RIP Ronald Reagan

It is being reported that former President Ronald Reagan has passed on.

Despite the fact that I am a bit of a liberal at heart, I feel that Reagan was one of our finest presidents, and that he started the economic ball rolling for this nation's prosperity during the late 80's and early 90's.

What say you all? I say RIP, Mr. President, and thanks for your service to your country.

whelll......i can't remember......



i was even less politically aware back then than i am now.

He was the last true conservative to hold the office. This is a pretty good primer in why he was the Great Communicator.

He believed that removing the tax burden on everyone would result in an improved economy. The rest of the decade (maybe the rest of the century) proved him right. He believed that political decisions carried moral weight, and decried the oppresion of the Soviet Bloc. He expanded trade and believed in the tireless innovation of the American Spirit. He believed that there was no problem that we could not overcome, and by the weight of his convictions he made us believe it as well. He dragged us out of the Carter recession, and we brought the rest of the world with us.

He was truly a great man, and a great president. I was thirteen when he left office. I wish I could have voted for him. I wish our party still had men like him.

Rest in peace.

-sm

For Ronald Ray-Guns;

he's a drugstore truck drivin' man
he' s the head of the Ku Klux Klan
when summer rolls around
he'll be lucky if he's not in town

he's got him a house on the hill
he plays country records till you've had your fill
he's a farmer's friend He's an unhappy gent
but he sure does make difference from the records he plays

well he don't like the young folks I know
he told me one night on his radio show
he's got him a medal he won in the war
weighs five hundred pounds and sleeps on his floor

he's been like a father to me
he's the only DJ, you can hear after three
I'm an all night musician in a rock 'n' roll band
and why he don't like me I can't understand
:shotgun:

Did he really? Seems a bit vague on the details. I know they reported to the white house yesterday that he wasn't doing so hot.

Haven't seen the news all day, but will check it out now. If true, this saddens me, more than I would have imagined.

Originally posted by smoothmoniker
He was the last true conservative to hold the office. This is a pretty good primer in why he was the Great Communicator...

He was truly a great man, and a great president. I was thirteen when he left office. I wish I could have voted for him. I wish our party still had men like him.

Rest in peace.

-sm

He was the "great communicator" because he spoke in 4 or 5 word sentences and never used a word that had more than one syllable (he understood his intellectual limits). This appealed to the great unwashed masses. He also had a pretty good grasp of chimpanzee - always useful when talking to congress.

I was 30 when he was elected and I voted against him. Carter had committed the atrocity of conceding the election before the polls had closed in the Western states, so I wrote in Edward Abbey for my choice of president. I still remember how the kids in the college town I was then living in stenciled the name "Watts" on every stop sign in town.

Anyhow, cheer up SM, maybe Bonzo is still alive, eagerly awaiting to take up the reins of leadership from the old "gipper."

Nice job of ripping on him the day he died Marichiko, maybe you should give the eulogy. :-(

Politics is so fucked up and crooked anyway, I guess I feel better when I have a president that has firm convictions, speaks his mind and makes a few things happen damn the poll numbers.

I just re-read your post because I didn't want to be over critical to another point of view.

Glad I did, because I was right, your frame of mind, your I'm right attitude sucks. I rip on Sycamore because he can be a dick, but I'm still glad he's here.

You're just kind of a bitch with a keyboard.

Originally posted by blue
I just re-read your post because I didn't want to be over critical to another point of view.

Glad I did, because I was right, your frame of mind, your I'm right attitude sucks. I rip on Sycamore because he can be a dick, but I'm still glad he's here.

You're just kind of a bitch with a keyboard.

Thank you for the compliment. I suppose some people loved the man. I obviously didn't and actually, I thought he'd died years ago. Sorry if I offended you.
(By the way, why didn't you take Bruce to task for his little "Ronald Rayguns" lyrics above. That didn't seem especially reverant, either. What? Is it okay for a man to make a remark you don't agree with, but a woman who does so automatically becomes a "bitch"?)

I can't think of anything to say. I just feel a sense of loss that I can't seem to articulate. :(

i'm glad for his family that he is gone. it is sad that he is dead, but no more watching a love one who doesn't remember a damn thing for his family.

as far as what his ranking on the list of great presidents - he did just like all the rest. he got some things right and screwed up others.

internationally he was right on with his approach to the soviet union, but jacked on his thinking with crushing the unions in this country.

anyway - RIP and thanks for your years of service.

Originally posted by marichiko


Thank you for the compliment. I suppose some people loved the man. I obviously didn't and actually, I thought he'd died years ago. Sorry if I offended you.
(By the way, why didn't you take Bruce to task for his little "Ronald Rayguns" lyrics above. That didn't seem especially reverant, either. What? Is it okay for a man to make a remark you don't agree with, but a woman who does so automatically becomes a "bitch"?)

Bruce doesn't get a free pass, I just noticed you first. "Some peolple loved the man" applies to perhaps millions of people and I thinks yours and bruces posts were in poor taste.

But as usual I let my emotions get the best of me. I'm probably more irreverant than most some days.

I think your opinion and your attitude suck. I think most of what you post is drivel and you and radar would have a good time if you started a place somewhere to argue with each other.

But, I apologize for calling you a bitch. Your posts are as valid as anyone elses here, and I usually try and stay out of the name calling.

My bad, and it was uncalled for, I'll work harder at muzzling my self next time.

Originally posted by blue
I rip on Sycamore because he can be a dick, but I'm still glad he's here.

Perspective, baby. Change your perspective, not the facts. :)

Shut up shithead, the goodwill doesn't apply to you.

Originally posted by blue Shut up shithead.

Packers lose today or something?

I believe that Reagan meant well with his tax cut, and he essentially won the Cold War.

Rest in peace.

Don't go there....you a Viking fan?

Originally posted by blue
Shut up shithead, the goodwill doesn't apply to you.

*sniff sniff* I think I'll live.

Originally posted by sycamore


*sniff sniff* I think I'll live.

....a miserable bitter life and then die alone?

uhm...just kidding.

Nobody deserves to die, and nobody deserves to wither away mentally for twenty-plus years.

He exhaled carbon dioxide, which is beneficial to plant life.

This concludes the list of nice things I can say about Ronald Reagan.

Originally posted by lumberjim
....a miserable bitter life and then die alone?

uhm...just kidding.

Okay, I think you've had enough pot for one night.

Originally posted by blue


Bruce doesn't get a free pass, I just noticed you first. "Some peolple loved the man" applies to perhaps millions of people and I thinks yours and bruces posts were in poor taste.

But as usual I let my emotions get the best of me. I'm probably more irreverant than most some days.

I think your opinion and your attitude suck. I think most of what you post is drivel and you and radar would have a good time if you started a place somewhere to argue with each other.

But, I apologize for calling you a bitch. Your posts are as valid as anyone elses here, and I usually try and stay out of the name calling.

My bad, and it was uncalled for, I'll work harder at muzzling my self next time.

Well, millions of people DIDN'T love the man, too. Had it been stated somewhere that this was a solemn memorial post for Mr. Reagan, I wouldn't have posted at all. However, this is The Cellar, remember? No one around here is especially reverent about ANYTHING, and if you were looking for grief counseling, you should have looked elsewhere, face it.

Its pretty hard to accept an apology from someone who has just written that my "opinion and attitude suck" and that most of what I post is "drivel" and then apologizes all in the same breath.

Feel free to hate me without apology. I'm not going to loose any sleep over it, believe me.

By the way, I never paid much attention to you until now. I'm flattered that you seem to have been following my posts with such acrimony. I must have hit a nerve somewhere.;)

RIP Ronald Reagan wouldn't have been your first clue this was a solemn post?

Your opinion and attitude do suck, I'm suppossed to apologize and redefine myself for you?

I don't hate you, I think you're interesting.

But you pissed me off with criticism of someone who's barely cold.

And "never paid much attention to me", you didn't vote did you?

Reagan's dead.....A few years ago I'd have cheered at that. Now if only Thatcher can maintain her friendship with him and follow him into the beyond I'll be cheerful.
The man delivered a cold creed in a warm voice.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. I'm with vsp.

Actually, I'll go back on my post and say one more nice thing about Ronnie -- unlike many of his spiritual successors in the modern conservative movement, he was occasionally capable of compromise and negotiation.

<a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0301.green.html">Reagan's Liberal Legacy</a>

If the "with-us-or-against-us" mentality of today's uberconservatives would go into the ground with him, I would throw open my bedroom window and bellow "NOW it's morning in America!"

Originally posted by jaguar
Good riddance to bad rubbish.

That someone of your political pursuasion thinks so little of him is high praise indeed.

If you think you've got my political persuasion that well nailed I'd love to her it =)

Originally posted by vsp
Actually, I'll go back on my post and say one more nice thing about Ronnie -- unlike many of his spiritual successors in the modern conservative movement, he was occasionally capable of compromise and negotiation.

<a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0301.green.html">Reagan's Liberal Legacy</a>

If the "with-us-or-against-us" mentality of today's uberconservatives would go into the ground with him, I would throw open my bedroom window and bellow "NOW it's morning in America!"

Thanks for the link. BTW, for those of you who read the linked article, here is a bonus

Man·i·chae·an or Man·i·che·an ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mn-kn) also Man·i·chee (mn-k)
n.
A believer in Manichaeism.

adj.
Of or relating to Manichaeism; dualistic.

du·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-lzm, dy-)
n.
The condition of being double; duality.
Philosophy. The view that the world consists of or is explicable as two fundamental entities, such as mind and matter.
Psychology. The view that the mind and body function separately, without interchange.
Theology.
The concept that the world is ruled by the antagonistic forces of good and evil.
The concept that humans have two basic natures, the physical and the spiritual

So, my thoughts on Ronald Reagan.

First, by all accounts, Ronald Reagan was a nice guy. Sure, many of his policies as president were painful, but by all accounts on a personal level he was a thoughtful and kind person.

Second, Reagan was a great speaker. It might be due to innate talent, a personal sense of conviction, his training as an actor, or some combination, but Ronald Reagan could deliver a message. Clinton, who in my opinion had a lot of personal charisma, could not deliver a speech like Reagan, although he comes the closest. Bush number one never even tried, being more of an adminstrator than a speaker, and Bush number two is a pathetic, Texas Ebonics ridden, mockery of what Reagan could deliver. Whether his words were his own or scripted, or some combination, Reagan would use them like sheet music and bring his own timing and nuances to them. He was a speechwriters dream - someone who could be counted on not just to refrain from mangling words, but deliver them mixing force and subtlety.

Third, Reagan appeared to be a devoted husband. While it is true that Mr. "Family Values" was the only divorced president, it does appear that he was devoted to his wife. In some ways, the fact that he divorced and remained devoted to his wife until death reminds me a little of Johnny Cash and June Carter.

My criticism of Reagan stems from the fact that I consider him a weak president who was led by his advisors instead of commanding them. This might have been due to his Alzheimers, which, contrary to official accounts, I believe began it's onset while he was president.

The best thing that I can say about Reagan, was that even though I disagreed with a lot of his policies, he did acheive a balance and was able to compromise and unite Congress most of the time. In a way, he provided a blueprint which, if the current administration had followed it at all, would have prevented the current White House from becoming an international embarrassment.

While I do not believe that he was the greatest president of the 20th century, as most of these ass-kissing conservative revisionists would have us believe, he did leave behind a respectable legacy and did not screw up the country too badly domestically and, except for minor embarassments like 'Iran-Contra' and Panama, left office with the United States having the respect and goodwill of most of the world.

I disagreed with many of his policies, but, as the story in VSP's link demonstrated, he was able, through compassion or poltical practicality, to compromise on his agenda. And while I think he was led around by his wife and staff on some issues, he was still enough of a leader to get the job done. He was not my pick for president, and did not reflect my personal politics well, but he was suitable for the job, which is in itself a legacy of some kind. I cannot praise him, but I cannot condemn him either. He ran, he won, he left, he died.

requiescat in pace altus proeliator

*Agrees with Elspode and smoothmoniker*


Reagan was my favorite president. When I heard that he had alzheimer's, I felt very sad, and sorry for him and his family. I think he did a damned good job, despite the fact that I also believe that his illness was developing during his presidency.

I'm sorry he's dead; at least he acted like a president, not your idiot younger brother that you hide in the closet when company comes over (Clinton). I think he's really the last president we had that brought any dignity to the office, and at least he had convictions.


Pace in Requiescat....


Sidhe

not your idiot younger brother that you hide in the closet when company comes over (Clinton).

Don't really want to turn this political but there are many things could call Clinton but I would not have listed stupid among them, the guy's a Rhodes Scolar for crying out loud.

"First Citizen :

This Caesar was a tyrant.

Third Citizen :

Nay, that's certain:
We are blest that Rome is rid of him.

Second Citizen:

Peace! let us hear what Antony can say.

ANTONY:

You gentle Romans,--

Citizens:

Peace, ho! let us hear him.

ANTONY:

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest--
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men--
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man."

- Shakespeare, Julius Ceasar

Originally posted by jaguar
Don't really want to turn this political but there are many things could call Clinton but I would not have listed stupid among them, the guy's a Rhodes Scolar for crying out loud.

Being a Rhodes Scholar apparantly didn't imbue him with any sense or dignity, though, did it? That man was an embarassment...IMHO. He had a history of abusing the power of both the governor's office and the office of the President; he had absolutely no convictions; he was a wuss.

Anyone who isn't willing to fight to protect his country should not be able to send other people's children to die. This man left the country and protested against it. He also said that (paraphrase) if a president showed poor moral character in office that he should be impeached. Ironic, ain't it?


But this is a memorial thread to a Real president. We can create a Bash Clinton thread later....


Sidhe

That man was an embarassment.

Not to me.

Anyone who isn't willing to fight to protect his country...

From the Viet Nam?

This man left the country

To be a Rhodes Scholar, that's how it's done.

and protested against it.

Along with millions of others.

How I always will remember him

The President's brain is missing



Thanks for helping me make me think I'd never live out my teen years

Still Alzheimer's is a horrible way to go, my mother has it and is gone to the world these last 4-5 years, she can't now stand up, talk, swallow properly, she reckonizes nobody and the saddest thing is her father went the same way and I know from a conversation I had with her she would not have wanted to continue living under these circumstances but there is not a thing I can do for her..:(

Also to relate her to Regan I think, looking back with hindsight, I can see a small creep of change in her behaviour in the years before we were given a diagnosis. I just thought she was depressed. So I wouldn't be surprised if Regan was affected years before any diagnosis

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Along with millions of others.

Yes, but they aren't the ones sending other people's children to die for a country they didn't give a shit about.

I don't like him. Never will. We can agree to disagree. I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion, just stating my own.

No, the ones who are sending soldiers off to die are the ones who supported the Viet Nam War, but refused to fight in it.

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
But this is a memorial thread to a Real president.

As opposed to a fake one?

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
No, the ones who are sending soldiers off to die are the ones who supported the Viet Nam War, but refused to fight in it.

You're preaching to the choir on that. I think that if you're going to start the damned war, you should be on the front friggin' lines. I'll bet if the politicians had to fight, there would be a lot FEWER wars.


Sidhe

I am really sorry, but this is how I will forever remember the man, and he did this not me:

From all reports he was a good man, is regarded as a great president, and that was a funny movie.

Love him or hate him, the two things I remember from his years in office:

Challenger Explosion: -

"They have slipped the surly bonds of Earth and touched the face of God."

Even typing it, I get kinda choked up.

"Ladies and gentlemen, I have just outlawed Communism. The bombing shall commence in 5 minutes."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! OUT-FUCKING-STANDING!!!!!!

The Premier of Russia shit himself when Ronnie Ray-gun said that.

The Presidents brain is missing was one of the best of the Spitting Image sketches

The Presidents brain is missing was one of the best of the Spitting Image sketches

I can't find on-line a summary of what happened in the plot-line, but I can remember totally absurd things happening like the brain mating with a hedgehog etc..:confused:

I hear Spitting Image might be making a come back, I hope so, and I hope they do it before Bush is voted out, he would make lovely latex subject matter.

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
I think that if you're going to start the damned war, you should be on the front friggin' lines. I'll bet if the politicians had to fight, there would be a lot FEWER wars.
Sidhe

Hear hear. :)

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
You're preaching to the choir on that. I think that if you're going to start the damned war, you should be on the front friggin' lines. I'll bet if the politicians had to fight, there would be a lot FEWER wars.

Without starting a flamewar, I'll simply note that this sentiment applies equally to the current crew in Washington.

I'm still of multiple minds on Reagan. He gave America her confidence and optimism back. Unfortunately, that has morphed into hyper-nationalism and the inappropriate use of military force by BushClintonBush. His legacy, as interpreted by Bush, means fiscal sanity and small government are no longer Republican principles. I'd thought, he had been able to make Americans confident in their own abilities, but somehow twenty years down the line most Americans, including sadly once independent minded Republicans, now bow and scrape before state power. I don't believe this was his intention. I was sure he'd get us killed fighting the Cold War, since we had an enemy capable of killing us by the millions. We won and his sucessors threw away his victory on mindless interventionism, that is probably the saddest part.

I think Reagan was the last President who loved and respected the American people.

Originally posted by vsp
Without starting a flamewar, I'll simply note that this sentiment applies equally to the current crew in Washington.

Equally? Primarily.

He was certainly the best president of my lifetime. I wish that was saying more.

