastest-growing party in America!
Let me know when your party has a presidential candidate on the ballot in all 50 states for 3 elections in a row, when you've got over 500 members in elected offices, etc.
Originally posted by Tobiasly
Woohoo! Syc and I actually in the same party! Who'd'a thunkit?
Politically speaking at least. :)
Shit...what do we stand for?
Originally posted by sycamore
Shit...what do we stand for?
Free the weed at SEMO!
The membership chart comes from Joe Dehn.
http://www.dehnbase.org/lpus/library/membership.html
Joe is known to the LP for having provided web and other services for the national party for ages and ages. Before the LP redesigned their site, Joe was their webmaster. The LP doesn't publish membership statistics - well, ever since "Archemedes", the much-vaulted Willis/Dasbach membership plan, failed so spectacularly. You won't find membership numbers on the web site.
But Joe has been maintaining the membership information for volunteer statistical purposes forever, and he's the guy who sends out the monthly state membership tables on the LPUS mailing list. Perhaps you've seen them? Well, the above is the graphical version. You have to know where to look for it.
Getting 45% to remove an entrenched state tax despite millions upon millions being spent to scare people into thinking the state would collapse without it and while having a meager budget is something to be very proud of.
It's the kind of result that the LP crows about to membership to sound impressive. It <i>sounds</i> great, doesn't it? Too bad the faithful spent all their money on a campaign that, in the end, meant no change whatsoever.
Kinda like those elected officials numbers. Hey, my wife is one of those numbers. She's an election official. She checks people in when they vote. She enjoys it. It's almost completely non-partisan and the effect of having an L there as opposed to a D is meaningless. After eight years of it, she's tired of it and probably won't do it again. Her and her numbers will start decreasing the PA "elected" count, but many years after the end of the LP's membership/money "bubble" (shown in Dehn's membership numbers above).
But back to those faithful who spent their money. If the campaign ads went to the Howell for Governor campaign, but were diverted and used for the ballot initiative, wouldn't that be <i>fraud</i>?
As for "Why no coattails?", you say
Because Taxachussets isn't a strong state for Republicans and since it was the first election after the highly questionable elections in 2000 voter turnout was extremely low and polarized on the two major parties.
Chief, she got 1%. She got the kool-aid vote. The low turnout makes her 1% look worse, not better. If the turnout would have been higher, she would have gotten 0.7%. Wow, the LP's best and brightest!
Look at it another way. The NO vote on Question 1 was nearly 900,000 votes, right? How come Howell only got 20,000 of those votes? If the small government spirit so motivated those Q1 voters, why couldn't the small government candidate convert any more than 1 in 45 of them?
The LP: our candidates lose by a whole lot, but our BALLOT QUESTIONS only lose by a LITTLE!
Originally posted by Radar
And saying you won't vote for someone unless they can win is like saying, "I won't vote for that guy unless he doesn't need my vote".
No, read my second point. Voting for my second-favorite candidate, who has a decent chance of winning, is better than voting for my favorite candidate, who has no chance of winning, thereby increasing my <I>least</I> favorite candidate's chances of winning.
I completely agree that under a different system, it might make sense to fight for whomever I'm most ideologically aligned with. But our system is here to stay. It will never change. So we may as well work it as best we can.
What is your goal in getting people to vote for Browne? Do you ever think he'll actually hold office -- or even have a chance of coming within 20 points of the next loser? Or do you just want to make your issues known? Or perhaps force the other candidates to lean more libertarian?
Let me know when your party has a presidential candidate on the ballot in all 50 states for 3 elections in a row, when you've got over 500 members in elected offices, etc.
Oh, so now we're putting stipulations on it!
Originally posted by Tobiasly
Free the weed at SEMO!
:thumb:
:blunt:
Sorry...these two emoticons rock.
Too bad the faithful spent all their money on a campaign that, in the end, meant no change whatsoever.
It made a huge change. It made voters realize that they could get rid of the state tax and it will come up again. It also ensured that there will be no tax increases for the newly elected people. They wouldn't dare raise taxes as they had planned to do after this.
But back to those faithful who spent their money. If the campaign ads went to the Howell for Governor campaign, but were diverted and used for the ballot initiative, wouldn't that be fraud?
Who said anything about money being diverted. More money was collected for the Question 1 campaign than for the Carla Howell campaign. And she focused her efforts on passing that initiative. And as far as people not riding the coat-tail from question 1 to vote for her as a governor, it's much easier to sell getting rid of taxes to a bunch of overtaxed republicans and democrats than it is to sell a Libertarian governor. This year people wouldn't vote for Libertarians because of the election in 2000. It's that simple.
I'm sorry you're a bitter little man who is discouraged about the party because you haven't seen enough results, but I say you could have done more to get those results. Page 3 of the current issue of the LP News has an article showing why most of the people who leave the party do so. I'm sure you fit into the "lack of effectiveness" catagory if you've left. Either way your whining and badmouthing of the party don't help anyone.
No, read my second point. Voting for my second-favorite candidate, who has a decent chance of winning, is better than voting for my favorite candidate, who has no chance of winning, thereby increasing my least favorite candidate's chances of winning.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
And voting for a republican or democrat is voting for evil. You will get the same thing regardless of which one you vote for. And it's completely stupid to vote on someone based on how well you think their chances are of winning.
But our system is here to stay. It will never change. So we may as well work it as best we can.
