It's Friday night!!!

Comments

[this is good]
Bring it on indeed.
I am a damn proud liberal.

They can't make me feel stupid any more, because I know better - I have seen how they act, the words of hate they use against people, the lies they tell and so it goes on. I have even changed the name of my blog to show how proud I am of being labelled by a conservative and I intend to keep making waves until I hit the grave.

I know I am not alone and the conservatives better get used to it, because there is a ground swell happening and there will be only one way to stop it and if it comes to that, then this world isn't worth saving.
Not long now, Zac
I hadn't noticed the name change, Chezza. <grin> One way to give a certain pig ignorant party the bird.

And yes, I can feel a welcome change in the air, too. Only a few more weeks....

You might like this essay / article on American Politics by Doug Muder: Red Family, Blue Family ~ Making sense of the values issue.

I find it quite an interesting analogy, seeing ones political party in terms of how you feel a family should work. Doug, BTW, is liberal.

[this is good]
Me too Snowy BTW JW said hi
Thanks for that, Bluecat. I'll read it tomorrow as my eyes don't seem to be focussing too well at present. Must be the glasses. Too many...
Say hi to JW right back, Worker. Don't let him sing...
I think he has already started ...gee he can't sing Snowy :)
I did warn you...

In other countries the labels and what fits into them might work, but in the US they dont. Although there are some extremes here that do fit on one side or the other, i still believe the majority of the US dont fit the labels.

The mudslinging and name calling is not just a conservative trait, it happens in liberal circles also. Because of my varying left/right views ive been called alot of things. Most of them i find humourous because i know the labels they are pouring on me are born from ignorance about me.

Ive been called a neocon religious right wing nutjob by liberals more then once also anti-feminist, racist, and even once a stupid hillbilly because im from TN in the states.

By the right, ive been called leftist loony like you were, a bleeding heart lib, a fag loving athiest (that one was by a conservative who made a huge mistake in assuming that because i supported gay rights meant i was an athiest).

I could go on and on but i think you get the point, Idiots are in all political circles. A true sign of ignorance is someone who cant or wont discuss a issue without lowering thierselves to childish antics like name calling and belittleing.

Yes, it is true, Robin, that swinging voters, who can't be categorised as Left or Right, decide elections in democracies around the world. My post is about the perverting of the democratic process by the rich and powerful, who don't really have the interests of the masses at heart at all. It is no coincidence that Bush did not fight in Vietnam, or that the rich are not falling over themselves to volunteer to fight in Iraq. Yet they are the most vociferous supporters of wars.

Leave the bastards to name-call if that's all they've got. As long as the likes of you and I can sleep well at night knowing we've been true to our convictions, that's good enough. Right is right, wrong is wrong. How hard can that be to follow?

I've shared some moments with JW this week, too. Nice.

The name calling I can easily deal with. It's the "God given" right to kill that is getting to me.

That JW certainly gets around. Glad he was good company.

Sorry Snowy, but i didnt get that point at all from your post. It seems to me that you seem to be limiting elitism to conservatives only, also seem to be saying elite conservatives are the only ones who use the poor/working masses in thier shananigans and refuse to participate themselves. Its been a long week though so maybe im just not getting the whole picture.

I'd agree with Robin in saying that this isn't a trait of only Conservatives or only Liberals, but a human problem. The tendency is to vilify ones opponent rather than approach the agrument. The latter is much more difficult and time consuming. However, when in argument, I always take a cue from Chistopher Hitchens and consider the argument won when the opponent resorts to the ad hominem.

At any rate, neither liberals nor conservatives inspire or even simply appeal to me. Liberals want to steal my hard earned money (among other things) and conservatives want to police my morality (also among other things), niether of which is very appealing both practically and ethically. Not to mention neo-cons, which want to do both for the sake of protecting the state.

Nope. To me this is the same tyranny expressed in different language.

It seems to me that you seem to be limiting elitism to conservatives only, also seem to be saying elite conservatives are the only ones who use the poor/working masses in thier shananigans and refuse to participate themselves

Would you care to point me to the rich conservatives rushing to "fight for freedom" in Iraq?

Here are a few from families of those rich conservatives... These are the ones voting for a policy that would put their sons in harms way...

Republican Duncan Hunter's son is serving in Iraq.

As is Republican Joe Wilson's sons.

And Republican John McCain's son.

As is Republican John Kline's son.

And Republican Marilyn Musgrave's son.

As is Republican Christopher Bond's son.

And Republican Todd Akin's son.
I note that your link also points to sons of Democrats also serving in Iraq. Are these the same liberals that conservative America so delights in vilifying? And my point still stands that corporate conservatives do distort the information flow in support of their hidden agenda, the Murdoch media being a good example.
So, you would deny the point of the post that the conservative controlled media distorts the information flow? And would you care to elaborate on how liberals, such as I, are stealing your hard earned money?

How can you claim the media is conservative controlled or they are the only ones distorting information?

No, I wouldn't deny that point. But frankly, it doesn't matter to me much who "controls" the media. Frankly, I'd rather media outlets go back to openly declaring their political stance. At least then their biases will be out in the open. Objective news reporting is an idealized myth.