Ok I'll take that back a bit, despite his many flaws (don't get me started on reganomics) he did believe what he said or least appear to, which is more than you can say for the current bunch of scum.

Thankfully, Ronald Reagan is burning in hell today. The world has a little less evil in it. I only hope that George W. Bush will join him soon.

Originally posted by Radar
Thankfully, Ronald Reagan is burning in hell today. The world has a little less evil in it. I only hope that George W. Bush will join him soon.

deep thoughts radar. classy too.

[COLOR=indigo]And here, Radar, I thought you weren't Christian.... [/COLOR]

It could take him awhile to respond. He's busy counting all of the money the government has stolen from him today.

Originally posted by Griff
I'm still of multiple minds on Reagan. He gave America her confidence and optimism back. Unfortunately, that has morphed into hyper-nationalism and the inappropriate use of military force by BushClintonBush. His legacy, as interpreted by Bush, means fiscal sanity and small government are no longer Republican principles. I'd thought, he had been able to make Americans confident in their own abilities, but somehow twenty years down the line most Americans, including sadly once independent minded Republicans, now bow and scrape before state power. I don't believe this was his intention. I was sure he'd get us killed fighting the Cold War, since we had an enemy capable of killing us by the millions. We won and his sucessors threw away his victory on mindless interventionism, that is probably the saddest part.

I think Reagan was the last President who loved and respected the American people.

I find myself amazed when I read you rpost. I agree with every single point.

I was not a fan or Reagan, but he did have his good attributes. At the time, I thought he was horrible, but I realize in hindsight that Presidents can be much worse.

I felt bad for him when he got alzheimers, but I felt bad for myself too. I used to joke about his forgetfulness and mock him, but was unable to do so after he was diagnosed with the illness.

If I get friday off because of his death, that will be one more good thing I can say about him. Our bosses are still trying to figure out what to do. We normally close when the federal government closes.

Basically, I'd written him off as dead in my mind, because of his illness, so his actual passing is really no biggie. I'm sure his family has mixed feeling now that he's dead. I bet mostly they are happy about it.

Originally posted by depmats
It could take him awhile to respond. He's busy counting all of the money the government has stolen from him today.

[COLOR=indigo]It's doesn't really require a response... ;) I'm on his ignore list anyway, since I'm a blithering idiot.


I was just pointing out his hypocrisy.

Carry on.[/COLOR]

Originally posted by vsp
If the "with-us-or-against-us" mentality of today's uberconservatives would go into the ground with him, I would throw open my bedroom window and bellow "NOW it's morning in America!"

Hear, hear!
Ronnie's brand of conservatism only looks good in comparison to the neocons. But that's not saying a whole hell of a lot.

Still, I was sorry to hear of his disease, and sorry for his family. Even in politics, there should be a place for human emotions, and a modicum of respect for the (newly-) dead.

- Pie

Even in politics, there should be a place for human emotions, and a modicum of respect for the (newly-) dead.

The man didn't earn any respect when he was alive. Why should he have any when he's dead?

He spent generations of Americans into debt and had the nerve to act as though running up the credit card was prosperity. He had NOTHING to do with the economic boom of the 90's, he had NOTHING to do with the release of the hostages in Iran, and he had NOTHING to do with the fall of the already crumbling Soviet Union but his ignorant supporters claimed he did.

He lied under oath and he was a moronic, puppet of a cold-hearted, manipulative, bitch...who happened to also be his wife.

He is rotting and burning in hell right now, and he richly deserves to be there.

This thread has caused me to think about the positives of Reagan. I think the biggest positive I can think of is that he was such a great communicator that he was actually able to campaign on the basis of a philosophy. The notion that he had a strong, principled set of beliefs was quite refreshing, and although he went off-principle fairly often while in office, it still left us with the feeling that there was a true leader there. This is especially true because of the relentlessly political animals we have had in the office since then.

Sometimes it feels like W wants to represent "Reagan lite" chowing down on certain principles such as his anti-terror doctrine and his notions of permitting faith in government. But he can't pull it off because of his inability to communicate. When he goes into "good ol' boy" mode, relaxed, off script, personable, he seems like he could pull it off. Then the next day he has to work from a prepared speech and he comes across like someone in 9th grade speech class.

Reagan's middle initial was [SIZE=4]W.[/SIZE]

Basically, I'd written him off as dead in my mind, because of his illness, so his actual passing is really no biggie. I'm sure his family has mixed feeling now that he's dead. I bet mostly they are happy about it.

Yes, my Father lasted 6 years.:(

Originally posted by Radar

He is rotting and burning in hell right now, and he richly deserves to be there.

Unbelievable yet believable.

Originally posted by Beestie
Originally posted by Radar Unbelievable yet believable.

Hey, when you consider it's Radar, it all makes sense in a demented sort of way.

Originally posted by Radha
Even in politics, there should be a place for human emotions, and a modicum of respect for the (newly-)dead.

Originally posted by Radar
He is rotting and burning in hell right now, and he richly deserves to be there.

Those human emotions I was talking about, Radar? I think you just proved you don't have 'em.

Keep working on it. Perhaps someday you can join the human race.

- Pie

My emotions are just fine Pie, and I'm as much a member of the human race as Ghandi, Martin Luther King Junior, and Mother Theresa were.

Radar makes perfect sense. If you operate under the premise that Reagan was a bad man, than it's perfectly natural to say that the bad man is in Hell now that he is dead.

You may disagree with Radar that Reagan was bad, but his sentiments are perfectly rational, given his assumtions.


I won't point out the irony of Radar talking about Hell when he argued against the existence of God in the religion thread. Oh, wait. I just pointed it out. Damnit!

Originally posted by OnyxCougar


[COLOR=indigo]It's doesn't really require a response... ;) I'm on his ignore list anyway, since I'm a blithering idiot.


I was just pointing out his hypocrisy.

Carry on.[/COLOR]

Yeah, I'm on his ignore list too; however, I got so tired of reading his diatribes, which usually had absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject, that I returned his favor. With the amount of variation that he shows, he might as well just cut and paste from a prepared rant on notepad or something.

Oh, not so. Radar's diatribes are always to the point. You're thinking of TW.:)

I'm just amazed at how moderate Reagan looks today. Geez.

My favorite Reagan bit is the old SNL sketch were he's dottering, chuckling, getting a photo op with girl scouts in the oval office, calling Nancy "mommy" or such... then when they leave and the doors shut, he turns into articulate brain, mastermind, taking charge ordering everyone around.

RIP, alzheimers is good to escape.

I won't point out the irony of Radar talking about Hell when he argued against the existence of God in the religion thread. Oh, wait. I just pointed it out. Damnit!

While I don't believe in an afterlife, I do believe in hell. I've seen it right here on earth in every country that has had to suffer through communism, fascism, etc. And I was speaking figuratively about hell.

I tend to lean toward Buddhism and certain sects of buddhist believe EVERYONE goes to hell until they work off all the bad things they've done. If this is true, Reagan will be in hell for a bit less than Hitler and more than Clinton. Bush will be there for about the same length of time as Hitler.

What We Know About Alzheimer's


Here's some info on Alzheimer's, for anyone who's interested.

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Oh, not so. Radar's diatribes are always to the point. You're thinking of TW.:)

What I meant is, no matter what the subject, radical radar will find a way to link it to libertarianism....

Originally posted by Undertoad
... he was such a great communicator that he was actually able to campaign on the basis of a philosophy.

That, I think, speaks volumes. He didn't run agains someone so much as he rain toward something, and articualted it with such clarity that people joined him.

I disagreed with much of what he stood for, but I think the first Clinton run shared that same characteristic.

-sm

THANK YOU, RONNIE!!!

THREE DAY WEEKEND!

Just got the memo today.

[COLOR=indigo]My co workers are insisting that Ronnie isn't dead, he's hanging out with Tupac and Elvis in the Bahamas, sipping down MaiTais served up by President Kennedy while Jimmy Hoffa sweeps the floor.[/COLOR]

‘One for the Gipper’
"Someday when things are tough, maybe you can ask the boys to go in there and win just one for the Gipper." —Portraying football player George Gipp in the film “Knute Rockne, All American,” 1940
'Shining city on a hill'
Let us resolve tonight that young Americans will always ... find there a city of hope in a country that is free.... And let us resolve they will say of our day and our generation, we did keep the faith with our God, that we did act worthy of ourselves, that we did protect and pass on lovingly that shining city on a hill." — Election Eve speech, Nov. 3, 1980
‘We have piled deficit upon deficit’
"For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.
You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?" —Inaugural address, Jan. 20, 1981
‘Tear down this wall’
“If you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here, to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” —Speech at the Berlin Wall, June 12, 1987
‘Grown beyond the consent of the governed’
"We are a nation that has a government — not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed." —Inaugural address, Jan. 20, 1981

‘A special interest group that has been too long neglected’
"We hear much of special interest groups. Our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected.
"It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and our factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we are sick—professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truck drivers.
"They are, in short, 'We the people,' this breed called Americans." —Inaugural address, Jan. 20, 1981
‘I forgot to duck’
"Honey, I forgot to duck." — 1981, Reagan to his wife, as he recovered gunshot wounds after an assassination attempt by John Hinckley on March 30, 1981
‘A time of reckoning’
"An almost unbroken 50 years of deficit spending has finally brought us to a time of reckoning. We have come to a turning point, a moment for hard decisions. I have asked the Cabinet and my staff a question, and now I put the same question to all of you: If not us, who? And if not now, when? It must be done by all of us going forward with a program aimed at reaching a balanced budget. We can then begin reducing the national debt." —Second inaugural address, Jan. 21, 1985
‘Render nuclear weapons obsolete’
"For decades, we and the Soviets have lived under the threat of mutual assured destruction; if either resorted to the use of nuclear weapons, the other could retaliate and destroy the one who had started it. Is there either logic or morality in believing that if one side threatens to kill tens of millions of our people, our only recourse is to threaten killing tens of millions of theirs?
"I have approved a research program to find, if we can, a security shield that would destroy nuclear missiles before they reach their target. It wouldn't kill people, it would destroy weapons. It wouldn't militarize space, it would help demilitarize the arsenals of Earth. It would render nuclear weapons obsolete." —Second inaugural address, Jan. 21, 1985
‘Whatever else history may say’
“Whatever else history may say about me when I'm gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears....
“May all of you as Americans never forget your heroic origins, never fail to seek divine guidance and never lose your natural, God-given optimism.” —Speech to Republican National Convention, Aug. 17, 1992
‘Go ahead, make my day’
"I have only one thing to say to the tax increasers: Go ahead, make my day." —March 13, 1985, in a speech threatening to veto legislation raising taxes.
‘You don't become president of the United States’
"When people tell me I became president on January 20, 1981, I feel I have to correct them. You don't become president of the United States. You are given temporary custody of an institution called the presidency, which belongs to our people." — Address to the Republican national convention. Aug. 15, 1988

These two nearly made me vomit.

"For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.
You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?"
—Inaugural address, Jan. 20, 1981


"An almost unbroken 50 years of deficit spending has finally brought us to a time of reckoning. We have come to a turning point, a moment for hard decisions. I have asked the Cabinet and my staff a question, and now I put the same question to all of you: If not us, who? And if not now, when? It must be done by all of us going forward with a program aimed at reaching a balanced budget. We can then begin reducing the national debt."
—Second inaugural address, Jan. 21, 1985

Reagan is the single worst deficit spender in world history (followed closely by GWB). The unmitigated gall of this scumbag to speak out against it is enough to make me puke.

i forget, which date on the calendar did the world cease to exist because of reagan's deficit spending?

Originally posted by Radar



I tend to lean toward Buddhism and certain sects of buddhist believe EVERYONE goes to hell until they work off all the bad things they've done. If this is true, Reagan will be in hell for a bit less than Hitler and more than Clinton. Bush will be there for about the same length of time as Hitler.

Radar appears to be making Buddism up as he goes along. I don't know of ANY Buddhist sect that believes this. The Tibetans have entities which they call "hell-beings," but these creatures were demons all along. Just setting the record straight for everyone else since Radar doesn't read my posts.;)

[COLOR=indigo]Radar makes everything up as he goes along. Either you believe in hell or you don't. If you believe in a different form of hell than biblical hell, you should call it something different. (Like all them big multiexcessive consonant words mari uses.) He's being obfuscative. [/COLOR]

After my initial post in this thread, i kind of got behind. I have skimmed it briefly, and would just like to clarify something:

RIP stands for Rest In Peace.

it would seem as though some of us were under the impression that this was a thread intended to rip ( ie criticize ) Ronald Reagan.

as I said, I was politically unaware of his doings, but i don't see the value in defaming the dead. Even if he was your mortal enemy......what good does bashing him do? If you disliked him so much, you should have said so when he was alive. It's too late now. knock it off.

well put, LJ.

[COLOR=indigo]It comes down to respect. Some people have it, some don't.

You don't have to like someone's actions to respect them as a human being. [/COLOR]

so you respect radar as a human being, then?

[size=1]-just wanted to make sure you knew i could still be a dick :)[/size]

[COLOR=indigo]Let's just say I won't say mean shit about him when he's dead, out of respect for the dead.

And I'm still well aware you can be a dick. Never fear. ;)[/COLOR]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]Radar makes everything up as he goes along. Either you believe in hell or you don't. If you believe in a different form of hell than biblical hell, you should call it something different. (Like all them big multiexcessive consonant words mari uses.) He's being obfuscative. [/COLOR]

Wow! I use big multiexcessive consonant words? Really? Do they make any sense? Just curious.;)

[COLOR=indigo]YOu know, them words like bodhatasysasuysskjkdfkdfhahdsfa.[/COLOR]

Oh, that. Well, it looked good at the time, what can I say?:D

[COLOR=indigo]

[North Carolina accent]Hey! Aint you sposed to be writing sumpin, Miss Thang? G'on now...[/North Carolina Accent][/COLOR]

Originally posted by Yelof
Thanks for helping me make me think I'd never live out my teen years

Good point. I spent a lot of the eighties thinking that someone was going to set off the "big one". I remember my best friend, her brother and I went on local television to speak against nuclear war. It was very emotional. :(

*peeks at the website provided* Christ, what a reminder. And then we saw "The Day After" in Social Studies class...scary. :eek:

Originally posted by lookout123
i forget, which date on the calendar did the world cease to exist because of reagan's deficit spending?

Reagan: He didn't cause the world to cease to exist.

Originally posted by lumberjim
knock it off.

There you go with those rules again.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by lumberjim
as I said, I was politically unaware of his doings, but i don't see the value in defaming the dead. Even if he was your mortal enemy......what good does bashing him do? If you disliked him so much, you should have said so when he was alive. It's too late now. knock it off.

While I think Radar is a useless nigger, he has the right to say whatever he wants...unless UT decides to cut him off.

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]

[North Carolina accent]Hey! Aint you sposed to be writing sumpin, Miss Thang? G'on now...[/North Carolina Accent][/COLOR]

:D (Doubled over with laughter, unable to think of an obscure multi-syllabic reply)

Originally posted by lumberjim
If you disliked him so much, you should have said so when he was alive.

Uhmmmm... LJ, I don't think its so wise to in effect delare open season around here. We all know where that can lead, right?:eek:

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]My co workers are insisting that Ronnie isn't dead, he's hanging out with Tupac and Elvis in the Bahamas, sipping down MaiTais served up by President Kennedy while Jimmy Hoffa sweeps the floor.[/COLOR]

Wait, I thought Hitler was the janitor...?

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
There you go with those rules again.:rolleyes:

They're only rules if you think I have any authority......which I don't. So go easy, Conan. I know you're my conscience and all, and you do a fine job of it, but let me have a [size=1] little fun[/size] once in a while, huh?

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
Reagan: He didn't cause the world to cease to exist.

all i was trying to point out with the question is that the world didn't come to a cataclysmic end due to deficit spending.

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe



Wait, I thought Hitler was the janitor...?

nope - he's the proctologist.

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]My co workers are insisting that Ronnie isn't dead, he's hanging out with Tupac and Elvis in the Bahamas, sipping down MaiTais served up by President Kennedy while Jimmy Hoffa sweeps the floor.[/COLOR]

The crisis department supervisor today announced her theory that Princess Diana is not dead, because we never saw a body. She and Dodi just went underground to escape the noteriety. That Di's mom mysteriously died on an isolated island off the Scottish Coast recently is supposed to be some kind of supportive evidence for her wacky theory.

I suggested that perhaps she's shacking up with Jim Morrison.

Originally posted by Radar
My emotions are just fine Pie, and I'm as much a member of the human race as Ghandi, Martin Luther King Junior, and Mother Theresa were.

Hitler, Ted Bundy, and Charles Manson, if I'm not mistaken, are classified as "human" also, at least, that's what my cookbook says.

Originally posted by sycamore


While I think Radar is a useless nigger, he has the right to say whatever he wants...unless UT decides to cut him off.

Most people would have simply stopped at useless. Why the extra qualifier?

If you disliked him so much, you should have said so when he was alive. It's too late now. knock it off.

I did say it when he was alive, and I see no reason to stop now. He didn't deserve any respect when he was alive, so why should I offer it now. I am seriously thinking about waiting in line so I can spit on his coffin.

I'll be watching the news.

Originally posted by Radar


I did say it when he was alive, and I see no reason to stop now. He didn't deserve any respect when he was alive, so why should I offer it now. I am seriously thinking about waiting in line so I can spit on his coffin.