The Republicans were a third party a 100 years or so ago. So yes it does change. And claiming "It will never change" is a defeatist attitude and weak logic.
What is your goal in getting people to vote for Browne? Do you ever think he'll actually hold office -- or even have a chance of coming within 20 points of the next loser? Or do you just want to make your issues known? Or perhaps force the other candidates to lean more libertarian?
My goal is getting enough votes and press for the Libertarian candidate (not necessarily Harry Browne) to make people take notice and for other elected officials to change their policies to a more libertarian way of thinking. America was built by Libertarian thinkers. I want to force the two major parties to include Libertarians or anyone else who has a candidate on the ballot in all 50 states to be included in the debates. My goal is to stay with the only party that makes sense politically. I will never rest until there's a Libertarian in the oval office, the drug war is completely over, and the federal government sticks strictly to the constitution. I've sworn to Peter McWilliam's mother that I will keep up the fight with my dying breath.
Originally posted by Radar
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
Gee, I wish it were that cut-and-dried. Evil, evil, good huh?
If the choices are good, not quite as good, and bad, and voting for good means bad has a better chance, voting for not-quite-as-good is a no-brainer.
And voting for a libertarian or democrat is voting for evil.
Finally, something we agree on. Either way, we're more likely to have a Democrat in office. Libertarians suck more votes from R's than they do from D's. You may see D's and R's as the same, but most libertarian-leaning people I know are much more aligned with the Republican party.
Now you're probably gonna say you made a typo or something.
Originally posted by Radar
The Republicans were a third party a 100 years or so ago.
Politics is much different today than it was 100 years ago.
If the choices are good, not quite as good, and bad, and voting for good means bad has a better chance, voting for not-quite-as-good is a no-brainer.
But that's not your choice. You've got evil #1 (Republicans) and evil #2 (Democrats) which are both equally evil and result in the exact same thing happening. They aren't different in any way. And you've got the only good (Libertarians) in American politics who make sense, stick to their promises, and respect the constitution.
Finally, something we agree on. Either way, we're more likely to have a Democrat in office
That was a typo and was fixed. It's supposed to read
And voting for a republican or democrat is voting for evil
And if there is a lesser of two evils between the democrats and republicans it's the democrats only because they do what they say. The promise to raise taxes and spend more and they do it while republicans lie and claim to want smaller government and constantly take steps to increase the size of government. So not only are they corrupt socialist scumbags but they lie about it.
Libertarians suck more votes from R's than they do from D's. You may see D's and R's as the same, but most libertarian-leaning people I know are much more aligned with the Republican party.
Most Libertarians think of them as identical and we get more former republicans because the want smaller government and believed the republican lies.
Now you're probably gonna say you made a typo or something.
You knew damn well I made a typo and don't act like you didn't know it or that it wasn't a typo.
Politics is much different today than it was 100 years ago.
100 years ago the government mostly stuck to the limits placed on them by the constitution. Other than that it's exactly the same. The same tricks. The same idiots claiming our civil rights need to be put on hold in the name of "security", the same everything.
There is no lesser of two evils. There is no "not quite so good" and "bad". There is good and everything else. Republicans spend more money than democrats, attack our civil rights as much or more than democrats, violate the constitution as much or more than democrats, and constantly take steps to increase their power, and make government larger, more intrusive, and more expensive. The only difference between them is the democrats tax and spend and the republicans borrow, tax, and spend and which parts of the constitution they will violate first.
Here's a few quick facts about the Republican party and George W. Bush.
[list]
[*]Republicans created income tax in the first place. Abraham Lincoln created them on August 5, 1861. And that was only one of his violations of the constitution.
[*]When Reagan took office in 1981 the federal budget was $600 billion
[*]Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress from 1995 through 2001 during which time the federal budget grew from $1.4 trillion to $2.1 trillion (about $100 billion annually).
[*]Since Republicans took control of the House in 1995, federal discretionary spending has grown by a rate of about 7% annually. The number of earmarks lawmakers have put in the spending bills to steer federal funds to their districts has also grown. By one estimate, between fiscal years 2001 and 2002, they increased from about 6,300 to 8,300, or 32%
[*]The last Republican president to preside over a decrease in federal spending was Warren G. Harding who served from 1921 until his death in 1923. During that time federal spending decreased 38% from $5 billion to $3.1 billion.
[*]Social welfare programs under George W. Bush have grown by $96 billion in just two years, versus $51 billion under six years of Clinton
[/list]
Originally posted by Tobiasly
Free the weed at SEMO!
He he. Looks like we have a movement.
Radar, I respect your drive and focus. Undertoad had that kind of burning desire but it wasn't sustainable. He knows what he's talking about. You may want to have a civil conversation with him. He put in his time.
Myself, I'm a lifestyle libertarian. I won't vote for the evil or the stupid party. The LP represents my ideals and Brownes writing is inspiring. Unfortunately, the clique at national are career politicians. Although we may need careerists, people who choose politics are by definition manipulators. All politicians are evil, some more some less, the LPers are generally less, since their personal power grabbing goals involve government divesting power.
Originally posted by Radar
You've got evil #1 (Republicans) and evil #2 (Democrats) which are both equally evil and result in the exact same thing happening.
If that were actually true, it would be a great deal easier for someone like myself--who beleives in much of the LP platform--to vote LP. The reality is that there is often important differences among the republicrat candidates--our recent gubenatorial race here in PA being a case in point.