Also, I consider taxation property theft, especially forms of taxation like an income tax which takes money directly out of people's paycheck. In the Nozickian sense it can equate to partial slavery, as ones ability to control their property and means of production is redistributed to the population. In my opinion money shouldn't be stolen at the point of a gun in order to fund social programs. I'd prefer social programs be backed by profitable institutions or funded by donation and operated by truly caring individuals rather than incompetant government bureaucrats.
[this is good]
The thought that government can do anything efficiently, even in the name of being empathetic, is what I think gets libertarians and conservatives mad. That is the nature of the governmental beast.

No matter who is at the helm of big governments (liberals or conservatives), the bureaucratic beast must be fed with liberties and tax dollars.

And, truly, what is our return?
So you'd have a privatised military, police, fire service, etc? And to label all government bureaucrats as being incompetent is as silly as labelling all private enterprise as being competent. Enron case in point.
Our return is something called civilisation. Iraq is a good example of what happens when government is trashed, even totalitarian government.
No-one would deny that the Rupert Murdoch controlled media isn't biased towards conservative reporting. No-one. Conversely, any media outlet that reports anything like a balanced view is labelled as liberal by conservatives. The New York Times is so labelled even though they supported the invasion of Iraq. Because they were big enough to admit they relied on incorrect information, conservatives point to them as being liberal.
I should mention beforehand that the primary reason I would not want to allow the government to provide social services is primarily ethical: that is these services, funded through taxation, violates the principle of self-ownership and robs people of their property. Beyond that, I think there is a practical argument to be made for a free-market.

Government and Private Enterprise has been interlocked for a good long time, which leads to the corruption you see in copratism. A corporation itself is the creation of government regulation. To argue that a company such as Enron is an example of why we need greater regulation or need the government to provide services is missing the point entirely because Enron (and any company in the modern United States, and presumably in Australia as well) has been in bed with the government for well over a century.

Government has no incentive to be competent because policy changes are so difficult to push through. Private industry, on the other hand, must compete for peoples loyalty and uninhidered people can more radically affect the policies of companies they buy services from. In other words, people can vote with their dollars. Plus, you avoid violating the principle of self-ownership (that each person has the right to his or her property and the right to sell their labor).

I would have privatized fire service, but military and police would be among the only government services I would retain. In fact, protection of the state from foreign aggressors and protection of individual citizens from the agression of other citizens would be the only service I would keep. For an explanation why I would look up the summary of Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia" on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

I'm not expecting you to agree with me, I'm just explaining my position.
No, Iraq is a good example of what happens when one uses force to get ones way. It is in no way a good example of a proper minimal or even anarchist government.
Do you really think a privatised judicial system would work?

And do you expect that your libertarian ideals will ever be realised anywhere?
I didn't say there would be a private judicial system. I would expect that a judiicial system would be a necessary component of protecting citizens liberties (in my view, governments only job), so I do expect there to be a governmental judicial system.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of my libertarianism to be realized, but I do find it highly unlikely (nearly to the point of it being an absurd notion). But being in the minority has never bothered me, and ethical concerns have always trumped (precieved) practical solutions for me (or, put another way, the ends don't justify the means).
I think your argument against incompetent government bureaucrats fails when you are prepared to entrust the military, police, and the judicial system to them, yet would rely on the generosity of the rich for welfare. I think you would very soon have a burgeoning police state to maintain law and order as the inequality in society multiplies.
Not if the powers of said military force are curbed by a proper Constitution and representative government. Simply because the government is granted the power to police and protect does not make its powers absolute, far from it. I would not "entrust" any sort of power to government. Any power given to government must be fiercely checked. Your argument (essentially an anarchist one) would equally apply to any sort of socialist or liberal state, as well, where the military. My argument is that sort of power must be minimalized to the greatest extent possible while still being able to protect the essential liberties of the populace. It is, in the spirit of James Madison, a necessary evil.

Also, I think the assumption that there will be more inequality rather than less is false (or at least potentially false--it is certainly not a given). I'd argue that a free-market would tend to flatten (perhaps not completey, but certainly moreso than now) society. Government restrictions on the market create a stratification where wealth is sucked from the populace (to maintain these regulations) and services and products are either poorly (or dangerously) made or so expensive (because of government regulation) as to divide society.

Its much like Stephen said, balanced, unbiased media is a myth. The funneling of information is done by both sides. Murdoch controls one media source, there are other media moguls that are heavily left leaning yet they are not mentioned. Even the article you linked to shows a clear munipulating of the media on all sides.

I cant really agree the NYT is balanced although i dont really see it as anti-conservative or left leaning like some would say. Its bias seems to be limited to President Bush and his administration instead of conservatives in general. That could possibly be because it did buy into the whole Iraq invasion and now resents the administration because it feels it munipulated the paper.

Which ones would you say are left leaning?

Id answer that but then i would have to defend my answer and in all honesty i dont have the patience or time right now, in the end who i feel is left leaning really doesnt matter because if you really want the truth or at least as close as it comes, the best bet is to read several news papers or watch several stations from sources left and right, and also those from other countries because that is the only way to get a fair balanced view of the news.

[this is good]
thank you:)

Post a comment

Already a Vox member? Sign in