I'd give money to see you actually try it...

...and survive it.

I don't think something that trivial would be on the news, and I don't know if it's worth the 5-8 hours it would take me to drive to simi valley and to wait.

I can always dance on his grave or piss on it after he's buried. That would be a suitable and well-deserved sign of disrespect for the man too.

I'd give money to see you actually try it...

...and survive it.

I would easily do it, and not have a scratch on me when I was done. It's just a matter of waiting to get there, not a matter of dealing with any upset people.

Sir, for someone who has said he's worked as a bartender, you have little to no grasp of human behavior.

I am seriously thinking about waiting in line so I can spit on his coffin.

to what end? do you think he'll change his evil ways NOW?

Everyone knows that you are of strong political conviction, Radar. By insulting the dead, however, you only tarnish your own image. This bothers me enough to say something because you are so frustrating. Here's why.

I agree with most of the tenants you uphold. I think that you're usually pretty funny...even if some people don't get the joke..... so, in theory, I like you. In practice, though, sometimes you make that difficult. I have not found myself on the opposite side of a debate from you, so I have not personally experienced your fillibuster jedi technique. Maybe because we see things in a similar way. who knows. but, anyway.....you can bash the dead if you want to, but in the end, i think you only serve to undermine your own already dubious (to some) credibility.

LOL @ "fillibuster jedi technique"

Look man, I realize some people loved him but every single one fo those people who did are the people who ARE THE PROBLEM with America and I am the solution.

Those who supported Reagan fell for his charm. He was an old guy acting like a President and what made him especially dangerous is that he stole libertarian phrases and claimed to want smaller government while making government larger than anyone ever before. The guy was truly evil and I don't see how sugarcoating this fact or weeping over his corpse will change that.

As far as credibility goes, having questionable credibility among those who can't seem to grasp reality around them anyway doesn't bother me. Everything to them has questionable credibility.

And no, spitting on his grave would not serve any purpose to correct his actions. It would be purely a selfish act to make myself feel better.

well, as long as your motives are admittedly personal, and self serving, and you're ok with that, go ahead and piss on his grave or spit in his cold dead eye. just do it in your mind instead of real life so that you don't get arrested or photographed. no telling what damage that could do to your political career. ;)

This'll drive you insane, then:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/08/news/economy/reagan_hamilton/index.htm?cnn=yes

"Ronald Reagan's face could one day adorn the $10 bill or half the dimes minted in the country, if fans of the late president get their way.

USA Today reported Tuesday that Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., plans to sponsor legislation to have Reagan replace Alexander Hamilton, the nation's first treasury secretary, on the $10 bill.

Meanwhile, an effort is underway in the House, led by Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-Calif.), to put Reagan's face on the $20. "

Originally posted by Troubleshooter
Most people would have simply stopped at useless. Why the extra qualifier?

Why not?

They're also trying to put him on Rushmore.

Originally posted by sycamore


Why not?

My point was that some bit of information, some idea or opinion had to have prompted the word.

I'm just curious as to what it was.

A peek into your psyche as it were.

Originally posted by Radar


I did say it when he was alive, and I see no reason to stop now. He didn't deserve any respect when he was alive, so why should I offer it now. I am seriously thinking about waiting in line so I can spit on his coffin.

like i said earlier - you're a real class act radar.

i would venture to say there are some on here who feel you are unworthy of respect, but i don't believe anyone here will waste any time dancing upon your grave.

Originally posted by Radar

I would easily do it, and not have a scratch on me when I was done. It's just a matter of waiting to get there, not a matter of dealing with any upset people.

ok, i'm willing to start a pool of money and put it up in a double dog dare. come on radar, show us what a tough guy you are.

i think some of the secret service who will be working that day probably were there when reagan was in office and actually might have liked the guy. i'm not so sure that you would walk out of the room after your "interview"

Originally posted by Radar

Look man, I realize some people loved him but every single one fo those people who did are the people who ARE THE PROBLEM with America and I am the solution.

ROFLMAO! radar is paraphrasing stallone in cobra! uh, oh - is radar's solution anything like the final solution? i better work to stay off the shitlist then.

Originally posted by Undertoad
"USA Today reported Tuesday that Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., plans to sponsor legislation to have Reagan replace Alexander Hamilton, the nation's first treasury secretary, on the $10 bill.

Meanwhile, an effort is underway in the House, led by Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-Calif.), to put Reagan's face on the $20. "

They could have Reagan's face tattooed onto the forehead of every newborn in America at birth, and for hardcore Reaganoids, it _still_ wouldn't be enough to honor his "accomplishments."

I'm hoping that when Reagan goes into the ground, McConnell, Rohrbacher, Tom DeLay and Grover Norquist all volunteer to go with him, so that the Gipper will have some traveling companions on his way down^H^H^H^Hup.

(This is one time that I wish that I believed in a Christian hell or heaven, so that I could place wagers on Ronnie's destination.)

I have to admit, it'd be classic if he did and got either arrested/publically humiliated all over the media for weeks or wasted by the half a million cops patrolling the place with nervous trigger fingers.

paraphrasing stallone in cobra!

I think he sees himself as a cross between rambo, all the founding fathers he liked and james bond with the women so this comes as little surprise.

Originally posted by lumberjim

I think that you're usually pretty funny...even if some people don't get the joke.....

those people who did are the people who ARE THE PROBLEM with America and I am the solution.

like i said. some of us don't get your humor.

some of it would be humorous if i thought he was kidding. i really think radar has what is a called a reality disconnect somewhere along the line. that might not be a technical term though.

Originally posted by lookout123
Look man, I realize some people loved him but every single one fo those people who did are the people who ARE THE PROBLEM with America and I am the solution.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ROFLMAO! radar is paraphrasing stallone in cobra! uh, oh - is radar's solution anything like the final solution? i better work to stay off the shitlist then.

Since I'm already on it, I figure I'll be among the first to be rounded up for those little summer camps he's planning, you know the ones with the sign "Arbeit macht frei" over the entrance? But actually its a very freeing thought like when I was 13 years old and the minister at the church school I was attending told me that I was going to hell. It was like being given carte blanche. Since I was going to hell, anyhow, I figured why worry about pleasing God any further, if by the age of 13 I was already on the perdition list?

So I figure I may as well act as ultra left wing as I please - hell, I may even join the communist party (IS there still a communist party?). No liberal excess is going to be too much for me, since I'm going to be rounded up regardless. ;)

paraphrasing stallone

next up - Over the Top "and when i turn my hat around backwards i'm like a machine. i can beat any leftist trying to steal my money."

Rambo "they drew first blood colonel, now i am going to make them pay. they took my money, now i'm going to destroy the welfare system from the inside"

Deathrace 2000 "1300 points for a democrat, 4000 for anyone named reagan"

anyone else have ideas here?

Originally posted by Troubleshooter


My point was that some bit of information, some idea or opinion had to have prompted the word.

I'm just curious as to what it was.

A peek into your psyche as it were.

dude. he was just trying to sound cool. he didnt mean nigger. he menat nigga. but nigga conveys too much coolnes to the target.....hence nigger. and possibly he was trying to push a button. maybe he thinks radar is a racist?

Originally posted by lumberjim
dude. he was just trying to sound cool. he didnt mean nigger. he menat nigga. but nigga conveys too much coolnes to the target.....hence nigger. and possibly he was trying to push a button. maybe he thinks radar is a racist?

Ah, well then...

My bad dawg!

[COLOR=indigo]IMO you don't have to be black to be a nigger. But I'm trying to curtail labelling people....[/COLOR]

I'm not paraphrasing anyone. America is falling apart and you are either part of the problem, or you are part of the solution. Those who vote for Republicans or Democrats are the problem. They perpetuate and worsen the problem by voting over and over for the people who created the problem in the first place. They make government larger, costlier, and more intrusive. Those who vote for these people are responsible for poverty, sickness due to lack of healthcare, unemployment, poor education, loss of freedom, attacks on civil rights, and even murder. :mad:

Guys like me are the ONLY ones who will actually take steps to fix the problems those people have caused.

[COLOR=indigo]But you'll never get elected because you have the personality and charm of a shit sandwich.[/COLOR]

nicely put. That and a few cherries short of a cake.

are all dems and reps a part of the evil hoard? because i was thinking that our elected officials are each individual souls. unfortunately most of them are affiliated with one of the parties, because that is the only way to have a real chance at being elected.

i take issue with someone who will only vote if there is a D or an R next to a name. but i won't refuse to vote for someone with a D or an R either. step back, look at the individuals. does there philosophy match with what you think is the right course for the country? vote for them. be aware that they will fail and disappoint you at times, no matter how good they are. if they prove to disappoint too often don't vote for them. but your stance that everyone else is the problem and only you and your select few like minded individuals is a little over the top.

you may actually have more people swayed to your philosophy if brought the rhetoric down a notch. i don't disagree with everything you say, but i find myself pissed when i do agree with you oftentimes simply because your approach to most issues is so annoying to me.

but back to the earlier issue: i am not reagan's biggest fan, but have some respect for the office, if not the man. i think that is a major problem in america today. people have forgotten that whether or not we like "pres john jones" or not, he is the president. show respect for the office, if you can't manage it for the man.

IMO the R's started a very nasty tradition in 92/3 when they decided to go after clinton on a personal level all the way through his presedency. the D's have picked up where they left off and gone after bush in the same way.
how can we expect the world to show respect to our leaders if we don't?

edit: spelling

Originally posted by Radar
I'm not paraphrasing anyone. America is falling apart and you are either part of the problem, or you are part of the solution. Those who vote for Republicans or Democrats are the problem. T.........snipped

so if you choose not to vote at all because you are disgusted with the 3 choices: worser of 2 evils / lesser of two evils / wasted vote, are you part of the problem or the solution?

I appreciate your passion, radar. I agree with what you're saying. but, OC has a point. you could do with a bit more decorum, and you'd win more people over to the good guy's team. know what i'm saying? this goes back to the frustration i started to express earlier. We're on the same side of things usually, but you go about arguing our side in such a way as to make me cringe.

oh, and just in case you actually DO use your ignore feature, this is what cougar said that i was referring to:

OnyxCougar But you'll never get elected because you have the personality and charm of a shit sandwich.

[COLOR=indigo]I really think he uses it. It's the "LALALALALALA" feature for him. I'm a blithering idiot, remember?[/COLOR]

yeah, i remember. marichiko is too. got it.

He's directly responded to at least one post I've made since he claimed I was on ignore so even if he does have it on, he still reads them.

so if you choose not to vote at all because you are disgusted with the 3 choices: worser of 2 evils / lesser of two evils / wasted vote, are you part of the problem or the solution?

IF you choose not to vote, you're part of the wasted vote. A vote for a libertarian is never a wasted vote. In fact it's the only vote that isn't wasted in my opinion. If you vote for the major parties, you're voting for more of the same (wasted vote). If you don't vote, you've decided to let a vocal minority choose for you and you've wasted your chance to fix things (wasted vote). If you vote for a third party your vote isn't necessarily wasted, but if you vote for one that acts like the major parties like the Green party, you're pretty much wasting your vote too.

I appreciate your passion, radar. I agree with what you're saying. but, OC has a point. you could do with a bit more decorum, and you'd win more people over to the good guy's team.

When I'm speaking to intelligent people with an open mind I use a bit more tact. But people like OC and the others on my list have already shown they are a waste and are beyond hope.

I'll readily admit that sometimes my fatal flaw is that I am more interested in winning arguments than in winning people. But generally those who want to argue aren't interested in change anyway.

oh, and just in case you actually DO use your ignore feature, this is what cougar said that i was referring to

I do, and I do for good reason. I'd appreciate you not re-posting the ignorance of those people if you can avoid it.

And as far as getting elected, I absolutely will be elected without a doubt. It will most likely be a lower office at first like city council, but I'll work my way up. I will be a member of Congress or higher before I die and some statist wants to spit on my casket and piss on my headstone.

It's also ironic to see someone with so little tact and total lack of charm or class suggesting I can't be elected for lack of charm when they use phrases like "shit sandwich".

[COLOR=indigo]He must find you worthy of arguing with, then.[/COLOR]

It's also ironic to see someone with so little tact and total lack of charm or class suggesting I can't be elected for lack of charm when they use phrases like "shit sandwich".

[COLOR=indigo]Now THAT is funny. Like he knows anything about tact, class or charm....[/COLOR]

Originally posted by Radar

Those who vote for these people are responsible for poverty, sickness due to lack of healthcare, unemployment, poor education, loss of freedom, attacks on civil rights, and even murder.

Nonsense. The government of Radarland would be as minimalist as possible and have no revenue from which to fund anything other than the military and other life-support functions. In that world, how are the levels of poverty, sickness and education improved? If anything, there would be MORE poverty, MORE sickness and LESS education. If you want to choke off the supply of tax revenue then you get all private-sector supplied services.

One scenario: since the gummint has no tax money to build roads, that means that all roads are privately supplied meaning they are all toll-roads meaning you'll DIE on the way to the hospital because you can't pay the TOLL to get there because you forgot your WALLET - wait, there are NO public ambulances. Wait, there's only ONE hospital - for the wealthiest of citizens (no hospitals can be built with tax money) and since you are an elected official -a servant of the people, that probably doesn't include you - unless you are corrupt which for now, I'll assume you aren't. SO, you die and get to spend the rest of eternity roasting on a bar-b-que spit next to former president Reagan and y'all can spit and urinate on each other for ever and ever and ever.

Not such a pretty vision, now is it?

Here, I'll save you the trouble:

Beestie, you ignorant slut.

Love, Radar.

[COLOR=indigo]I like the acronym UT used... WOTR... World According to Radar.


Mostly because it pissed Radar off when he used it.[/COLOR]

Originally posted by lumberjim
yeah, i remember. marichiko is too. got it.

Yeah, its fun being a blithering idiot. Actually, I just got the idea of saving all Radar's posts about me (when he was still writing them), and taking them into my disability doctor. "See, Doc, here's a man who aspires to be a member of congress and he states I'm a "blithering idiot" and all the rest of the stuff Radar said about me (nice thing about short term memory loss, I forget; and I don't feel like looking it all up). The Doc looks at all that stuff and shakes his head, "Yes, my dear, you seem to be a hopeless case. I'm awarding you permanent disability for life." WOW! Thanks, Radar!:D

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo] WOTR... World According to Radar.

[/COLOR]

wouldn't that be the WATR?

Originally posted by lumberjim

wouldn't that be the W[b]ATR? [/B]

You sure you wanna go there? :)

no, technically in any proper acronym you use the 4th letter of the 2nd word if you are creating it on the 3rd tuesday of a month with more than 3 letters in its name on a partially cloudy day after blinking 3 times with your left eye.

just wanted to clear up any confusion.

You sure you wanna go there?

According to Radar, regan is ;)

Originally posted by marichiko


Yeah, its fun being a blithering idiot. Actually, I just got the idea of saving all Radar's posts about me (when he was still writing them), and taking them into my disability doctor. "See, Doc, here's a man who aspires to be a member of congress and he states I'm a "blithering idiot" and all the rest of the stuff Radar said about me (nice thing about short term memory loss, I forget; and I don't feel like looking it all up). The Doc looks at all that stuff and shakes his head, "Yes, my dear, you seem to be a hopeless case. I'm awarding you permanent disability for life." WOW! Thanks, Radar!:D

hmmm. well, first off, i don't think doctors get to award anything, do they? second, you act as if you'd be proud to be on perm disbility. like it is your goal. tsk tsk tsk. what happened to rehabilitating yourself through writing therapy or whatever so that you could start taking care of yourself agian? thirdly, by saying that you were a blithering idiot too, i was trying to take the wind out of your sails before you let them fill up.

It's a little tired by now, that's all. the whole martyr thing you two do. it must make you nuts that he put you on his list. it's fairly obvious that it does. don't you think that when radar is logged in under "spivey" that he sees it and laughs heartily to himself? is that what you want? no, i don't think so. so, my ADVICE. ( not a rule, bruce) is to ignore him too. not with the ignore feature, but with your buddhism. radar is but a wave breaking against your consciousness unless you let him in.

Originally posted by lumberjim


wouldn't that be the W[b]ATR? [/B]

[COLOR=indigo]Not in my world. According is pronounced "Occording".[/COLOR]

don't you think that when radar is logged in under "spivey" that he sees it and laughs heartily to himself?

Sorry, but I don't log in under any name but Radar on any boards.

goddammit. and i was just touting your sense of humor. lighten up, people!

Originally posted by OnyxCougar


[COLOR=indigo]Not in my world. According is pronounced "Occording".[/COLOR]

oh, well, oxcuse me for being so abtuse, thon.

[COLOR=indigo]Just this one time.....[/COLOR]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]Just this one time.....[/COLOR]

Ask him how to pronounce "office".

ok. your beating is back on.


aaaahhhfice, fucker.

goddammit. and i was just touting your sense of humor. lighten up, people!

I do have a decent sense of humor, but I am being 100% truthful when I say I never logon with another user ID.

[COLOR=indigo]Steve spent 12 years in Jersey, and the way he says coffee cracks me up.

co-wah-fee[/COLOR]

Originally posted by Radar


I do have a decent sense of humor, but I am being 100% truthful when I say I never logon with another user ID.

*head thumps on desk*
ok, radar. sigh.

[COLOR=indigo]Want some ketchup with that shit sammich, Jim?