The LP candidate for govenor came to <a href="http://www.pinkpistols.org">our shooting club</a> meeting. Over lunch he told us how he was able to enlist the aid of the Democrtatic candidate's campaign to make sure he had sufficient signatures on the petition putting him on the ballot.
So--this is the party that wants me to--on the basis of "principle over practicality", crowing that "you get whet you vote for"--use my vote as a political statement to publicize their cause instead as a tactical tool to prevent the election of a gun-grabber with heavy socialist leanings?
I do believe that there many more people supporting LP values than there are people registered or even voting LP--and that their numbers actually are growing. Someday I hope that growth leads to a situation where an LP vote is more than just a protest vote.
Until thern, when it really *doesn't* mattter which republicrat is elected, I *do* vote LP. Unfortunately that doesn't happen often.
<h4>MaggieL</h4>
Cool site! It's not just gays that don't get bashed while armed though. The second amendment works for all of us, whether you want to take advantage of it or not.
:thumb:
I'm sorry you're a bitter little man who is discouraged about the party because you haven't seen enough results, but I say you could have done more to get those results.
OK. I told you you didn't want me to pull LP rank.
In 1992 I helped to re-energize my county party which quickly became the largest county party in PA, then the LP's second most important state.
In 1993 I worked as secretary for that county.
In 1994 I worked as vice-chair for that county, and started to develop local candidates as we ran 5 candidates for US House, more than ever seen before in PA. That year I also found the PA-Libernet mailing list which becomes a focus for state liberty activity.
In 1995 I was chair for the county.
In 1996 I encouraged my wife to run for statewide office, and then operated her campaign. We polled over 100,000 votes, four times that of Harry Browne's statewide total and she was fifth nationwide in LP candidate vote totals. At the same time our county ran 6 candidates for US House and got awesome local news coverage.
In 1997 I became secretary of the state party. That year I operated Ken Krawchuk's campaign for a local-level office. The campaign included four direct-mail pieces, out-spending the D and R by a factor of 5, and complete precinct walking. It is listed in the LP News as one of the three most important campaigns to watch that year. The campaign fails but we are invited to speak to the natcom about it.
That year I also work at recruiting a ton of candidates for election worker offices. By the end of the year PA has a tenth of the local office-holders in the entire country.
In 1998 I became an advocate for ballot access. At their state convention, I unsuccessfully lobby the League of Women Voters, working many 20-hour days putting together a campaign (to encourage them to study the issue, it's a technical thing) that misses by two votes.
It all turns out to be prescient as the state legislature passes a bill that would increase ballot access petition requirements and make it completely impossible for any third party candidate to get on the ballot. For a week my house becomes ballot access central as we write faxes to state media outlets telling everyone about the bad bill. The president of the LWV speaks out against it. Eventually the NY Times even catches the story. All the major papers in the state editorialize against the bill. The governor vetoes the bill. (That governor: Tom Ridge.)
In 1998 I also work as Ken Krawchuk's closest advisor in his gubernatorial campaign. I help him to develop his debate strategy and my wife is his campaign treasurer.
In 1999 I come to a few slow-but-steady realizations about the LP. I set it aside in order to focus on starting my own business.
In 2000 my realizations become more well-formed and I quit altogether: membership, volunteering, everything.
Why did I leave? The LPers fantasy about why people leave is all wrong, with me. With me, it's the LPers worst nightmare. I didn't become fed up. I got burned out, but I could have come back.
I left because without the constant din of LP activity and LP, yes, propaganda, my mind was free to examine the situation from a new perspective, and
I did not like what I saw. I saw that politics was inevitable, that the law was fluid and must always be interpreted. I noticed that the LP was terrible for the entire liberty movement. I realized that the political conditions were not right for the party. I figured out that most LPers are very politically naive (albeit very bright philosophically). I learned what it takes to win elections and saw that the LP could not do it by definition.
I realized that consent of the governed is the most important aspect of government and that if the people did not want libertopia then it was wrong to force it on them. Whoa!
Am I a bitter little man? Oh you betcha, but that's a style quibble and I'll be satisfied to be bitter and RIGHT THIS TIME. I'm speaking out of experience.
Originally posted by slang
Cool site!
Thanks. My lifepartner is pretty much their webmistress these days.
The local chapter page is at
http://delawarevalley.pinkpistols.org
We hope to have mpeg1 files of our appearances on local TV (a 5 minutes on the local Fox affiliate's news, and a 30 minute call-in show on a local PBS station) available on-line soon.
It's not just gays that don't get bashed while armed though. The second amendment works for all of us, whether you want to take advantage of it or not.
Quite true. But there is a perception that gays are uniformly politically liberal gun-haters. Being presumed to be unarmed is a very dangerous thing. We're working to change that perception, and we support the right of self-defense for *everyone*. And when people no longer assume that queers are defenseless, it benefits *all* queers. Even the gun haters. :-)
We also work to change the perception amongst queer folk that they'll be reviled and excluded in the shooting community, the range and the gun shop. It's not true at all. Most shooters are staunch enough believers in personal freedom that they don't care about your sexual orientation.
I think all this talk about the LP (which I was registered as at one time, surprising as that may seem) is indicative of a greater problem in American politics: the stranglehold of the two party system. Most democracies use a parliamentary system, where more parties have a chance at getting their voices heard in the government. I don't know that I really like that system, but it spawns the question: what can be done to expand the American political system? I would vote Green if I could, but I don't feel like throwing my vote away and helping the Republican candidate win. Much the same has been said on this board about the LP candidate and the Democratic victory that could result from voting LP. Bush Sr. lost in '92 (partially) because many Republicans crossed over to the Reform party, and some Democrats blamed Nader for Gore's poor showing in certain regions.