Might go down easier.[/COLOR]

still a shit sammich......just ketchupier.......

did i steal that from Hmonkey or jag?....

[COLOR=indigo]Out in the west, there is a saying about "eating the shit sammich", referring to the shit we all eat in life. It's evolved to "You want ketchup with your shit sammich?", ketchup being the universal lubricant, as in you won't taste so much of the shit.

Here, I was eluding to my previous comment about Radar's personality being like a shit sandwich, and your obvious frustration.

[/COLOR]

Originally posted by lumberjim
dude. he was just trying to sound cool. he didnt mean nigger. he menat nigga. but nigga conveys too much coolnes to the target.....hence nigger. and possibly he was trying to push a button. maybe he thinks radar is a racist?

Okay...no more armchair psychologist for you. :)

It's an ugly word for an ugly human being.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lookout123

people have forgotten that whether or not we like "pres john jones" or not, he is the president. show respect for the office, if you can't manage it for the man.

[QUOTE]

This I have often heard from Americans and I have not understood.. I don't think it a healty attitude to hold too much reverence or respect for a politician. What ever their party colours, by nature of having arrived to the top of "the greasy pole" some of the grease has probably rubbed off on to them. They have power and could abuse it, a cynical disrespectful attitude would be a more healthy attitude.

If you need a national figurehead, I think it would be better to do as other countries do, seperate the job into prime minister a politician and head of state (President or if you must King) a non-politician. The Head of States job is figurehead and protection of the constitution.

Remember, the purpose of democrary is to save us from tyranny

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]Out in the west, there is a saying about "eating the shit sammich", referring to the shit we all eat in life. It's evolved to "You want ketchup with your shit sammich?", ketchup being the universal lubricant, as in you won't taste so much of the shit.

Here, I was eluding to my previous comment about Radar's personality being like a shit sandwich, and your obvious frustration.

[/COLOR]

oh, i got that ......just referring to a funny post i saw ...idon't know where. it was either jag or happy monkey...or maybe both that said it......

Originally posted by sycamore


Okay...no more armchair psychologist for you. :)

It's an ugly word for an ugly human being.

what, no pot joke? :) :blunt:

Nah...gotta keep things fresh.

Originally posted by lumberjim
oh, i got that ......just referring to a funny post i saw ...idon't know where. it was either jag or happy monkey...or maybe both that said it......

Here it is. A group effort between sycamore and myself.

Originally posted by lumberjim


hmmm. well, first off, i don't think doctors get to award anything, do they? second, you act as if you'd be proud to be on perm disbility. like it is your goal. tsk tsk tsk. what happened to rehabilitating yourself through writing therapy or whatever so that you could start taking care of yourself agian? thirdly, by saying that you were a blithering idiot too, i was trying to take the wind out of your sails before you let them fill up.

It's a little tired by now, that's all. the whole martyr thing you two do. it must make you nuts that he put you on his list. it's fairly obvious that it does. don't you think that when radar is logged in under "spivey" that he sees it and laughs heartily to himself? is that what you want? no, i don't think so. so, my ADVICE. ( not a rule, bruce) is to ignore him too. not with the ignore feature, but with your buddhism. radar is but a wave breaking against your consciousness unless you let him in.

No, they don't LJ. And that was a joke about using Radar's own venom for the sake of a cause he despises, O.K.? So, no I don't want to be on SSDI for life. And I don't understand your third point????

I know I have a tendency to do the "martyr thing." I apologize for this, and I've apologized before, and I'll probably have to apologize again at some point. One symptom of my neurological difficulty is that my temper has become paper thin. I used to be the most easy going person in the world, and now look at me cross-eyed and I turn into a bitch, I admit it. I don't like bringing this point up because to me it feels like a cop out ("oh I'm a sick person, I can't help myself" whine, whine, whine. I actually DO try to avoid doing such things). If you want to read just a little of my story it's here: http://www.csindy.com/csindy/2003-12-18/cover.html
But its not required reading by any means.

I didn't know Radar had a "nome de guerre." Doesn't it say somewhere on this board that you can't do that? So that's news to me. How do I explain my situation without coming off as whining? That's a serious question, and I'd love a serious reply. Should I make no mention of it when someone does me an incredible kindness? Should I avoid expressing my frustration when I make some REALLY stupid mistake because of my memory? Should I never mention the fact that I'm terrified much of the time because I don't know what's going to happen to me? Maybe bringing those things up is "playing the martyr", but those things are just basic facts of my life.

So how do I get a "nome de guerre"? I was just thinking how I'd love to impersonate the person I once was and create a cyber character for myself where the past 7 or 8 years of my life never happened. I don't like being critisized any more than anyone else does. I'm tired of always feeling like I need to defend myself. Tell me how to pull off the name change and you got it.

I htink the martyr comment was just referring to you and Onyx "playing martyr" over RADAR's ignore list. I hope that's all it was anyway, because I dont see that you have been the martyr over your disability at all.

[COLOR=indigo]Since when did I play martyr? Especially over fuckwit's ignore list? Like I give a rat's ass. I think it's funny that he turns off any opinion that disagrees with his and belittles any ideas but ones that agree with his.

How is that me being a martyr?

[/COLOR]

Originally posted by lookout123


ROFLMAO! radar is paraphrasing stallone in cobra! uh, oh - is radar's solution anything like the final solution? i better work to stay off the shitlist then.

Oh god he's gone to paraphrasing a movie now?? A Stallone movie? Sheesh! :rolleyes:

Fucker.

Originally posted by Yelof
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lookout123

people have forgotten that whether or not we like "pres john jones" or not, he is the president. show respect for the office, if you can't manage it for the man.

[QUOTE]

This I have often heard from Americans and I have not understood.. I don't think it a healty attitude to hold too much reverence or respect for a politician. What ever their party colours, by nature of having arrived to the top of "the greasy pole" some of the grease has probably rubbed off on to them. They have power and could abuse it, a cynical disrespectful attitude would be a more healthy attitude.

If you need a national figurehead, I think it would be better to do as other countries do, seperate the job into prime minister a politician and head of state (President or if you must King) a non-politician. The Head of States job is figurehead and protection of the constitution.

Remember, the purpose of democrary is to save us from tyranny

I was with you on the first part, but figurehead, no. We have plenty of undeserving celebrities to look up to.
Respect the office is fine, but ex-presidents go in the same bin with ex-wives. :)

i think you guys are getting the ideas of "respect" and "blindly worship" mixed up. they shouldn't get a free pass from any negative comment about them, but damn - we have fallen a long way from the days when the media wouldn't photograph FDR in awkward positions with his wheelchair - they generally tried to get standing shots of him. they did this from a desire to show the office respect. the president should not be seen as weak and unsupported. it is difficult for the rest of the world to respect him/the office if all the world sees is our own citizens endlessly disrespecting the man/the office of the president.

both parties and the media are equally guilty of dragging the presidency through the mud. i see no problem in going after the policies/politics of the individual, but i have a serious problem with going after the individual. it is not helpful to anyone, and i believe it is just plain wrong.

Originally posted by lookout123
...It is difficult for the rest of the world to respect him/the office if all the world sees is our own citizens endlessly disrespecting the man/the office of the president.

Beautifully said. **Applause***

With all due respect, guys, it's all about perception. I don't respect our current president, and I'm sure there are plenty of people that didn't respect Reagan. Just because someone doesn't respect the person doesn't make them bad.

As far as Radar...well, I think this should answer your questions:

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]Since when did I play martyr? Especially over fuckwit's ignore list? Like I give a rat's ass. I think it's funny that he turns off any opinion that disagrees with his and belittles any ideas but ones that agree with his.

How is that me being a martyr?

[/COLOR]

Oh, admit it. You're a martyr, too. Anyone who makes any response what-so-ever to Radar's negative comments about them is a martyr. Live with it.:rolleyes:

mar·tyr n.
1. One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.
2. One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.
3a. One who endures great suffering: a martyr to arthritis.
3b. One who makes a great show of suffering in order to arouse sympathy.

[COLOR=indigo]
One and two definitely do not apply...

I only suffer unto Radar when he opens his flap, and since I'm not under great suffering, and I don't want anyone's sympathy (in this case, it doesn't matter even if I did..I mean, it's Radar...) I would say, nope, you're wrong Syc.

[/COLOR]

Eh, wrong person, Onyx.

Originally posted by OnyxCougar

[COLOR=indigo]
mar·tyr n.
1. One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.
2. One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.
3a. One who endures great suffering: a martyr to arthritis.
3b. One who makes a great show of suffering in order to arouse sympathy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One and two definitely do not apply...

I only suffer unto Radar when he opens his flap, and since I'm not under great suffering, and I don't want anyone's sympathy (in this case, it doesn't matter even if I did..I mean, it's Radar...) I would say, nope, you're wrong Syc.

[/COLOR]

I am biting my keyboard trying to not make the obvious response. I am a good girl, I am a good girl... (breathes deeply). There, it passed, at least for now.;)

Originally posted by marichiko


Oh, admit it. You're a martyr, too. Anyone who makes any response what-so-ever to Radar's negative comments about them is a martyr. Live with it.:rolleyes:

this is what i'm talking about. every other post you and cougar make is a cloyingly sarcastic barb about being maligned by freakin radar. i'm not saying you are 'martyrs' in the literal sense. i was referring to your 'martyr routine' -- jokingly bemoaning your mistreatment and denial by radar. over and over and over and over and over...........and over and over and over.

what i said had nothing at all to do with your symptoms. Not unless whining is one of the symptoms of CO poisoning or depression.

but, since you brought it up....again:

The thing about a message board is that it levels the playing field. you could be a quadriplegic pygmi homosexual typing with your penis, and i wouldnt know the difference. it also means that you should stop trying to use it as an excuse or a defense for what you write.

Don't think i'm saying this to be mean to you. You're a big girl, and I think you can tell the difference between mean spirited attacks, and plainly stated feedback from someone who cares enough to tell you about it. If you ever see me come out of the bathroom with toilet paper stuck to my shoe, or a booger hanging from a nose hair, or my fly is down, I want you to tell me about it immediately. If I have bad breath, tell me. I'd rather be embarrassed and know it than embarrassed and not know it. I rip on you because I feel that it is my duty. Just ask Perth.

Glad to hear you have such a strong sense of duty. :p

One other thing. I went back and actually wrote down the names of the people who "contributed" to this, and how many posts each made, and there were lots of folks besides me and Onyx making comments about Radar. I also noticed that you jumped right in quite a few times to heighten the effect - like quoting Onyx's remarks so Radar could see them, and it was YOU who reminded me that Radar had called me a "blithering idiot" and it was also you who accused Radar of "spying" on posts under a different name. If you don't like the smell, I suggest you quit stirring the shit.

you could be a quadriplegic pygmi homosexual typing with your penis, and i wouldnt know the difference.

At least until we had to make the member pictures thread NSFW.

and it was also you who accused Radar of "spying" on posts under a different name

Jesus Christ guys, was I the only person who got the joke about Radar being Spivey? Do you REMEMBER Spivey's posts? It was a joke.

See, watch: "Sometimes Lumberjim logs on as Perry5 just to stir the shit some more..." See how that was humor, because they're obviously different people but on an ironic level there are similarities?

It's like every time Radar is involved in a thread the rest of you lose all sense of perspective.

I don't remember Spivey's. In fact I don't remember a Spivey. I never heard the name before Jim mentioned it.

Huh, CNN's subtitle for their "Remembering Ronald Reagan" graphic is

"Mourning in America"

That's kinda edgy? I bet their graphics people are envious of The Daily Show graphic writers, who get to pun any way they like.

I shit you not, I once saw a screen subtitle on CNN that read "Bootylicious." They were doing a story about a recently uncovered sunken ship full of treasure.

Originally posted by lookout123
it is difficult for the rest of the world to respect him/the office if all the world sees is our own citizens endlessly disrespecting the man/the office of the president.

It is difficult for the rest of the world to respect a President or his office if his statements, actions and public policies are not worthy of respect.

At least six out of the last seven Presidents have done their part in causing their office to be held in disrespect; probably seven, depending on how you feel about Jimmy Carter.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Originally posted by Clodfobble

I shit you not, I once saw a screen subtitle on CNN that read "Bootylicious." They were doing a story about a recently uncovered sunken ship full of treasure.

MSNBC once did a story/interview on
Niger Innis but an extra 'g' found its way in the subtitle - you can guess where they put it.

Originally posted by lookout123
the president should not be seen as weak and unsupported. it is difficult for the rest of the world to respect him/the office if all the world sees is our own citizens endlessly disrespecting the man/the office of the president.

Soooo in other words: lie to the world about how we feel about the President? Have them assume that "we" agree 100% with his policies, views, etc.? Sorry, no can do. If I have something to say, negative or positive about the Commander in Chief, then I am going to say it. Reagan was NOT (IMO) the best President, and quite personally, I cringe at all this hero worship being praised upon him. However, he DID seem like a good person overall.

both parties and the media are equally guilty of dragging the presidency through the mud. i see no problem in going after the policies/politics of the individual, but i have a serious problem with going after the individual. it is not helpful to anyone, and i believe it is just plain wrong.

Punish the sin and not the sinner? I was never a believer in that.

However...

People are going to remember Reagan however they want to remember him. You think some of the comments are bad here...you ain't seen nothing compared to some other sites I've been on.

I have to say as I remember the Reagan years, I didn't particularly like the aspect of nuclear warheads pointed in our direction and waiting to see who would blink first, but he seemed like an ok guy, and I did like his speaking voice (probably fine tuned because of his acting days).

Originally posted by sycamore
Eh, wrong person, Onyx.

[COLOR=purple]oops! Sorry, Syc...[/COLOR]

Originally posted by lumberjim
this is what i'm talking about. every other post you and cougar make is a cloyingly sarcastic barb about being maligned by freakin radar. i'm not saying you are 'martyrs' in the literal sense. i was referring to your 'martyr routine' -- jokingly bemoaning your mistreatment and denial by radar. over and over and over and over and over...........and over and over and over.

what i said had nothing at all to do with your symptoms. Not unless whining is one of the symptoms of CO poisoning or depression.

but, since you brought it up....again:

The thing about a message board is that it levels the playing field. you could be a quadriplegic pygmi homosexual typing with your penis, and i wouldnt know the difference. it also means that you should stop trying to use it as an excuse or a defense for what you write.


Don't think i'm saying this to be mean to you. You're a big girl, and I think you can tell the difference between mean spirited attacks, and plainly stated feedback from someone who cares enough to tell you about it. If you ever see me come out of the bathroom with toilet paper stuck to my shoe, or a booger hanging from a nose hair, or my fly is down, I want you to tell me about it immediately. If I have bad breath, tell me. I'd rather be embarrassed and know it than embarrassed and not know it. I rip on you because I feel that it is my duty. Just ask Perth.

You know, I was in the middle of typing out a detailed response to this...and then it hit me. This could be simply summed up with one quote:

"Until you have walked a mile in my shoes, no one has the right to tell me what route to take." Dr. George Keller

Originally posted by Clodfobble
and it was also you who accused Radar of "spying" on posts under a different name

Jesus Christ guys, was I the only person who got the joke about Radar being Spivey? Do you REMEMBER Spivey's posts? It was a joke.

Remember? Not really. Oh well, maybe it would have helped if Jim was talking to someone who actually DID remember. I'm going to take a wild guess and say marichiko did not.

See, watch: "Sometimes Lumberjim logs on as Perry5 just to stir the shit some more..." See how that was humor, because they're obviously different people but on an ironic level there are similarities?

Hmm...not quite. Guess I'm not on here as much to "get it". *shrugs*

It's like every time Radar is involved in a thread the rest of you lose all sense of perspective.

LMAO, now THAT was funny!!!!

:p

Originally posted by ladysycamore

Remember? Not really. Oh well, maybe it would have helped if Jim was talking to someone who actually DID remember. I'm going to take a wild guess and say marichiko did not.

Excellent guess. Don't have the foggiest. Nor do I remember "somebody5" (Looks back thru thread). Oh, Perry5. Was that recent?:confused:

I have no idea what the hell they're talking about either.

Originally posted by marichiko
Excellent guess. Don't have the foggiest. Nor do I remember "somebody5" (Looks back thru thread). Oh, Perry5. Was that recent?:confused:

Couldn't tell ya. I just come here, speak my peace, and then I'm out. I really don't recall a lot from here unless it's something really "hot" or Syc points something out to me and we talk about it. Other than that *shrugs* I just go on about to the business at hand with my support board, research and chat.

BTW, I read your story. My god..I thought I heard everything. Colorado sucks when it comes to the disabled. I was reading up on carbon monoxide poisoning too:

CO Headquarters: The Most Complete Website on Carbon Monoxide Toxicology in the World
http://www.coheadquarters.com/CO1.htm

Functional changes:
http://www.coheadquarters.com/coNeuropsych1.htm

Not that I didn't understand before (because I could relate to what you are going through on other level), but after reading that, I now have a better understanding of it.

I felt compelled to look up some information for you. I don't know if you've been trying to do the same, but here a link that I found that I hope that can be of some help:

Immune Web-CO support groups and info
http://immuneweb.org/classifieds/groups.html

I hope things start working out for the best for you.

:)

Originally posted by ladysycamore
Reagan was NOT (IMO) the best President, and quite personally, I cringe at all this hero worship being praised upon him. However, he DID seem like a good person overall.

Nicely summed up.

There are conservabots out there currently redoubling their efforts to perpetuate the myth that Reagan was the Greatest President Ever -- the most popular, the most successful, fulfilled every campaign promise, served all Americans well, defeated the Evil Empire, blah blah blah, and thus he was an American Hero and a Role Model and a Superb Leader and should have his face and name glued onto everything in America that isn't nailed down.

The link I provided on Page 2 of this thread helps debunk much of that. He wasn't an abject failure, but he wasn't a conquering hero of ultraconservatism, either. The army of Dittobots loves to pimp Reagan's accomplishments, but often neglect to mention things like Iran-Contra, massive federal deficits, the (necessary) rollback of many of his prized tax cuts, the S & L scandal, the small army of Reagan's appointees and Cabinet members who were indicted and/or convicted of various crimes, his luck in having Mikhail Gorbachev with whom to negotiate, his frequent compromises with the Democrats (surely a cardinal sin in Dittoland), his diminished capabilities in the later years of his Presidency, and other flaws. Many of the accomplishments they cite are overstated and exaggerated, as well.

It's like photographing a man who's wearing a pimpin' suit-jacket only from the waist up, in hopes that no one will notice that he's forgotten his pants and has dog crap on his shoe.

Reagan might've been a good person in private, a devoted husband, a nice guy, etc., but that's irrelevant to the larger debate; calling him a poor leader does not equate to calling him a bad person.

But if you bring up Reagan's obvious flaws now, it's practically a declaration of war in the eyes of those who worship him and hail him as the father of modern conservatism. To them, we should all morph into Peggy Noonan and breathlessly stare wide-eyed at Saint Ronnie, saluting the Man Who Saved America, and to suggest otherwise is somehow inherently offensive.

Screw _that_.

Every editorial deserves a rebuttal. When others are putting Reagan on a pedestal and pumping out one-sided spin, it's not a "smear on the office of the Presidency" to show up and give the other side. Five months away from a vitally important election cycle, it's doubly important to take the blinders off about America's recent history, particularly when Bush will have little hesitation in painting himself as following in Reagan's footsteps. America needs to know where those footsteps might lead.

At the very least, Americans need to wipe away the fantasy that the world, our leaders and others can be viewed in black-or-white, good-or-evil terms. There's some truth on both sides of the Reagan argument, just as there will be for every President one may consider.

Originally posted by vsp
At the very least, Americans need to wipe away the fantasy that the world, our leaders and others can be viewed in black-or-white, good-or-evil terms. There's some truth on both sides of the Reagan argument, just as there will be for every President one may consider.

*standing ovation* Please, let me return the "props"...VERY well said. :)

[COLOR=indigo]I agree with you, vsp, but the one thing you didn't touch on is respect.


It's one thing for a person to say, "You know, I disagreed with alot of his policies, and I think overall, he was a bad president" and it is quite something to say the shit Radar said about spitting on his grave, and going to hell (which Radar doesn't believe in in the first place).

[/COLOR]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]I agree with you, vsp, but the one thing you didn't touch on is respect.


It's one thing for a person to say, "You know, I disagreed with alot of his policies, and I think overall, he was a bad president" and it is quite something to say the shit Radar said about spitting on his grave, and going to hell (which Radar doesn't believe in in the first place).

[/COLOR]

Hopefully, he meant himself (going to hell). :p

Originally posted by Clodfobble
I shit you not, I once saw a screen subtitle on CNN that read "Bootylicious." They were doing a story about a recently uncovered sunken ship full of treasure.

LMAO - until you wrote this i thought i was the only person in the world who saw that!

Originally posted by vsp

At least six out of the last seven Presidents have done their part in causing their office to be held in disrespect; probably seven, depending on how you feel about Jimmy Carter.

i guess that's kind of the point. all presidents will do something we think is disgraceful. and while these events shouldn't be ignored, i think the US had created a national passtime out of trashing our presidents, to the detriment of the people in other parts of the world view us. while you are in the time period of the event all problems seem exponentially more important than what they really are.

Harding(i think it was) did his assistant in a coat closet at the white house and got her pregnant. that was a long time ago and that won't even make it into most history books, and rightfully so. he was human, he failed.

Lincoln had failings, but he is more remembered for the good
kennedy screwed anything in a skirt but he is remembered well
insert any president's name in there and to varying degrees the same can be said.

the media and people at the time showed respect for the office, if not for the man behind the desk. and i think the nation was better served in that manner. since watergate the US has reveled in the mire of trashing our leadership, and i think it is time to stop. you don't have to like them, but i don't think showing a certain amount of respect is too much to ask.

whether i personally agree with what they support or not, i believe most pol's take their stands because they think it is the right course of action, rather than some deep dark desire to screw the world over. only a long view of history can accurately show whether they were right or not. anything less than 30-40 years is too soon to really grasp the long term effects of decisions in politics.

their failings should not cause us to pick up our pitchforks and go after them on a personal level. disagree, debate their politics, and by all means vote for someone else, but do so with some respect for the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.

in 50 years, kids in school will read about clinton/monica and say, so? what else happened during his presidency?

when looking at reagan they will see that he spent vast sums of money. only history will tell us if that really contributed to the demise of the soviet union.

they will look at Bush I and decide whether he was right to stop at the iraqi border or not.

when looking at GW they will see that he went into Iraq without UN support. only history will tell us how that plays out.

i just don't see why we have to personally attack these men with such disregard for basic human respect.

The personal attacks on GWB pale in comparison to the attacks on his policy. The reverse was true for Clinton.

believe it or not i really am speaking in general terms here. i am not a big fan of any of the guys we've had recently.

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]I agree with you, vsp, but the one thing you didn't touch on is respect.

It's one thing for a person to say, "You know, I disagreed with alot of his policies, and I think overall, he was a bad president" and it is quite something to say the shit Radar said about spitting on his grave, and going to hell (which Radar doesn't believe in in the first place).[/COLOR]

I'm not Radar, so I won't speak for him. If it were me, I'd wait at least a week out of respect for the family before urinating on Reagan's grave. At LEAST. A dump -- at least a MONTH. It's only right.

As far as I'm concerned, respect has to be earned. Being elected President doesn't confer respect in and of itself; it just means that the President and his PR team fooled more people than the other guy did. If a president is a buffoon, a pussyhound or a scoundrel, there's no reason to pretend that he's anything but that; the rest of the world can see that our emperor has no clothes, and will think we're idiots for pretending otherwise.

Originally posted by ladysycamore


Couldn't tell ya. I just come here, speak my peace, and then I'm out. I really don't recall a lot from here unless it's something really "hot" or Syc points something out to me and we talk about it. Other than that *shrugs* I just go on about to the business at hand with my support board, research and chat.

BTW, I read your story. My god..I thought I heard everything. Colorado sucks when it comes to the disabled. I was reading up on carbon monoxide poisoning too:

CO Headquarters: The Most Complete Website on Carbon Monoxide Toxicology in the World
http://www.coheadquarters.com/CO1.htm

Functional changes:
http://www.coheadquarters.com/coNeuropsych1.htm

Not that I didn't understand before (because I could relate to what you are going through on other level), but after reading that, I now have a [b]better understanding of it.

I felt compelled to look up some information for you. I don't know if you've been trying to do the same, but here a link that I found that I hope that can be of some help:

Immune Web-CO support groups and info
http://immuneweb.org/classifieds/groups.html

I hope things start working out for the best for you.

:) [/B]

Thank you very much. I can't tell you how much I appreciate the occasional word of kidness and understanding. Its been a long hard road. (And no, I'm not whining, just being matter of fact).

Originally posted by ladysycamore

I have to say as I remember the Reagan years, I didn't particularly like the aspect of nuclear warheads pointed in our direction and waiting to see who would blink first, but he seemed like an ok guy, and I did like his speaking voice (probably fine tuned because of his acting days).

One thing I will give Reagan his props for was his aversion to nukes. Even though SDI was and is a pie-in-the-sky boondoggle, at least Reagan was thinking defense, not offense.

The Bush administration wants to reinitiate research into tactical nukes for 'bunker busting'. So we have re/development of a type of nuke most likely to be used first, by an administration which believes in 'preemptive warfare', run by a President who probably believes that, at worst, if he screws up and destroys the world, there will automatically be a place in heaven for himself and his loved ones. YIKES!:eek:

I think it took GWB to make me appreciate Reagan. If you have to be a conservative, at least do it right. (right, right-wing, get it?)

Originally posted by lookout123
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Clodfobble
I shit you not, I once saw a screen subtitle on CNN that read "Bootylicious." They were doing a story about a recently uncovered sunken ship full of treasure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



LMAO - until you wrote this i thought i was the only person in the world who saw that!

Yup - either rotten.com, bangedup.com, or gorgasm.com has the still. It is possible that the KKK has it as a screensaver....

Originally posted by richlevy
The Bush administration wants to reinitiate research into tactical nukes for 'bunker busting'. So we have re/development of a type of nuke most likely to be used first, by an administration which believes in 'preemptive warfare', run by a President who probably believes that, at worst, if he screws up and destroys the world, there will automatically be a place in heaven for himself and his loved ones. YIKES!:eek:

In a nutshell, we'll find out in five more months.

If Kerry wins, the above shouldn't be a major worry.

If Bush wins, start looking for another country with low population density and no attractive targets. New Zealand, perhaps.

(Scratch that -- if Kerry wins, I'm just as worried about what Bush may do in the lame-duck months.)

Bush already considers himself to be the equivalent of Moses. He beleives God has called him to lead the people of Iraq to freedom. There's a quote to that effect in the article I cited in the "Bush saved from alcohol by Jesus" thread. The man is stupid and a zealot on top of that. Others behind the scenes pull the puppet strings for reasons of their own. The American people brought it on themselves by collectively taking the "blue pill" and going to sleep. Good luck with your visa application for New Zealand.:(

Originally posted by Clodfobble
and it was also you who accused Radar of "spying" on posts under a different name

Jesus Christ guys, was I the only person who got the joke about Radar being Spivey? Do you REMEMBER Spivey's posts? It was a joke.

See, watch: "Sometimes Lumberjim logs on as Perry5 just to stir the shit some more..." See how that was humor, because they're obviously different people but on an ironic level there are similarities?

It's like every time Radar is involved in a thread the rest of you lose all sense of perspective.

thank you.


and don't think I didn't notice the comparison to one perrry5. [size=1]you'll get yours, too, clodfobble.[/size] :)

nice to see Fox and Chirac didn't stick around for the funeral.

I watched part of the services today, which were quite lovely.

But I did find myself wondering ... was rain in the forecast for today before the funeral was scheduled?

Originally posted by wolf
I watched part of the services today, which were quite lovely.

But I did find myself wondering ... was rain in the forecast for today before the funeral was scheduled?

Well, it was forecasted for here (In Phila.), and sometimes the forecast here is the same for MD/DC.

The services were indeed lovely and moving as well. The eulogies were delivered with such grace, especially Lady Margaret Thatcher.

I nearly had a major breakdown when an irish tenor sang, "Ava Maria"...for some reason, that song hits me right in a place where I just want to sit down and cry my eyes out! :D His voice was beautiful. *sniff*

Amazing Grace is the one that always gets me.

Particularly on bagpipes, which is the way it's usually done at cop and fire funerals.

I blame myself for Radar's behavior in this thread. I probably shouldn't have titled it RIP Ronald Reagan. Radar is just following instructions.

What is it with amazing grace anyway? My wife swoons over this, it will be played at her funeral. It's a great song granted, but why do people get so loopy about it?

By any chance, has she seen the "Amazing Grace" documentary on PBS? Very well done, and could easily increase the sentimental feeling towards the song,

Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost, but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.

'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
And grace my fears relieved.
How precious did that grace appear
The hour I first believed.

Through many dangers, toils and snares
I have already come;
'Tis grace hath brought me safe thus far
And grace will lead me home.

The Lord has promised good to me
His word my hope secures;
He will my shield and portion be,
As long as life endures.

Yea, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
and mortal life shall cease,
I shall possess within the veil,
A life of joy and peace.

When we've been there ten thousand years
Bright shining as the sun,
We've no less days to sing God's praise
Than when we've first begun.

John Newton 1725-1807 (stanza 6 Anon)

Radar wrote:

I can always dance on his grave or piss on it after he's buried. That would be a suitable and well-deserved sign of disrespect for the man too.

Sorry, Radar. Someone beat you to it.

And he got Nixon's too ...

Talk-radio host Chris Dickson was enraged by the Reagan incident.

"I was at the Reagan Presidential Library in February of this year," he told WND. "'Dutch' was my commander in chief. I have personal interest in getting this individual and trying to protect the desecration of presidential graves against First Amendment rights."

Interesting wording, that...

Which may raise the question of whether in this circumstance taking a big stick and whacking somebody's peepee in rebuttal amounts to protected speech.

Stupid pissy fascist person. Reagan's wisdom did the whole planet so much good, and the slavemongering slaveminded jackasses have never recovered.

Reagan did the world as much good as Josef Stalin. He spent generations of Americans into debt at birth, he tripled the size of government, he spent like a drunken sailor and left our children to pay the bill. He traded arms for hostages and then lied under oath about it.

I still may piss on his grave someday, and there's not a thing you, or a thousand of you could do about it.

nope there isn't a thing i can do about it. or want to do about it. except continue to laugh at you for thinking your vitriolic splash actually matters.

I'd be happy to let dead presidents lie, if only they didn't keep trying to name stuff after him. Especially in DC.

At least the Reagan Building is shaped like a toilet.

...and there's not a thing you, or a thousand of you could do about it.

Except teach you a new and undesired meaning of the phrase "to jerk off."

There are numerous rocky hills around the Reagan Presidential Library, and each of the numerous hills has numerous cactus patches on it. We wouldn't mind dragging such a pissy fellow through and over the entire lot of them. We'll insult his intelligence, too. You don't want to be that bad a jerk. Seriously.

We wouldn't mind dragging such a pissy fellow through and over the entire lot of them.

WE? You seem to have a penchant for commiting other people to violence. :crazy:

Oddly, if he really is a member of the Libertarian Party he signed this- "I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals."

I did take that pledge and I was serious about it. I won't initiate force, but I'll use plenty of it on those who do initiate it against me.

Radar, it still wouldn't be at all healthy for you to try something like that. Do you have any idea at all just how popular Ronnie is out here, and with how much reason? Have you any idea at all just how libertarian the guy was? Close to the perfect politician: a Republican who thought like a Libertarian. I voted Libertarian both times Ronnie stood for election, but I was satisfied to have him in the Oval Office instead.

He wasn't libertarian in the slightest. He tripled the size of government, he lied under oath about trading arms for hostages, he spent at least 5 generations of Americans into debt from the cradle to the grave. He didn't think like a libertarian. Like most Republicans, he just talked like one, but grew government at levels even Democrats would be embarassed by. He spent more than a TRILLION DOLLARS on SDI which gave us absolutely NOTHING. Not a single prototype. It gave us nothing. He also took credit for the the fall of the Soviet Union which he had NOTHING to do with. Communism was crumbling on its own as it always does.

Radar, close your mouth and open your eyes, dammit. Study the man's philosophies.

Better for libertarianism if collectivist totalitarianism doesn't merely fall, but is pushed.

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

Radar, close your mouth and open your eyes, dammit. Study the man's philosophies.

You misspelled empty rhetoric.

Radar wrote:

I did take that pledge and I was serious about it. I won't initiate force, but I'll use plenty of it on those who do initiate it against me.

He wasn't talking about you, Radar. Urbane Guerrilla claims to be a member of your party as well, strange as that may seem.

Or not so strange. As the case may be...

What I'm finding interesting is that right here in our own little Cellar, we have the full rainbow of the libertarian party in microcosm.

Careful using the rainbow as a descriptor...

White is all colors.

What is so bad about being a Libertarian? I thought Radar was just an extremely bad example of one. Is the whole damn party like him?

There's noting bad about being a libertarian, per se ... but it has a lot more shades of meaning than just radar's version, is what I'm getting at.

So, he is a bad example of one! I knew it!

He's rude, too. Just FYI.

Happy Monkey wrote:

[Quote=Urbane Guerrilla]
Radar, close your mouth and open your eyes, dammit. Study the man's philosophies.

You misspelled empty rhetoric.[/quote]:lol2:
You crack me up, man.

"My Memories of Ronald Reagan's Passing" by Anon E. Mouse

Ronald Wilson Reagan passed away with 5 or 6 hours of my mom. She was friends with Reagan and spent a lot of good times out at the ranch. I liked Reagan for his compassion and for being kind to my mom, so my attachment to him was purely visceral. Losing both of them at about the same time sucked dick.

Anyhow, I drove back here to the Bay Area from Fairburn, GA, alone, giving myself a lot of time to be alone and all that stuff, low and slow over Route 66. On the second day of driving, I turned on the radio to listen to the national memorial and had to pull the damned car over because I felt like all the nice things folks said about reagan applied to my mom, too, and it ws just too much to bear, so there I was, a puddle of tears and snot, sitting on the side of a highway out in the middle of Wet Dog, OK.

As luck would have it, I went through my mom's photos and what do you think ws right there on top? A picture of her and our former President! Whoa, huh?

So there you go.

Actually, I'm a good libertarian. And there aren't several types of libertarians. There are some who claim to be libertarians, but who really aren't. This is the biggest problem in our party. You get a bunch of morons trying to change the party into the Republitarian party or the Demotarian Party. You get people who say they don't support the initiation of force, yet support starting a completely unprovoked war like that in Iraq. You get people saying they don't support government force to tell us what to do with our own body...unless it's having an abortion. Then it's ok to initiate force against them.