I've seen a variety of solutions suggested to combat this trend, from instant runoff, where voters rank their candidate choices, to a complete overhaul of the entire system. What do cellarites think?
Since the two parties run the system, I don't see a change of form coming. What I'd like to see would be a serious attempt to create a libertarian-green hybrid party. Get the greens to shake off anti-capitalism and the libs to embrace a more realistic view of corporations at least to the point of acknowleging that companies play the government. I don't know that creating an individualistic green is possible but its something to chew on, write on, think on. Anyway the point is the Democratic Party is ripe for the picking, some kind of lib/green could take them.
I've worked on both Harry Browne Campaigns, I'm the creator of the Libertarian youth outreach program in California, I've created websites, collected signatures, and run entire campaigns for several candidates in California ranging from state assembly, to city council and mayor. I've helped campaigns of other libertarian candidates in other states and helped pass out information on libertarian initiatives and laws. I am THE california state LP office computer network guy. I've helped arrange protests, political rallies, music festivals, voter registration booths, etc.
I've done as much or more than you have for the Libertarian party and my conviction and dedication are stronger now than ever.
I left because without the constant din of LP activity and LP, yes, propaganda, my mind was free to examine the situation from a new perspective, and I did not like what I saw.
Perhaps you never were much of a LIbertarian if you give up so easily.
I saw that politics was inevitable, that the law was fluid and must always be interpreted.
I see the law as clear and easy and in no need of translation. Congress, the USSC, and the President answer to the constitution, they don't define it.
I noticed that the LP was terrible for the entire liberty movement. I realized that the political conditions were not right for the party.
The LP is the only thing good for the Liberty movement. Everything else is crap. Political conditions couldn't be better for the Libertarian party. The American public is more sick than ever of Republicrats.
figured out that most LPers are very politically naive (albeit very bright philosophically). I learned what it takes to win elections and saw that the LP could not do it by definition.
I'm politically very sharp and have always known what it takes to win elections. It takes money. But the way you get that money is just as important or more important as how much you get. I'd rather lose an election than win it the way that Republicrats do. If we act like the monster, we become the monster.
I realized that consent of the governed is the most important aspect of government and that if the people did not want libertopia then it was wrong to force it on them.
Registering voters and getting people elected is hardly forcing Libertarianism on them. And Libertarians don't believe in utopia or promise it. Libertarians recognize that there can never be a utopia and live in the real world. Most people in America are Libertarians but just don't know it.
Am I a bitter little man? Oh you betcha, but that's a style quibble and I'll be satisfied to be bitter and RIGHT THIS TIME. I'm speaking out of experience
I've been disappointed before and upset when my efforts didn't pan out. But when that happens I step back and look at what I could have done better and then I get back into the fight. I'm sorry that you're a bitter burnout but don't think you've done more for the party than I have and don't think your efforts were wasted because both of those are false. I don't want to get into a look at my libertarian resume discussion with you. Let's just say we've both done a lot for the party.
And for the record, you're NOT RIGHT THIS TIME. Your just burned out and bitter and upset. You sound like you wanted more results. And you sound tainted by Republicrat propaganda. The word "propaganda" suggests lies, and that's what the Republicrats are good at. Libertarians don't lie to get votes. We don't need to. And Libertarians who have been elected actually do what they promise. We walk the walk instead of just talking the talk like Republicans. We take actual steps to reduce the size, cost, and scope of government. Even when we don't win elections, or initiatives we get the message out there that people are sick of the way things are going.
I'm sorry that you've given up on Libertarianism, but don't expect me to stand by while you bash the party or tell outright lies claiming Libertarians candidates are corrupt, or in any way like other politicians.
I'm in it for the long haul. Heck I'm just about he right age to be the first Libertarian president myself. I hope you get over yourself and come back to the only political party that is offering valid and reasonable solutions to Americas many problems and don't continue contributing to them by supporting Republicans or Democrats.
Radar, principle gets nowhere if you play by the rules. You have to work within the system to change it, and if that means getting campaign contributions to get elected, then that's what you have to do. Calling on a sense of principles will energise a base, but if you can't afford to get the message out past that base, you're not going to get anywhere. The important thing is to remember your principles if you do get elected.
I think it would be a good idea to see Greens and Libs work together on the issues that they concur on. It would provide a good counter to the 2 party system. They can retain their individual parties, but form a coalition when their interests converge.
Perhaps you never were much of a LIbertarian if you give up so easily.
One of the things that the hard-core Ls do is to routinely conduct witch-hunts in which various people are accused of not being Libertarian or not L "enough" in various ways. Purity is a big criterion amongst the faithful, and those who stray from 100% get harsh criticism.
This is rewarding inside the party, because the hard faithful are needed to do the heavy lifting. The more you believe in the cause, the more likely you are to do things like setting up youth outreach programs.
From outside, it looks like cult-like exclusivity through rigorous testing. But most importantly, it's a curse for any political party, which in order to succeed needs to create and foster a "big tent" atmosphere where the many are welcome and gather to create political blocs of power.