There are no shades of gray. You're a libertarian or you're not. You either support the initiation of force for political gain or social engineering, or you don't. Claiming to be a libertarian who supports the war in Iraq is no different than saying, "I am a Christian because I believe in every part of the bible other than the parts about Jesus". By definition if you don't believe in Jesus, you're not a Christian, even if you believe in every other part of the bible.

The same is true of libertarianism. You can support smaller government. You can support the elimination of income taxes. You can support legalizing drugs. You can support unrestricted gun ownership. You can believe in nearly every part of libertarianism other than the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle), and you're not a libertarian. You can disagree with the Libertarian Party in all areas but as long as you believe in the NAP, you're still a libertarian.

For the record, I'm a fantastic example of a Libertarian and an intelligent, reasonable, open-minded, well-educated, well-rounded person in general. Not to mention I've got a wonderful sense of humor and a warm personality.

Oh, and did I mention humble? ;)


Your Friend in Liberty,


Paul T. Ireland
Executive Committee
Libertarian Party of California

Well. There ya go. That is what's wrong with Libertarians.

wolf wrote:

There's noting bad about being a libertarian, per se ... but it has a lot more shades of meaning than just radar's version, is what I'm getting at.

Wolf's putting her finger on it. I've been giving this some thought, as I find Radar an interesting foil/opponent, in between any offerings by either of us to tie the other one's dick into a figure-8 knot.

One thing I better clear up right now is that I am not a paid-up LP member -- yet. What I am is registered as a Libertarian voter in California. I involve myself fairly deeply in the voting process, as I'm a polls worker on election days. (I've a decision to make as to whether I should work in the county Elections division for a bit of temp work or again be a polling place's Inspector for the upcoming special election in November. They pay you if you want them to, not a huge lot, but still grownup money.)

With a body of philosophy with three major and separate streams in it, the right-, the left-, and the anarcho-libertarian, libertarianism is already an umbrella term, and here lie the shades, or the varieties, if you prefer. The individual libertarian likely accommodates ideas from more than just one of these three in his philosophy of libertarianism -- for an instance, there is a lot in Rothbard's For A New Liberty that I strongly agree with, but I do not share his (tempered) enthusiasm for anarchism as a remedy for anything that actually needs curing.

You've described the Non-Aggression Principle. I am here to say that if you want libertarianism to have real influence on Earth, you must dump the Non-Aggression Principle as here described. The Non-Aggression Principle does not serve libertarianism. It castrates it, making it not merely vitiated but sterile also.

Without the physical and mental capacity to resist the goon-squad suppressive tactics of the antilibertarian rulerships out there, libertarianism will not spread to those very places that need it the most: goon-squad country. The NAP would keep the Libertarian Party and libertarian ideals as a sort of hothouse plant ranging only within the United States, producing only a bouquet of parlor politicians. They can talk nice talk, but where's the action? Where's the effect? Concentrate more on deeds than on theoretical ideological purity, or you won't have a party. You'll have a philosophers' hobby -- and nobody makes a better world by mental masturbation no matter how good it makes them feel, okay? Not that I'm complaining about aesthetics! You need men and women of action now. Make no mistake: peace is preferable -- but there will be wars. You want a libertarian world? -- wars must not defeat the libertarians.

You need trench fighters. You need the people who can make Republicans into Libertarians and people who can stop socialist Democrats cold. Yes, I'm for the time being begging the question of how the socialist Democrats might be better converted than merely brickbatted across the bridge of the nose. But do you have these people? I've been asked myself, out of the blue, if I might consider running for the office of harbor commissioner for Port Hueneme. Talk about your long shots! I declined on the grounds that I didn't think I understood the job well enough to expect to discharge it competently if elected. IIRC the LPoC did not field a candidate for that office that year. You need people who are prepared for a protracted conflict, for conflict there will be, and it will take a steely determination to carry us through times of not much reward or even times of defeat.


I contend it is miscalling things to say Iraq is either unprovoked or a separate war -- hell, the big thing our foes have in common is there isn't a libertarian thought in their fevered heads, yet democracy, which is not antithetical to Islam, is a more libertarian sort of governance than the feudaloid despotism most of them are stuck in. Iraq is a campaign in the overall war with people whose interests and privileges are threatened if political power and its attendant economic opportunities get spread widely around in the population -- the sine qua non of a genuine republic. It's even more sine qua non of libertarianism.

Paul, in one regard I'm a better libertarian than you are: I say to you liberty is every bit as good for Yusuf al-Iraqi and Dost Muhammad al-Afghani as it is for Joe "Freedom Freak" Sixpack. I say liberty should not be confined to within the shores of North America -- in some measure because we don't have anti-liberty-by-law troubles springing from within this continent. These problems come from places where libertarianism isn't practiced, or even thought of. We can think of people who aren't remotely as freedom-minded as we are, living just across town, but these do not have the weight of the State behind them. I say we must be prepared to operate in environments where they do.

I'm a better libertarian precisely because I support, in supporting the Iraq campaign, the removal of the tyrant, even if he doesn't want to cease his tyranny. The tyrant is anti-libertarianism, personified. This means prosecuting a just war; if you're going to fight a war it may as well be a just one. The tyrant will not hesitate to prosecute a war against you. If he does it efficiently enough and you die, what then of the liberty you hoped for? Better for liberty if the tyrant dies in your place. Better for your soul if you arrange to kill him instantly rather than, say, by impalement. Impalement gives the tyrant time to contemplate his sins and appreciate his passage from this life to the next -- but it gets your soul muddy, too.

In viewing wiping tyrants off the world's slate as some kind of evil, I say you fail libertarianism: your view is too short, your ambit too narrow. Time to see what Libertarianism can do for the world. That's the greater picture.

blue wrote:

What is it with amazing grace anyway? My wife swoons over this, it will be played at her funeral. It's a great song granted, but why do people get so loopy about it?

Blue, H-Monkey, Bruce: Amazing Grace is a tune of great musical merit, and is a tune for the ages. Almost every piper on Earth also knows it -- I've met exactly one piper who didn't, and I taught it to him. The guy'd never sung it in church. Maybe he was a Unitarian or something. It's also the rock simplest tune there is on the pipes; there is precisely one spot in the tune you need to play carefully to avoid the technical error called the "crossing noise." Easy, easy, easy; not only could a piper play it in his sleep, he could play it drugged.

That aside, the tune isn't particularly funerary. Another popular tune for funerals is Dvoràk's tune sometimes called "Going Home." Contemplative, melodious, and a slow march. But the real funeral tune on the pipes for my money is "Flowers of the Forest." "Amazing Grace" can bring tears to even the most self possessed of stiff-upper-lippers, but "Flowers of the Forest," played at a deliberate pace and with schmaltz (and that's deliberate, too) can make you tear your heart out of your chest with your fingernails for grief. The tune sobs and wails, and calls for a bit of self-possession on the piper's part if played solo. It's probably easier with a trio of pipers. The tune might even have an arrangement of seconds for one of the pipers to play.

not only could a piper play it in his sleep, he could play it drugged.

I'll attest to that. I had to listen to between 25 and 35 drunk pipers play it a least a dozen times every Memorial day. There wasn't a deer, rabbit or squirrel within 3 miles of the place by nightfall.
Oh, and all the dogs were psycho. :bonk:

Dogs who aren't living in a piper's house do often visibly dislike the sound of the pipes. I use visibly advisedly: I'm taking upwards of 90dB and maybe more right there snuggled into the instrument -- I can see the dog's mouth moving, but if he's any distance away, I cannot hear him.

I've got news for you. You're not a better libertarian than I am in any sense because you're not a libertarian in any sense. The Non-Aggression Principle IS libertarianism. It defines libertarianism. Saying the LP should dump the NAP is like saying Christians should dump all the stuff about Jesus.

Libertarianism has been a philosophy for hundreds of years. It has always been about self-ownership, personal responsibility, and the non-initiation of force for political gain or social engineering. This is the foundation of libertarian thought and libertarian philosophy. You can't take away any part of it.

Republicans are no closer to being libertarians than Democrats. If anything Republicans are even worse than Democrats. They grow government at rates even the most socialist of Democrats would be ashamed of. They violate civil rights in the name of "security", they think it's the job of America to rule the world.

You think you're more libertarian than I am because you'd misuse the U.S. military and violate the U.S. Constitution to overthrow some dictator somewhere else on earth. The war in Iraq was NEVER about setting people free, and there will always be some dictator. But the tyrant becomes us if we attack.

You're saying that if some foreign country has a form of government other than democracy, or has policies we don't like, or treats its people in a way we don't like, that alone justifies America launching an unprovoked war of aggression to overthrow those people.

What if China decided they didn't like the way Americans live, and doesn't like our policies? What if the rest of the nations in the UN agree and decide to overthrow America? Would it be ok? Would it be ok for the UN to decide America should be disarmed and to tell America they'd send in people from Cuba, China, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea to inspect our missile silos, military bases, the pentagon, and even the whitehouse at 3am without warning?

Why not?

The answer is because America has sovereignty. No more or less sovereignty than any other nation on earth. No nation on earth requires America's or the UN's permission to develop any weapons they choose or make any policies they want or to have any form of government including non-democratic ones.

Why should the rest of the world respect our sovereignty if we won't respect theirs? The fact is America's authority ends where America's borders end. We aren't the police of the world or the enforcers of UN sanctions.

I wish freedom for every single person on earth. But before we go around starting unprovoked wars trying to free other people, how about we free American people first. Our civil rights are being violated at an alarming rate. How about we fix our own country and restore the freedom we had just 30 years ago? How about we return America to the vision the founders had where government played virtually no role in our daily life rather than getting involved in almost every part of it?

Once we do that, we'll have far less enemies. How about we return America to being a neutral and non-interventionist nation that trades with and offers friendship to all nations but doesn't use our military to get involved in their disputes?

If you as an individual want to fight for the freedom of people in Iraq, or China, or anywhere else on earth, you should be free to go there and fight to overthrow that kind of tyrrany and to accept the consequences if you fail. You should be free to send your money, guns, and even yourself if you want to free the people of other nations. Just don't use MY military to do it because the military of the United States is only for the DEFENSE of American soil and ships and nothing else.

Not one person in Iraq is defending America. Not one U.S. military member in Iraq is following a lawful order. Each and every one of them is violating their oath, and the U.S. Constitution.

The fact is you can't be a libertarian and a supporter of the war in Iraq at the same time. Those two things are diametrically opposed. Being one disqualifies you from being the other.

I just want to say that I'm enjoying this, and also that Godwin's law does not apply if someone uses Hitler or Nazism *correctly* in this thread.

Oh, also, people in the mainstream parties will have something to learn from it. Radar's take is that the party should be limited only to hardasses who believe precisely as he does and therefore half of the people in it are there illegitmately. He thinks the LP will be stronger and more successful if half the people are purged from it. If you don't agree, consider what this means to your own party, if you affiliate with one. For example, many Ds now take the approach that the party will have more appeal if it takes "truly" Democratic approaches to policy. Does this or does this not work with Radar? Hint: the L party membership is between 20-25,000.

So what you're saying is that the Libertarian party would be precisely as effective demographically after the exodus as before.

Statistically, that's true. In the LP it doesn't really make one bit of difference if they represent 0.02% of the population, or 0.01%. In the DP or RP it makes a really big difference if they represent 50% of the population, or only 25%.

Considering the outcome of the last two national elections, it doesn't take many people to become a force to be reckoned with at the ballot box......if they get organized. :smack:

Actually what UT is saying is that the LP should sacrifice our principles for the sake of growth. This would make us no better than the major parties. Our uncompromising principles are what make us infinitely better than they are. I also believe the party would grow faster if we had a unified, consistent, and clear message without factions within the party arguing over them. In other words, I'd like everyone in the LP to actually be a libertarian. Not what I personally consider to be a libertarian, but what the Non-Aggression Principle (the defining characteristic of libertarianism) considers someone to be a libertarian.

UT is trying to make me out to be some twisted, hard-nosed, guy off the deep end but in fact the exact opposite is true. I welcome all libertarians to the party. And I'll work with non-libertarians outside the party on areas we agree on and work against them where we disagree. I'm a big tent libertarian. I just insist that everyone in the tent is an actual libertarian.

If the LP message had more continuity and consistency, people would be more apt to join the party. If I went to a store where I asked 2 employees to describe the products they sell, and got 2 entirely different and conflicting answers, I wouldn't buy that product. If I went to another store and got the same description of the product no matter who I asked, and it sounded like a product I wanted (freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, prosperity, etc.) I'd buy it without question.

Everyone should know that the LP stands for smaller government, personal responsibility, pro-choice in all things, and is against the initiation of force for political gain or social engineering.

Those who disagree with any part of that have no valid place within the LP. The purpose of the Libertarian Party is to carry out libertarian philosophy. Libertarian philosophy is based on the Non-Aggression Principle and Self-Ownership.

Whether or not the LP would be more or less effective is debatable, but our message would have more clarity, consistency, and continuity. Everyone would know exactly what we stood for. I think it would bring us far more members and better qualified candidates. I believe it would help us in the long run.

You need not sacrifice YOUR prinicples.

You think for some reason that there is a coherent philosophy based on the NAP. That's sad.

No, it's not sad. It's a fact. What's sad is you aren't educated enough or libertarian enough to realize it. The Libertarian philosophy is coherent, and is based on the NAP. It's been around for longer than many other philosophies.

I was Libertarian enough. I got smarter and studied more things. Applying the NAP as a complete philosophy is a joke.

What does the NAP tell you about epistemology?

What does it tell you about the existence of a supreme being?

Why do educated, 100/100ers use it to arrive at entirely different conclusions on the law and abortion?

100/100 people don't arrive at different conclusions about abortion. All libertarians support the SOLE DOMINION of each person over their own body and the organisms growing within it. NOBODY else on earth or anywhere else has any say in the matter. To question the life and death decisions someone makes with regard to the organisms living inside their body is like questioning the life and death decisions of a supreme being over the people on earth (assuming you believe in one).

Nobody who supports using the force of government to prevent or punish someone for any decisions or actions they take with their own body or the organisms within that body are a libertarian.

What does the NAP tell you about the nature of knowledge itself? Just that it's not up for us to determine what others are to know, or how they can know about anything.

What does the NAP tell us about the existence of a supreme being? Just that it is up to each of us to make that decision for ourselves, and nobody else on earth has any legitimate right to force you to believe in a particular supreme being or lack thereof.

Precisely. Epistemology and origins, the central questions of other philosophies, and the NAP tells you nothing.

Now let's get political. What does the NAP say about one's responsibility to society?

Epistemology is the basis for many philosophies, but not all, and maybe not even most. Libertarianism is an ethical philosophy, not a philosophy that searches for meaning or knowledge. There are many types of philosophy and you're trying to compare apples to oranges. Not all philosophies are about the quest for truth or the nature of knowledge.

One does not have a "responsibility to society". One has a responsibility to themselves. The term "society" refers to a collection of individuals. Society has no rights. Only individuals do. Society isn't owed anything.

The rights of a single person are equal to those of all other people on earth combined.

Nobody on earth has the legitimate right to initiate force against others (especially for political gain or social engineering), but they do have the right to use force against those who have initiated it against them.

Yes, yes we know.

I'm not talking about a responsibility to government here. I'm talking about a responsibility to society.

Libertarians are fond of noting that, when there are blackouts, people just don't enter into controlled intersections just because there is no red light. They proceed with caution. So, would you say that you have a responsibility to proceed with caution if a light is out? Or can you simply bust through the intersection at top speed without guilt? What does the NAP tell you about that?

I wasn't talking about a responsibility to government either.

The Non-Aggression principle means that we don't have a right to physically harm or endanger non-consenting others or their property and they don't have the right to do that to us. If we do harm or endanger non-consenting others or their property, they are within their right to use force against us or to hire agents to do it for them.

If we approach an intersection with the light out, we don't have a responsibility to "society" to proceed with caution, but we do have a responsibility not to harm or endanger those particular individuals in the intersection. If refusing to proceed with caution would endanger them, we'd be compelled to proceed with caution or face the consequences.

If there were nobody at the intersection for miles, we'd have no responsibility to slow down. If we chose to speed through an intersection because we didn't see someone, but we hit someone anyway, we'd be criminally responsible for our negligence, damage, harm, and endangerment we've caused.

Undertoad covered all the essentials of any reply I'd make, and concisely.

A difference between Radar's thinking and mine is that I'm more interested in the global betterment I think Libertarianism shows the potential for than in ideological purity. The ideological purists, of any party that actually has them (more characteristic of US third parties than the Big Two), tend to be the very worst thing to come down the pike for any society they exert themselves on if they are placed in power.

This is why I don't buy Radar's litmus test nor nor his "Christians without Christ" analogy. It does not serve Libertarianism. It may satisfy a certain mindset, but as for me, I have a wider vision and don't mind saying so.

If you actually want libertarianism to happen, don't make the party hostile to growth.

It may satisfy a certain mindset, but as for me, I have a wider vision and don't mind saying so.