LPers routinely ask themselves whether they would be better off without the 1/3rd of the party that are impure, or who are nay-sayers, or who complain about the internal workings of the party, etc. etc. It would have the result of making the faithful even more faithful. But also, even more cult-like, as potential members are put through even more rigorous testing and pre-education. ("Are you one of us? Take this test!")
Perhaps I never was much of a Libertarian? What does the question itself indicate? What would it say about an organization where I was a "principled" hard-working leader for years upon years, only to be told I was somehow lacking, in ways that I could not determine?
The LP is the only thing good for the Liberty movement. Everything else is crap. Political conditions couldn't be better for the Libertarian party. The American public is more sick than ever of Republicrats.
And as long as you keep repeating those things, you'll be fine. I know; I was repeating 'em in 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998.
But there is a saying that is sometimes heard in the party that applies here.
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again... and expecting different results."
When I stopped repeating those things, the facts could seep through. Facts like the membership decline, which you could not accept when it was put right before your eyes. Do you know what you are, if part of your decision-making process is actively ignoring facts? Do you?
A convert.
I'm politically very sharp and have always known what it takes to win elections. It takes money.
You've never worked on a campaign where you massively outspend the opposition by factors of 4:1 and 5:1 and still only get 11% of the vote.
Originally posted by Radar
You knew damn well I made a typo and don't act like you didn't know it or that it wasn't a typo.
Whoa, you need to chill <I>way</I> the fuck out, man. It was a joke. Yes, I realized it was a typo, which is why I posted the sarcastic "now you're probably gonna say you made a typo or something".
I just thought it was a funny typo and commented on it. Next time I'll be sure to include a :) so you know I'm joking.
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again... and expecting different results."
Very true. But the LP
IS getting different results. We're getting more and more elected members. We're becoming more and more mainstream.
I don't find the LP cultlike in any way. I'm sorry if you found it that way.
like the membership decline, which you could not accept when it was put right before your eyes.
Actually I did accept it once I was given a verifiable source. And I said I was wrong.
You've never worked on a campaign where you massively outspend the opposition by factors of 4:1 and 5:1 and still only get 11% of the vote.
No I haven't. My candidates are usually poor. It also takes a charismatic and well spoken candidate who is well-known throughout the community. The last candidate I ran a campaign for asked me to stop campaigning because she didn't want to actually win. She was convinced to run just to get on the ballot bud didn't want to move to Sacramento. This is NOT the kind of candidate we need. Recently I was discussing with some other Libertarians if our efforts were better spent on backing a very select number of candidates and issues to get them elected and have more credibility or if it's better to have candidates in every place Republicans and Democrats are running. Which would be better for the party? I'm not sure.
Radar, principle gets nowhere if you play by the rules. You have to work within the system to change it, and if that means getting campaign contributions to get elected, then that's what you have to do.
I'm all for getting contributions as long as those contributions aren't from special interest groups, wealthy corporations or individuals, or federal matching funds. All of those things make you beholden or corrupt.
Calling on a sense of principles will energise a base, but if you can't afford to get the message out past that base, you're not going to get anywhere.
If you cross the line once to get elected, you'll cross it after you're elected. Just as allowing government to step beyond the bounds of the constitution is wrong even for a good reason because you open the door later for someone to do it for the wrong reasons.
I think it would be a good idea to see Greens and Libs work together on the issues that they concur on.
The greens and libertarians are diametrically opposed. Greens are socialists with strong ties to special interest groups. They are statists, and authoritarians who think the role of government is to stop any possible negative situation that people might get themselves into.
They can retain their individual parties, but form a coalition when their interests converge.
We are both against the drug war, so are groups like the ACLU, etc. But our efforts don't need to be combined to be effective. All of these groups can tell people the drug war is wrong in their own way and the message will be spread to the same number of people if not more. Our solution to end the drug war is to vote for Libertarians, their is to vote for greens. I don't see how we can work together unless it's in support of an initiative as everyone did in 1996 with prop 215 (the compassionate use act) which made medical marijuana legal to grow and use in CA. The fed keeps sweeping in with the DEA and shutting down these places and arresting people.
I don't find any of the parties to be a good match for me right now b/c I find that...
--The Democrats have the wrong people leading them right now (Gephardt stepping aside is encouraging though)...and they get all stupid on the death penalty
--The Greens are anti-business.
--The Republicans...different ideology.
--The Libertarians are not interested in protecting the civil rights of minorities.
--And the Aloysius party is run by some chucklehead who graduated from Southeast Missouri State University, where you can get a B by just sleeping through a class. ;)
The Libertarians are not interested in protecting the civil rights of minorities.
Libertarians are interested in protecting civil rights for EVERYONE, not just minorities. They won't give up civil rights for security like the major two parties. Libertarians won't support hate crimes legislation because it places the government position of being the "thought police" and won't support reverse discrimination through institutionalized racism like affirmative action. We're all about meritocracy regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc. Nothing could be more fair than that.
Most everyone's for that, Radar. Everyone except reality.
Originally posted by sycamore
--And the Aloysius party is run by some chucklehead who graduated from Southeast Missouri State University, where you can get a B by just sleeping through a class. ;)
But we're the fastest-growing party in the U.S! 500% growth in 24 hours -- that's an annualized growth of 182,500%!!
And don't make me post more pictures of the mascot -- I'm sure people are getting sick of pictures of my dog -- but he's cuter than any donkey, most elephants, and probably whatever the LP's mascot is.
Most everyone's for that, Radar. Everyone except reality.
Everyone who wants equality is for it. Those who want a handout are against it.
probably whatever the LP's mascot is
It's the statue of Liberty.
Originally posted by Radar
Everyone who wants equality is for it. Those who want a handout are against it.
I'd wager that most people don't want a handout. They want a fair chance...they want to play on a level field.
But we're still far away from that. Programs like Affirmative Action are in place for reasons beyond guilt. Admittedly, it's not perfect, and we'll find out more about its future sometime next year, when the Supreme Court looks at it.
The only way you get a fair chance is when everyone falls under the same rules. Why should people who didn't do some past injustice pay the people now who didn't suffer through it? We're equal or we're not. And the only way for everyone to be equal is to be treated equally. Not through government sanctioned racism like affirmative action.
I am only twelve days away from being of age to hold Presidential Office.
Just thought you all should know.
I will entertain all nominations!
Brian
ok, ok I'll vote for you....just pilot the chopper
Originally posted by Radar
The only way you get a fair chance is when everyone falls under the same rules.
And that's the problem...not everyone is under the same rules. Sure, they're supposed to be...but you don't think that there are "unwritten rules" that are still well-practiced in this country?
Why should people who didn't do some past injustice pay the people now who didn't suffer through it?
I don't think you can please all the people all the time. It's impossible. Therefore you have to weigh the benefits against the costs (monetary, psychological, etc.).
How are we doing so far? Eh...it definitely needs some work. My own assessment is that we need to continue to hit the core reasons that cause inequality...working on people's attitudes and making sure all children are getting a good education. Easier said than done though.
We're equal or we're not.
I believe we are all equal, but not everyone is treated equally.
And the only way for everyone to be equal is to be treated equally.
And how do you suppose we do this? Create a miracle drug that will take away people's biases? What do we do with those that won't treat people equally?
Maybe out in Southern California, or where you have been before, all people treat each other equally, and protections are unneeded (I doubt it...you live in one of the most racially polarized cities in the US). If so, that's great! But...
It's been my experience that it doesn't happen in any part of the US I've been to (23 states and DC, mostly east of the Mississippi). And I don't think it's happening in any place in the US, except maybe....MAYBE...San Francisco (and I've never been there).
You keep talking about treating people equally, yet I think you are overlooking a ton of factors that prevent this from happening, as if they are non-existant. If a Libertarian came in and tried to repeal all the protections today or in the near future, you would have a ton of pissed off people...one of the reasons why I think a lot of people don't "get" the Libertarian Party right now. Maybe down the line, a new enlightenment will come over the United States, and we will all truly be equal in the eyes of each other.
I'm optimistic, but I'm not holding my breath. And you've made my head hurt enough for one day.
We're all equal. Some of us are just more equal than others....
Orwell was a legend.
Syc - I'm sure you've heard teh old addage about argueing with idiots - apply.
And how do you suppose we do this?
Equally under the law. And no racial group is more a victim of racism than another in America and that includes white people. Should I be able to go to Harlem and force a black owned business to hire me because I'm white? No. Should anyone be able to get a spot in college with lower grades than everyone else just because I'm black? No. Should the most qualified company with the best bid be turned down for a government contract just because another company happens to be owned by a Hispanic person? No.
Some people just don't get it. Laws don't change people's attitudes. They never have and never will. There will always be stupid and ignorant racists regardless of which race they are. There are plenty of Hispanics, blacks, middle-easterners, Asians, pacific islanders, American Indians, etc. that hate white people or each other, and vice-versa. Laws don't change that. And they should be allowed to be stupid and act any way they want. If they own a company and don't want to hire someone based on their race boycotts of their products might change their mind, but laws won't.
You can't make laws against rude behavior, or someone's attitude. It puts the government in the dangerous position of being the "thought" police and that's totally wrong. Everyone in America thinks they're a victim and it's all the fault of white guys who may or may not be related to people in the past that committed injustice to someone who isn't alive.
Nobody is entitled to any special treatment based on race. Not even if their ancestors were the victims of injustice. Frankly, I'm sick to death of idiots with the, "Your grandfather did something bad to my grandfather so now you owe me something" attitude. Especially since my grandparents came to America after slavery and endured the same exact social stigma and racism as blacks and Chinese.
Affirmative actions perpetuate racism rather than eliminating it. They victimize one group at the expense of others. They are without a doubt wrong in every way. Perhaps they were needed in the 60's, rarely in the 70's, almost never in the 80's, unheard of in the 90's, and haven't been needed now for a very long time.
We're all the same or we're all different. You can't have it both ways. We must all fall under the same rules and same laws with no special treatment for any group and base everything on meritocracy at least with government jobs. If small private (say 500 employees or less) companies want to discriminate based on race, religion, age, etc. it's not the role of government to punish them but rather society at large. And they will be harmed far more by those who vote with their dollars than anything else.
Syc - I'm sure you've heard teh old addage about argueing with idiots - apply.
Jaguar, you're not worthy of a reply by me, but I'm feeling generous so here you go. You're an insignificant mindless little dweeb who couldn't hope to keep up in a debate with me on your best day and my worst. You lack the mental capacity to comprehend even the simplest concepts. I've forgotten more about computers and networking than you'll ever know. You're a complete and utter moron who lacks any understanding of the constitution or even of the world around him. You are perpetually in a fantasy world with no grasp on reality. I pity you and your ilk because you are too stupid to even know how stupid you are. You are truly a worthless excuse for a human being let alone someone worthy of having a conversation with. You're a living, breathing joke.