You're just a bully with a new name, no better than Mao, Stalin and Osama.
Firmly convinced you know what's best for everyone else and willing to spend other peoples lives to force your utopia on the world.
Anyone that doesn't share your view is stupid and/or brainwashed and their views certainly not worthy of consideration.
You can't even see that since the beginning of time millions have willingly chosen Chiefs, Kings and even Dictators.
Your "wider vision" is laughingly myopic. :lol:

OK, so the NAP tells you that you have a responsibility to certain anonymous individual people, but not to "society".

So, now, let's say that you know the intersection will be down for a week because it needs extensive repair. And let's say your neighbor runs that intersection at 100 MPH every single morning on his way to work, because he believes he has no responsibility to anyone. And let's say the intersection is a half-block from an elementary school.

Do you have any responsibility here? What does the NAP tell you about it?

In this situation, nothing has changed. It doesn't matter how long the intersection is down or what speed he was going.

If people are present, and he's endangering them by speeding through the intersection, he's criminally liable. If he plows through a bunch of school kids or road workers, he should die for his actions and all of his possessions should be sold and the money given to the families of those he killed.

Each of us has a right not to be harmed or endangered by the actions of another person and none of us has a right to harm or endanger others through our actions. If someone does harm or endanger us, they have violated our rights and a crime has occurred. A crime has only occurred when the rights, person, or property of a non-consenting person are violated.

If the same neighbor drove through the intersection at 150 mph at 2am on a Saturday night, during the summer time when there wasn't a person for miles and nobody was physically harmed or endangered by this (not a residential street), he would not have committed a crime.

There is no entity known as "society". Society is nothing but a logical grouping of individuals. Society has no rights, only individuals do. Society is no more important than the individual. The wants of millions are less important than the rights of a single person.

But you have not answered my question. Do YOU have a responsibility here?

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

This is why I don't buy Radar's litmus test nor nor his "Christians without Christ" analogy. It does not serve Libertarianism. It may satisfy a certain mindset, but as for me, I have a wider vision and don't mind saying so.

Actually, you don't buy the litmus test (Non-Aggression Principle) because it excludes you. And the reason it excludes you is because you're genuinely NOT a libertarian. You don't buy the Christians without Christ example because it makes absolutely perfect sense and you have no argument to refute it.

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

If you actually want libertarianism to happen, don't make the party hostile to growth.

I am not making the party hostile to growth. I am merely refusing to sell out our principles for the sake of growth. This is exactly what the major parties did, and why everything is screwed up in America. They sold their souls to get in office and promised they'd change everything when they got there. When they did get there, they OWED the politically influential and wealthy special interests who paid for them to get there. They have always worked against the best interests of Americans and for the best interests of others.

Growth merely for the sake of growth is worthless. Growth while adhering to our principles is slower but more respectable. The Libertarian Party is THE ONLY way to achieve liberty in America without a bloody and violent revolution.

Bruce nailed you perfectly. History is replete with examples of people who thought they could make the world a "better place" if they could just kill all the people they think are bad, and use force to enforce their own vision of what was best for them. They've always been arrogant bullies like Napoleon.

All of the empires ever made or ever to be made have crumbled or will crumble because you can't change people's minds with force. Though if you use force against them, you can unite your opposition and entrench the ideas you are trying to fight.

Undertoad wrote:

But you have not answered my question. Do YOU have a responsibility here?

Do I personally have a responsibility if my neighbor is speeding through an intersection and endangering or harming people? No, I don't. But I do have a responsibility to protect myself and my own family. As such, I'd most likely volunteer my assistance to those who were harmed or endangered in apprehending and punishing the criminal.

So -- via the NAP -- you not only reject government solutions, but also the notion that there is a resonsibility towards voluntary charity that nine out of ten Libertarians say would replace government solutions.

No. Via the NAP, I reject government solutions because they are funded by force, fraud, and theft and because they don't help those in need as much as private charities. I wouldn't have a RESPONSIBILITY to help those in need, but I would have a desire to help them. And because my money wasn't being stolen by government, I'd be able to afford to give more help those in need through private charity than I do now.

It's not charity unless it's voluntary.

The fact is many people don't give to charity because they mistakenly believe that these failed government programs must be helping someone and even if they did want to give, they've had so much money stolen from them by government, they can't afford to give as much as they'd like. Even if 1/3 of the money collected by government for social programs like welfare, medicare, public education, social security, etc. were donated privately, the benefits to those in need would double.

If government suddenly ended each and every one of those programs, private donations would skyrocket to help those in need because people who normally don't donate would not longer assume it was being handled by government, and they'd dig deep. Americans are among the most generous people on earth when people are in need. This would be especially true for our own people.

So do people have a responsibility to help those in need? No. But most people have a desire to help those in need and would do so if given the opportunity to choose what to do with their own money rather than having it stolen from them. Responsibility means obligation. It denotes a lack of choice in the matter. We have a choice. Some people will choose to be greedy bastards, and some will choose to be generous to a fault. The point is the choice is ours, not "society's".

Still, the NAP philosophy tells you have no responsibilities (and yes, no obligations) in a situation where you know your neighbor is endangering children.

No, it tells us we have no responsibilities that we don't willingly choose for ourselves. My neighbors have every right to stop him if he is endangering their children. They also have the right to appoint agents to help them. If my neighbors ask me to help and I agree, I can choose to stop this man, but at no point am I under an obligation to do so, unless I enter into some sort of contract with the neighbor for instance if they hire me to stop him.

The NAP does not say we don't have obligations and responsibilities, just that those can't be forced upon us.

There is much it "does not say". Other philosophies consider how to determine truth and how to determine beauty. How does the NAP come down on these items?

Why does one philosophy have to cover every facet of your life?
That's like one set of rules for baseball and football.
And what does your political philosophy have to do with beauty?
Come to think of it, what does politics have to do with truth? :lol:

We're just trying to figure out how much it applies to.

Back to the neighbor, let's say your friends appoint agents to operate for them and stop the guy, but he says he was driving in a safe manner, and appoints bigger agents with bigger guns to represent him. In the NAP, who decides which side is right?

The NAP doesn't prevent having a judiciary

A judiciary decides who's right. Who's on the judiciary?

Hopefully non-partial judges who are familiar not only with the rule of law, but with natural law. One that knows the limitations on the powers of the government and one who knows government may never have any powers that we as individuals don't have to grant to it.

Who decides who is on the judiciary?

The last time I checked, some judges were elected, while others were appointed.

What does the NAP tell you about who is on the judiciary?

It says they were either elected or appointed to judge to settle disputes, and to fairly and ethically determine whether or not a punishment fits a crime when a jury finds that a crime has been committed. Again, a crime has only been committed when the person, rights, or property of a non-consenting other have been physically violated, harmed, or endangered. The judge and jury also have a duty to judge not only the merits of the case, but also the fairness of the law itself.

The judiciary is elected or appointed. What if the judiciary does not act in accordance with the NAP?

Is that when we get to put them up against the wall, shoot them, and start over?

Under the NAP, what if the judiciary does not act in accordance with the NAP?

I suppose then you don't vote for him next time, or you don't vote for those who appointed him. If his actions are overtly egregious, I suppose you could try to get him disbarred, or fired. If he is using force to violate the rights, property, or person of someone who has not committed a crime (as defined earlier), I suppose you could use force or violence in your own defense against the judge or those following his orders, though I tend to try to solve things peacefully until violence is used against me. Then I don't care whether you're wearing a uniform or not. Nobody is above an ass kicking.

I'm sorry, are you talking about now you as a NAP user, apply yourself to the present government? Or are you talking about the government that would result from application of the NAP? I am more interested in the latter.

Government is merely a tool. Its legitimate powers are limited to what rights we as individuals possess to grant to it and which have been outlined by our Constitution.

You asked me what we'd do if judges (presumabely in a government that is expected to adhere to the NAP) failed to act in accordance with the NAP. I responded with what I'd personally do.

If your question was what government would result if the government didn't adhere to the NAP, the answer is we'd have the government we have right now.

An improper government, to be sure.

What does the NAP say, then, about how you get to a NAP-Approved gov't, without which there will be a guaranteed level of improper force applied? And what does it say about how to maintain that level of NAP-Approval?

Undertoad wrote:

...that level of NAP-Approval?

Would that be NAPpiness?

I think it says, we have a duty to keep a very watchful eye on government and never to allow it to step beyond its extremely limited authority lest we end up with a government that violates rights instead of defending them. We can't let government exceed it's limited authority even for what we believe is a good reason, because it opens the door for others to overstep the bounds for bad reasons.

Radar wrote:

Actually, you don't buy the litmus test (Non-Aggression Principle) because it excludes you. And the reason it excludes you is because you're genuinely NOT a libertarian.

I've told you before I believe you're thinking too narrowly. And if I were not a Libertarian, how could Murray Rothbard have had such an effect on my thinking? Were I not a libertarian, I should have rejected his ideas and turned to others, I should think. What I am is not your sort of libertarian, though this prospect does not trouble me.

You don't buy the Christians without Christ example because it makes absolutely perfect sense and you have no argument to refute it.

More like it's internally logical than that it is so perfectly sensible. As for the reason I don't buy it, reread my above.

I am not making the party hostile to growth. I am merely refusing to sell out our principles for the sake of growth.

And the growth of the Libertarian Party demographic has been what? We've been around since 1974. We're still at one half of one percent, somebody remarked up there. There's something we could be doing better if we want libertarianism in America or anywhere else.

This is exactly what the major parties did, and why everything is screwed up in America. They sold their souls to get in office and promised they'd change everything when they got there. When they did get there, they OWED the politically influential and wealthy special interests who paid for them to get there. They have always worked against the best interests of Americans and for the best interests of others.

Yeah -- Our Enemy, The State. This is, however, a counsel of despair.Just how in hell are you going to have any libertarian influence in anything if you give in to these counsels? You want libertarianism to happen? Best you learn how to win some more elections. That's probably going to mean stumping for Libertarianism Lite. This won't satisfy either the libertarian purists or the LP's philosopher princes, but a struggling third party should always be attentive to politics being the art of the possible. It's a long road to the full goal.

Growth merely for the sake of growth is worthless. Growth while adhering to our principles is slower but more respectable.

There's a difference between being patient and rationalizing inaction. Taking up all your collective time with ever-more-esoteric debates on Libertarian quiddities is the plague of third parties like ours. That is developing not a political party but a debating society whose primary effect is to determine who's "more Libertarian than thee." How about some policy proposals to campaign on, of such caliber as to be salable to the great grubby electorate, even in all its fickleness? A robust political movement should be visible on the American landscape by now: we've had over thirty years. Didn't it take the early Republicans less than ten years to seat a President?

The Libertarian Party is THE ONLY way to achieve liberty in America without a bloody and violent revolution.

And since when have the obdurate slavemakers deserved anything better than a swift death? If they forswear slavemaking and slavemindedness, excellent, for their lives are saved thereby -- but does not humanity have to turn away from unfreedom in order to be free. Considering that humans in general will fight like dogs to gain or keep power, they are going to need pretty substantial motivation to surrender privileges they think power secures to them.

Bruce nailed you perfectly. History is replete with examples of people who thought they could make the world a "better place" if they could just kill all the people they think are bad, and use force to enforce their own vision of what was best for them. They've always been arrogant bullies like Napoleon.

Then be especially careful to avoid even the semblance of arrogant bullying of your own, in your spirited replies. The people I think are bad, you also think are bad. When those bad people are in a position to try and snuff out libertarian ideas in their bailiwick, they present libertarianism with a difficult problem. Tyrants do not fall because benevolent philosophers radiate moral indignation at them; they fall by the bullet. But fall they must, if you want libertarianism in any form. And you know it won't be homogenous.

All of the empires ever made or ever to be made have crumbled or will crumble because you can't change people's minds with force. Though if you use force against them, you can unite your opposition and entrench the ideas you are trying to fight.

How many times must I repeat that I understand this? What the force is for is to remove the obstacles presented by the antilibertarianists, of whom tyrants are the malignant form, and the least curable by calm and reasoned argument.

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

I've told you before I believe you're thinking too narrowly. And if I were not a Libertarian, how could Murray Rothbard have had such an effect on my thinking? Were I not a libertarian, I should have rejected his ideas and turned to others, I should think. What I am is not your sort of libertarian, though this prospect does not trouble me.

The fact that you agree with some of what Murray Rothbard says does not make you a libertarian. You don't get to pick and choose what parts of libertarianism you want to believe in and still be a libertarian. What if someone says they're a Christian but they don't believe in "Thou Shalt Not Kill" or "Thou Shalt Not Steal"?

What you are is a Republican who happens to agree with libertarians on a few issues. You're a dishonest person who claims to be a libertarian. Don't worry, there are plenty of other dishonest morons out there like Eric Dondero. You and him would be good buddies. He lies about being libertarian and also badmouths the party.

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

More like it's internally logical than that it is so perfectly sensible. As for the reason I don't buy it, reread my above.

No, it makes sense internally, externally, and in every other way. It's irrefutable and your position is untenable.

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

And the growth of the Libertarian Party demographic has been what? We've been around since 1974. We're still at one half of one percent, somebody remarked up there. There's something we could be doing better if we want libertarianism in America or anywhere else.

The growth of the party has been slow, but it would have been much higher if we didn't have so many non-libertarians like you claiming to be libertarians so people get mixed messages. Many people don't know what a libertarian is because they hear non-libertarian war-mongers like you claiming to be one. If we had a unified, clear, and absolutely libertarian message being said the same way by everyone, we'd have more people joining the party, and more people giving the party.

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

Yeah -- Our Enemy, The State. This is, however, a counsel of despair.Just how in hell are you going to have any libertarian influence in anything if you give in to these counsels? You want libertarianism to happen? Best you learn how to win some more elections. That's probably going to mean stumping for Libertarianism Lite. This won't satisfy either the libertarian purists or the LP's philosopher princes, but a struggling third party should always be attentive to politics being the art of the possible. It's a long road to the full goal.

There is no "libertarianism lite". There is libertarianism, and there is everything else. Having continuity in our message and our delivery will help us grow by leaps and bounds. Getting people like you to stop falsely claiming to be libertarian is one way to accomplish that.

If you were a member of the LP (which you've said you're not), you'd have signed the pledge that you will NEVER initiate force for political gain or social engineering, and you'd be violating that pledge if you supported the wholly unconstitutional, unreasonable, and totally unprovoked war in Iraq.

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

There's a difference between being patient and rationalizing inaction. Taking up all your collective time with ever-more-esoteric debates on Libertarian quiddities is the plague of third parties like ours.

It's not our party. It's MY party and the party of real libertarians and that excludes you and your ilk.

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

That is developing not a political party but a debating society whose primary effect is to determine who's "more Libertarian than thee." How about some policy proposals to campaign on, of such caliber as to be salable to the great grubby electorate, even in all its fickleness? A robust political movement should be visible on the American landscape by now: we've had over thirty years. Didn't it take the early Republicans less than ten years to seat a President?

The Republican Party got lucky and it was 145 years ago. Lincoln was the first guy they ever got elected and what a winner he was. He murdered 600,000 people, violated the Constitution, started the first income tax, violated habeas corpus, told the Supreme Court to fuck itself, etc. Lincoln should be remembered along names like Pol Pot.

Times are different now and a lot more dirty. That's why the Republicans fit in so well. They are filthy scumbags and thrive on dirty politics and dirty money. They love to work against the principles that built America and made it great.

I'm sure if the Libertarians sold our souls, and started taking dirty money, and violating our principles, we'd get elected pretty quickly too. Would it be worth it? Not at all.

The LP is guilty of anything other than inaction. We do a tremendous amount considering our resources. We've had our candidate on the ballot in all 50 states for the last presidential elections. Well 3 because the state of New Hampshire has a bunch of people like you who lie about being libertarians called the FSP who didn't file the papers even though we had enough signatures. They were at a fund raiser for the Republican Governor.

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

And since when have the obdurate slavemakers deserved anything better than a swift death?

Since when are you or the U.S. government imbued with the authority to make that decision?

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

If they forswear slavemaking and slavemindedness, excellent, for their lives are saved thereby -- but does not humanity have to turn away from unfreedom in order to be free. Considering that humans in general will fight like dogs to gain or keep power, they are going to need pretty substantial motivation to surrender privileges they think power secures to them.

More idiotic, jingoistic, claptrap in an effort to disguise your bloodthirst and desire to commit unprovoked murder while calling it "defense" because YOU decided they are "slave makers" or "evil".

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

Then be especially careful to avoid even the semblance of arrogant bullying of your own, in your spirited replies. The people I think are bad, you also think are bad.

Really? You think of yourself as bad? You think of George W. Bush and all who support the insane and unconstitutional war in Iraq as bad? You think of anyone who makes excuses for murder in the guise of "security" is bad?

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

When those bad people are in a position to try and snuff out libertarian ideas in their bailiwick, they present libertarianism with a difficult problem. Tyrants do not fall because benevolent philosophers radiate moral indignation at them; they fall by the bullet. But fall they must, if you want libertarianism in any form. And you know it won't be homogenous.

I am ready to take up arms and stand up against anyone who would try to snuff me or libertarianism. Tyrants do fall by force, and we should use that force against our own tyrants. It's neither the duty, nor the prerogative of the U.S. government to rid anyone else of their tyrants or to dictate how people will be treated in other nations.

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

How many times must I repeat that I understand this? What the force is for is to remove the obstacles presented by the antilibertarianists, of whom tyrants are the malignant form, and the least curable by calm and reasoned argument.