Thomas Paine was talking about you when he said, "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."
Originally posted by Radar
Thomas Paine was talking about you when he said, "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."
This quote fits you much better than Señor Jag.
My God...YOU really don't get it, do you Radar? I'll leave you to your security blanket of ignorance.
Cute Radar, cute, if lacking in originality or flair of any type. I'm only insulted because I’ve retorted to so much better stuff. For reference I don't claim to know much about the constitution, apart from the basics of the first few amendments, I don't live in America, a possibility I doubt your tiny mind could hope to entertain. Apart from that, I’m 17, just got a top Uni offer and a very healthy income, it’s all water off a ducks back.
Please, try again, and this time put some thought into it, use a thesaurus, maybe dig up some classics. But please, don't waste my time with such inarticulate and mediocre verbal blathering again.But enough filling this board with mindless drivel and flames, welcome to my ignore list, you'll fit in well.
"just got a top Uni offer" Congrats Man!
Thanks =) Just hoping i can defer for a year.
I can't believe you guys haven't put this idiot on the ignore list yet.
Great job though, jag. And Sycamore. And everyone else.
Originally posted by hermit22
I can't believe you guys haven't put this idiot on the ignore list yet.
Great job though, jag. And Sycamore. And everyone else.
Aw shucks...it was nothing.
I've only used the ignore feature one time...and it was only for a few days. If people choose to use it, that's cool, and I can completely understand why.
As I see it, in order for someone to survive on the Cellar, they will eventually need to learn to be diplomatic...and responsible in what they post (depending on the nature of the post). Otherwise, they will:
--burn out quickly
--get bored and leave
--not be taken seriously or respected
--become a casualty through Cellar rule #3 (which in being here almost 2 years, I've seen UT execute it once--on Parmenion)
I try not to let "undesirables" bother me too much...and truth be told, it can be fun to watch people hang themselves with their own rope. :)
I haven't been here long enough to see how the cellar weeds out the bad apples. But I've decided to take radar off my ignore list. Though I can't stand the way he writes, I found myself wanting to look at his posts everytime I saw his name. Something about watching someone make a fool out himself and wanting to argue with them I suppose. even if the argument seems to be falling on completely deaf ears.
I'm telling ya, it's like a car wreck...you can't help but look. :)
Originally posted by Cam
I haven't been here long enough to see how the cellar weeds out the bad apples.
I'm not sure what to search on but Hubris Boy was a one man cleaning service here for a while, really beautiful work.
Well between Cairo and Radar the politics forum has become the most entertaining forum here, pity it tends to obscure any real conversation. I read Cairo, they're usually pretty funny, Radar shits me though.
Originally posted by Cam
I haven't been here long enough to see how the cellar weeds out the bad apples.
They usually just go away. People simply stop communicating with them, and they get bored. People here are pretty good about not feeding the trolls.
Originally posted by Cam
I haven't been here long enough to see how the cellar weeds out the bad apples.
Sure you have...you see how people are dealing with Radar and Cairo.
Tob, yeah, but sometimes it can be fun to yank their chains a little. :)
Given that I'm neither a "bad apple", nor a "troll" I'm not being "dealt with". Also given the incredible lack of intelligence displayed by most of the people on this board, I have no fear of ever being dealt with.
I can't believe how dumb most of you are. There were a few good points made by very few of you but for the most part you've got a bunch of idiots like jaguar, sycamore, hermitt, etc.
Undertoad isn't an idiot, but he's got issues.
In fact the only other lucid person on this board thus far is slang. I can see I'll have to stick around a long time to educate you fools.
But for those too stupid for rational thought like those I've already listed, I'll just put you on the ignore list. I always put blatant racist, complete idiots, religious zealots, those without an original thought, and those with heads thicker than a brick on the iggy list because they're not worthy of a comment by me.
Alright!
First, I was called a "dumbazz" by Cairo, now an "idiot" by Radar.
Come on...somebody call me an "ignorant motherfucker," and I've got the trifecta! :)
Your kind of cutting your options down aren't you. You put those you listed down and your going to have hardly anyone to talk to. Not that it matters as all you do is respond to others posts by repeating what you said before.
Oh yeah and syc you're an ignorant motherfucker :) lol
Originally posted by Radar
In fact the only other lucid person on this board thus far is slang.
:) See? I told you guys I'm not a dumbass. Oh, wait (slang looks up the definition of the word lucid)...............yep, lucid, thats me.
Slang, I was worried about you, I couldn't stand you when you first showed up, but now your all right. You figured out what it means to be reasonable. And at least you back up your points with a few sources, not just spew the same opinionated bull over and over again.
Originally posted by Cam
Oh yeah and syc you're an ignorant motherfucker :) lol
He shoots...HE SCORES! The hat trick for #75!!!
I'll ditto cam on slang. I was concerned about slang at first, but he learned to play nice with others, and is a fine addition to our motley crew.
Originally posted by Cam
And at least you back up your points with a few sources, not just spew the same opinionated bull over and over again.
Thanks guys. What I actually learned is not to throw something out without leading someone through the process that leads me to believe that idea. From my experience here, people can respect or at least understand a person's position without embracing it themselves, IF, it's presented well.
There are people here that are convinced that they are right , and will defend themselves to the end. That's fine, I'm not hoping to change their minds. My goal is to present the other side of the argument through my eyes and experiences and to learn about others as well.