You can repeat it until you die, but it will never justify your support of launching unprovoked wars and committing murder in the guise of security. It will never be America's job to police the world, determine the policies and forms of government of other nations, to settle disputes among other nations, or to overthrow the "tyrants" of nations that have not attacked us.

How many times must I repeat that? How many times must I repeat that you can't be a libertarian and an Iraq war supporter at the same time.

It's not our party. It's MY party and the party of real libertarians and that excludes you and your ilk.

I can find no better sentence to illustrate the wrongness and futility of your thinking on this. You are preventing the growth and effectiveness of libertarianism. If you want libertarianism as much as you say you do, it's OUR party. Don't talk yourself into not having an effect on history because you got excluded. That would be [dramatic O'Reilly pause] ridiculous.

And to move the topic from "Are not!" "Am too!" -- just how much governmental intervention and governmental power is one willing to accept to guarantee the Non-Aggression Principle's force?

Our own tyrants? I ain't convinced we have any. We've got wannabes, not effective tyrants, thanks to the American habit of keeping power limited in both scope and time. Even the worst the regrettable Bill and Hillary Clinton could manage was "tyrants manqués."

I can think of no better way to tell you that you are not a libertarian. In fact you are very anti-libertarian. I'd love the party to grow by leaps and bounds, but I'd rather have it destroyed completely if it means allowing those with your jingoistic, backward, views into the party merely for the sake of growth.

We want all the libertarians we can find, but if you don't support military non-interventionism, neutrality in all disputes, and never initiating force against those who haven't used force against you, especially for social engineering or political gain such as overthrowing nations you don't think are up to snuff.

If the party never ever grows but keeps out bullies who don't recognize the sovereignty of other nations, and who want to misuse the U.S. military like you, I'll be a very happy man.

Yesterday while at the quarterly Executive Committee Meeting for the Libertarian Party of the state of California, I had to fight it out with a few of your ilk. But in the end with 5 minutes to go, I got enough support together to pass a resolution against the war in Iraq. We had three peace resolutions and the 2 better ones were shot down, but when they tried to close the meeting I forced it on the agenda.

Here's the wording of the one that passed:

A Resolution by the Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee Affirming the National
Libertarian Party Principles and Platform Concerning Foreign Intervention and the Invasion of Iraq


Whereas, the National Libertarian Party Platform's Preamble states in part, "As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others";

Whereas, the National Libertarian Party Platform's Statement of Principles states in part, "...we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others....";

Whereas, the National Libertarian Party Platform at Part IV.D.2. (Foreign Affairs / International Relations /Foreign Intervention), states in part, "The United States should not inject itself into the internal matters of other nations, unless they have declared war upon or attacked the United States, or the U.S. is already in a constitutionally declared war with them," and, "End the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling";

Whereas the admittedly (by the President and Vice-president) pre-emptive ("before the fact") invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq by the United States was accomplished in blatant disregard for American constitutional requirements and international law under treaties to which the United States is a signatory, and upon an apparently false basis of manipulated information and manufactured allegations;

Whereas the continuing military occupation of Iraq is precipitating a deplorable loss of civilian and American lives, is exacerbating American deficit spending, and appears to be aggravating the terrorist threat worldwide;

Now, therefore,

Be it Resolved, that the Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee hereby affirms the National Libertarian Party's Preamble, Statement of Principles and Platform, in particular for this case those portions cited herein; and Be it Further Resolved, that the Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee finds, upon no tangible proof having been shown of Iraqi participation in the World Trade Center, etc. (9/11) attack, that the invasion of Iraq appears unwarranted; and

Be it Further Resolved, that the Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee finds that the
continuing occupation of Iraq is inimical to the interests of the citizens of the United States as well as to the interests of the citizens of Iraq; and

Be it Further Resolved, that the United States government's declared purpose of "bringing democracy to Iraq" is an offensive imposition of the values of some of our citizens over a foreign sovereign people; and

Be it Further Resolved, that the Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee formally petitions that the National Libertarian Party remain constant and adamant in demanding that the United States government cease and desist in the most safely expedient manner possible from all foreign economic and military interventions, Iraq in particular, and correct its international policies so that it may at last begin to facilitate world peace through the naturally benevolent function of the Free Market.

That's why I didn't vote for Badnarik last general election -- he wouldn't have been able to address the evil that is totalitarianism. The sort of thing contained in that resolution leaves tyrants unmolested, and an unmolested tyrant will do everything in his power to stymie libertarianism. Who in the LP would want that?? Ridiculous.

I say again it is hardly Libertarianism to leave slavemakers in their stations. People under tyrants are unfree. Libertarianism is all about freeing the peoples, or it is about nothing at all.

You either have a political party that does something, or you have a debating society where the philosopher princes of the LP don't actually do any libertarianism, but lose themselves in contemplating its beauties. I think you know what I want to see.

And I cannot, after thought, bring to mind any such Constitutional requirements as the resolution references.

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

And to move the topic from "Are not!" "Am too!" -- just how much governmental intervention and governmental power is one willing to accept to guarantee the Non-Aggression Principle's force?

None.

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

Our own tyrants? I ain't convinced we have any. We've got wannabes, not effective tyrants, thanks to the American habit of keeping power limited in both scope and time. Even the worst the regrettable Bill and Hillary Clinton could manage was "tyrants manqués."

We have no tyrants? Tell that to the people in Iraq who were murdered by the Bush regime. Tell it to Americans who have been locked up without charges or access to a lawyer and kept in jail for years. Tell it to all of America who have had their civil rights attacked. Tell it to the families who lost their bread winners in an unconstitutional war started by a military deserter. Tell it to the families who lost thier bread winners and who have become homeless because of the drug war.

Tell it to me, who was arrested on tax day for handing out pamphlets on government property, which I'm entitled to be on and my activities are protected by the U.S. Constitution.

The United States is responsible for tyrants within our borders, and nowhere else. The Military of the United States is for defending U.S. soil and ships and nothing else. The limited authority of the U.S. military ends where the U.S. borders end. The limited authority of the president doesn't include any war making powers.

I wish freedom for all people. And if you want them to be free so much, send your money, guns, and even yourself there to help fight for their freedom. But whatever you do, don't use the U.S. military to do it. You can get together a militia, buy a bunch of guns or other weapons, and organize a resistance in those nations, and I will applaud your efforts. But the second you use the U.S. military to attack anyone who has not directly attacked American ships or soil, you and I are going to have a big problem and it might get ugly.

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

That's why I didn't vote for Badnarik last general election -- he wouldn't have been able to address the evil that is totalitarianism. The sort of thing contained in that resolution leaves tyrants unmolested, and an unmolested tyrant will do everything in his power to stymie libertarianism. Who in the LP would want that?? Ridiculous.

Everyone who is genuinely a libertarian would want it. This explains why you don't...because you are [color=#CC0000]NOT[/color] a libertarian.

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

I say again it is hardly Libertarianism to leave slavemakers in their stations. People under tyrants are unfree. Libertarianism is all about freeing the peoples, or it is about nothing at all.

I say again, you're not in a position to say what is or isn't libertarianism because you're not one and don't seem to ahve a clue about it. People under tyrants are unfree. I wish them freedom and I hope they can overthrow their tyrants as we did. I think people who want to fight for their freedom should be allowed to do it as long as they don't use the U.S. military to do it.

You either have a political party that does something, or you have a debating society where the philosopher princes of the LP don't actually do any libertarianism, but lose themselves in contemplating its beauties. I think you know what I want to see.

We do have a political party that does something. We get people elected to reduce the size, scope, cost and intrusiveness of our own government and demand that it adhere to the limits placed on it by the U.S. Constitution. We change public policy in our own country and hope for others to do the same.

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

And I cannot, after thought, bring to mind any such Constitutional requirements as the resolution references.

The U.S. Constitution (The highest law in the land)says that ONLY Congress has war making powers. This means if we are going to take part in a war, it must be declared by Congress.

Breaking a tyranny is not the action of a tyrant, Radar. It seems to me more the action of an anti-tyrant.

Radar, reread both Article I, Section 8, para 11, and the precedent for every shooting match we've been in, which number about a hundred and fifty. As you can see, the power of declaring war is vested in Congress, but the Constitution nowhere requires such declaration be made to order the troops in. This permits a flexibility we'd be wise to keep. We've only Congressionally declared a state of war in five conflicts.

Anyway......


We will all remember Reagan for our own reasons and what he meant to each of us.


RIP Ronny.

Violating civil rights is the action of a tyrant. Murdering people who have not attacked you is the actions of a tyrant. Starting unprovoked wars is the actions of a tyrant. Violating international law is the actions of a tyrant. Locking people up without charges for years while keeping them from seeing a lawyer is the actions of a tyrant. Violating the laws of your own nation and infringing on the rights of people are the actions of a tyrant. Bush is taking part in tyrrany, not breaking it.

Iraq is no better off right now than they were before America attacked them without legitimate cause. In fact Iraq is worse off. They've had thousands upon thousands of people murdered by Bush and Al Queda. They've seen terrorism in their country increase to levels never before seen. They have their homes searched, newspapers shut down, people grabbed for no reason and sent to jails where they're tortured and even killed by Americans (Just like Hussein did), etc.

Life was better in Iraq with Saddam than it is thanks to Bush.


R-ot
I-n
H-ell

Mr. Reagan

Radar wrote:

Life was better in Iraq with Saddam than it is thanks to Bush.

I completely agree.

Now....someone break me out and I'll go back to being the lovable Saddam of old, ruling Iraq with Libertarian ideals.

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

Radar, reread both Article I, Section 8, para 11, and the precedent for every shooting match we've been in, which number about a hundred and fifty. As you can see, the power of declaring war is vested in Congress, but the Constitution nowhere requires such declaration be made to order the troops in. This permits a flexibility we'd be wise to keep. We've only Congressionally declared a state of war in five conflicts.

Wrong again. I'm intimately familiar with Article 1, section 8. Congress alone has war making powers. This means Congress must make a declaration of war before taking part in one. A declaration of war is required to take part in a war. That's a fact. The President is given absolutely NO WAR MAKING POWERS. The war in Iraq is unconstitutional, and also violates the U.N. charter (which is less important because the UN doesn't limit our government, but the Constitution does.

[CENTER][size=3]Congress Must Say Yes or No to War[/size]
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
October 8, 2002[/CENTER]

Last week, during a hearing in the House International Relations committee, I attempted to force the committee to follow the Constitution and vote to declare war with Iraq. The language of Article I, section 8, is quite clear: only Congress has the authority to declare war. Yet Congress in general, and the committee in particular, have done everything possible to avoid making such a declaration. Why? Because members lack the political courage to call an invasion of Iraq what it really is – a war – and vote yes or no on the wisdom of such a war. Congress would rather give up its most important authorized power to the President and the UN than risk losing an election later if the war goes badly. There is always congressional "support" for a popular war, but the politicians want room to maneuver if the public later changes its mind. So members take half steps, supporting confusingly worded "authorizations" that they can back away from easily if necessary.

It’s astonishing that the authorization passed by the committee mentions the United Nations dozens of times, yet does not mention the Constitution once. Congress has allowed itself to be bypassed completely, even though much is made of the President’s generosity in "consulting" legislators about the war. The real negotiations took place between the Bush administration and the UN, replacing debate in the people’s house. By transferring its authority to declare war to the President and ultimately the UN, Congress not only violates the Constitution, but also disenfranchises the American electorate.

I don’t believe in resolutions that cite the UN as authority for our military actions. America has a sovereign right to defend itself, and we don’t need UN permission or approval to act in the interests of American national security. The decision to go to war should be made by the U.S. Congress alone. If Congress believes war is justified, it should give the President full warmaking authority, rather than binding him with resolutions designed to please our UN detractors.

Sadly, the leadership of both parties on the International Relations committee fails to understand the Constitution. One Republican member stated that the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war is an anachronism and should no longer be followed, while a Democratic member said that a declaration of war would be "frivolous." I don’t think most Americans believe our Constitution is outdated or frivolous, and they expect Congress to follow it.

When Congress issued clear declarations of war against Japan and Germany during World War II, the nation was committed and victory was achieved. When Congress shirks its duty and avoids declaring war, as with Korea, and Vietnam, the nation is less committed and the goals are less clear. No lives should be lost in Iraq unless Congress expresses the clear will of the American people and votes yes or no on a declaration of war.

Ron Paul, M.D., represents the 14th Congressional District of Texas in the United States House of Representatives.

Seriously, UG it is okay for you to be a Neo-Con bent on building an overseas empire, just don't call yourself a Libertarian while you agitate for it. The greatest threat to American freedom right now is the Executive Branch of our own government. War making always ratchets up the power of the Presidency and as Robert Higgs contends that accumulated power doesn't just disappear when the bombs stop falling. That Libertarians are the only ones who recognize this is a sad state of affairs but thankfully we have folks like Radar who are willing to apply a "purity" test when the last voice for the old Republic is threatened with being watered down.

See that's how it is UG - if you're not a strict non-interventionist, you're a neo-con bent on building an overseas empire. There appears to be no middle ground in this game.

Meanwhile if you really look at it, you notice that this President isn't exactly swimming with power, and it's the will of the people that maintains that condition, not the state of "war" which we are not really in and haven't really seen since before I was born. If we were at total war with Iraq there would be no Iraq left.

Under an L gummint we would be sending volunteer troops to Iraq anyway, except that they would be called mercenaries and would face the exact same problems and questions. You saw Radar here say that it was OK for NAPpies to hire agents to operate on their behalf. Well that's what would happen. The freely-trading oil companies' interests would not disappear in a differently-enabled approach to freedom. Their mercenaries would just operate less as agents of our own, and more as agents of the oil companies. They would make deals with Hussein, keep him in power, make him rich and enable his WMD programs (which, shut up, was his goal at least in 1998 and if you don't agree you aren't paying attention).

The chess game of world realpolitik does not disappear if we refuse to play. It goes on without us, and necessarily, against us.

If you want smaller government, you have to recognize and defeat what grows government. War-making grows government more than any other factor. Obviously, we don't live in a world where oil companies pay their own way when it comes to knocking off governments overseas, so right now mercenaries are not the biggest threat to our way of life. I think there is merit in your argument against letting corporations employ mercenaries and since corporations only exist at the whim of the state, they can be restrained from actions detrimental to the nations safety. However, right now, oil companies have our taxpayers and our army to enforce their merchantilistic desires and that does help prevent a free market from developing in the energy sector, making us slaves to their industry.

Your point about the weakened state of W's Presidency does not hold water if you consider what he can do at the drop of a hat in the name of national security. Even someone with as little popular support as W can invade countries and/or shut down entire industries if he so desires. This weak President has troops all over the world and could if he chose start another war with the barest excuse in Syria or Iran. Fortunately, he doesn't face re-election so he may restrain himself this time.

What grows government more than anything else: Stalinism. It's in everyone's interest that the last evidence of Stalinism be removed from the world. Only then will it truly be possible to change the U.S. military mission to something cheaper.

The oil is where it is, and it remains fact that the oil companies' best interest would have been to deal directly with Saddam and buy his oil. The "merchantilistic desires" - called "market forces" where they are useful to the cause - will also be there, no matter what. The military force behind those market forces will also be there no matter what. The peaceful market activity between nations only operates because there is international diplomacy, no matter what. (Similarly, the local marketplace only operates well if there is some policing of fraud and theft, no matter what.) If one side is prepared to use their guns and the other side is not, the first side wins at diplomacy without using their guns, no matter what. Those are the basic truths of the matter, and no amount of navel-gazing about rights will escape them.

ThreadHijackMan wrote:

Anyway......


We will all remember Reagan for our own reasons and what he meant to each of us.


RIP Ronny.

It's not working. Nice try, though.

Undertoad wrote:

What grows government more than anything else: Stalinism. It's in everyone's interest that the last evidence of Stalinism be removed from the world. Only then will it truly be possible to change the U.S. military mission to something cheaper.

Dude.


The power concentrated in our Presidency is evidence of the fight to end real Stalinism. We cannot remove every trace. Our propping up of dictators to fight all the little Stalins is a major reason we have no standing in the mid-east. It is time to leave the sandbox to the kids who own the yard. They'll decide who their masters are going to be anyway.

Our present belligerent attitude is energizing terrorism and militarism. We have forced Iran's hand, they will have the bomb unless Israel or the US drops the hammer. I've heard enough fantasizing about US hegemony wrapped in a cloak of realism. That attitude is nonsense. The phoney realists have us in a no-win situation in Iraq and have strengthed the radical clerics in Iran. We don't need any phoney realism now. We need what Bush pretended his foreign policy would be before his election and the hijacking of the Republican Party.

BTW- We both know the differance between mercantilism and capitalism even if our politicians don't. It's still Hamilton vs Jefferson.

The model used by Hussein, the Iranians, and Kim Jung Il is Stalin. It got that way partly through the USSR's propping-up of dictators, which gave them great standing in the region.

In the latter half of the last decade we fought Stalinism through the cold war. It required a remarkable buildup of nuclear weapons and spending on military items.

So that's what the "Axis of Evil" was all about! Cold War leftovers...

[drool]mmmmmm...leftovers[/drool]

wolf wrote:

It's not working. Nice try, though.

One can only try. Life's not the same since the outsourcing effort. The Indian ThreadHiJackers seem to be much more effective and cost a lot less.

A bit harder to understand too but overall much more effective.

cheaper on the bottom line, but not more effective. You're the one with the new, nonfunctional computer. How did Apu do on tech support? They are just as good at threadhijacking.