The common practice among like minded people is to avoid using supporting info. After all, they all read (pick your choice of any book or publication ) and anyone who has read that knows they are correct on any given issue. If you are truly interested in diversity of thought you must realize that everyone has had a very different backgound. If you logically support an idea or philosophy, it should be pretty easy to make a case for it. That's what I try to do now, and encourage others to do also. There are so many things all of you say that sound to me like chalk screeching on a chalkboard. I couldnt possibly reply rationally without a staff, so I just don't reply.
The whole Cellar "thing" isnt about just debate either. There are some very creative and funny people in this membership. I've learned a lot and had some really good laughs.<br><br>
And....anytime you use the word "spew", you
know I'm going to attach <a href="http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/21b7c626/bc/spew.wav?bcTsV99AmQhAsQVg">this clip </a> to it.
True dat. Now that Cairo has resorted to name-calling in pretty much every post, I feel kinda dumb for sticking up for her.
And now it turns out Radar is even worse about it. Feel free to stick around as long as you want, man. Feel free to talk to the walls as well; you may get more of a response from them.
By the way, how was <B>
the convention</B>?
Originally posted by slang
And....anytime you use the word "spew", you know I'm going to attach <a href="http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/21b7c626/bc/spew.wav?bcTsV99AmQhAsQVg">this clip </a> to it.
ill keep that in mind. :)
~james
Originally posted by Tobiasly
True dat. Now that Cairo has resorted to name-calling in pretty much every post, I feel kinda dumb for sticking up for her.
I agree with Cairo quite a bit. Her delivery isn't real friendly though. Maybe she'll lighten up, maybe not. I don't want her or Radar to stop posting though. I wish they would raise the bar, but they both have constructive things so say.
Do you feel as dumb about sticking up for her as you did me? :)
Or didnt you agree with anything I said?
Originally posted by Tobiasly
True dat. Now that Cairo has resorted to name-calling in pretty much every post, I feel kinda dumb for sticking up for her.
It's alright Tob. You really couldn't have known.
But there IS going to be a price to pay...
Sycamore for VP. :)
One of the things I will work for is creating marijuana vending machines at every college campus in the United States.
I just want to 4th or 5th or 12th my approval of slang. :)
I like disagreement, whether it's on a philosophical basis or a more factual, evidence filled one. It's too bad that radar and cairo aren't so good at providing evidence. They should go to the slang school of cellar posting.
Syc, that would be the best campaign platform possible to invigorate the youth vote.
Originally posted by hermit22
Syc, that would be the best campaign platform possible to invigorate the youth vote.
No more youth apathy, eh?
Originally posted by slang
I agree with Cairo quite a bit. Her delivery isn't real friendly though. Maybe she'll lighten up, maybe not. I don't want her or Radar to stop posting though. I wish they would raise the bar, but they both have constructive things so say.
Do you feel as dumb about sticking up for her as you did me? :)
Or didnt you agree with anything I said?
I agree, which is why it's so disappointing that both have resorted to kindergarten name-calling. "You're an idiot. Poopyhead!"
Um, I don't remember sticking up for you, did I? :)
I love having people here I disagree with, or just people who post thoughtful stuff in general, but when they can't communicate as adults is when I just tune 'em out. You must not have fit into that category :)
Originally posted by sycamore
But there IS going to be a price to pay...
Sycamore for VP. :)
Oh, fine, alright. I'll have to ask Al though. If he pees on the carpet, you're out!
On a somewhat sadder note, Al is going in for his neutering tomorrow. Which is exactly why we need a ballsy platform like marijuana vending machines!
But can you imagine putting in your $20, making your selection, and then the baggy gets caught in the damn spirally device? We'll have to find some better vending-machine technology first.
Well shit, if we're going to go to the trouble of advancing vending maching technology, we could at least have the machine roll your joint for you. Just select the amount you want and the paper you like it in, and the machine does the rest. :)
Hell even ill admit slang is tollerable. Group hug!
:whofart:
Originally posted by jaguar
Hell even ill admit slang is tollerable. Group hug!
Pardon me while I pick myself up off the ground from a dead faint.
Okay, I'll join in on the group hug, but I refuse to have anything to do with singing Kum Bah Yah, okay?
Ill swallow a live slug before we'll agree on much but he does back up his points and can debate unlike some other recent additions.
Originally posted by wolf
Okay, I'll join in on the group hug, but I refuse to have anything to do with singing Kum Bah Yah, okay?
Fine! I'll lead it!
"Someone's crying Lord *does gestures* Kum bah yah..."
Originally posted by sycamore
Fine! I'll lead it!
"Someone's crying Lord *does gestures* Kum bah yah..."
No! No! Anything but that!
I'm meeeeeelting! Aaaaaaaah!Originally posted by sycamore
Fine! I'll lead it!
"Someone's crying Lord *does gestures* Kum bah yah..."
:rattat:
[SIZE=4]Blammity-blam-blam-blam-blam ...[/SIZE]
hee hee.
Got 'im.
Finally, a reason for guns I can agree with - no more Kumbayah.
Finally, a liberal I can get along with - doesn't like Kumbayah.
Originally posted by Undertoad
Finally, a liberal I can get along with - doesn't like Kumbayah.
But what's his stand on the "Noble Rabbit" song from Jay/Silent Bob?
<i>
Hey Mr Science Guy
Don't spray that aerosol in my eye
I don't really wanna die
I'm a noble rabbit
</i>