Resolution To Impeach VP Cheney Submitted 1202
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has submitted a resolution, HR 333, to impeach VP Dick Cheney on charges of "high crimes and misdemeanors." The charges were submitted on 24 April 2007. Congressman Kucinich has posted his supporting documents online, including a brief summary of the impeachment procedure (PDF), a synopsis (PDF), and the full text (PDF) of the impeachment resolution.
Unwinnable (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition, once this road is crossed -- impeaching for , and every time the president/vp is in office, and a different party has a majority in the senate and house, you'll see an impeachment. It's the same thing that happened once the line was crossed with judicial appointments. Partisian politics has made almost every parties' political victory a Pyrrhic one for the American people. We get the shaft, while the politicians get rich fighting each other. We need a 3rd party...
Finally, does Kucinich this this will help him get elected President?
Re:Unwinnable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unwinnable (Score:5, Insightful)
Winnable is not the whole point (Score:5, Insightful)
One -- If you can't win, you still have to do it. You cannot let crimes go, even if you cannot succeed in convicting. The problem is not this president/VP. The problem is the next one. To not impeach is to say "if the congress isn't dominated by the other house, you can do anything you want."
Two -- Cheny's not the target. Cheney's going to have to defend himself, and his interactions with the president will come out. It's at least possible that real solid evidence against the president will emerge.
This isn't stupid, it's both the right thing to do, and may help land the big one.
Besides, even Republicans hate Cheney. He's an easier target.
Re:Unwinnable (Score:5, Insightful)
No, we don't. We need to get rid of all parties. The American political system was not built for parties. If you read the Federalist papers, and other writings, the founders where very weary of parties, or 'factions'. Specifically in Federalist Paper number 10 where Madison declares that the system of checks and balances set up in the Constitution is meant to limit the power of factions to rule of the majority, giving rise to wait has been describe as tyranny of the minority.
Get rid of parties and you will get rid of a good deal of the crap that has come into the Republic.
Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a centrist, I would prefer neither end of the spectrum in the congress - we don't need a few more far-lefts to outweight the far-rights, we need less of both!
Re:Unwinnable (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I'd rather impeach over 'high crimes and misdemeanors' than blowjobs. But hey, I'm only fiscally conservative, all those socially conservative memes went to my born-again brother.
-anon
Re:Unwinnable (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure the solution is another party. I think the solution is a fundamental change to our government that reduces the necessity of parties. Like instant runoff voting.
Also, something needs to be done about gerrymandering. I don't have the exact specifics, but 90-something percent of House elections aren't even close. There is one party that will win, no matter what. So the real contest is in the primaries, and since the party is sure to win, they elect the more extremist candidate. And thus we have the polarization in our government today, far more polarized than the American people.
I'd like about 8 parties. (Score:3, Insightful)
"No threat" (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Unwinnable (Score:4, Insightful)
Doing something well? No.
This is one of the biggest problems that the democrats have had since, well as long as I can remember. The GP post was spot on. But add to this the fact that the Dems biggest issue is that they do things so directionless. Actions for the sake of actions, without really having a plan how to make them go or what to do once they have gotten there. You look at the republicans, their biggest strength is the fact that they can come together and have a goal, as a whole party (can you say "Contract with America"?) and then work as a group to make it happen. The Dems strike me more as just a bunch of guys who are on the same team, but seem oblivious to each other.
What will kill this is that it has no legs. It has no public support. I mean, if Kucinich really wanted to give this a shot, he and the Dems should have made a stink about everything they are going after with the specific point of getting this very well talked about in the public. Let the masses get a bit angry about it, and better yet get the feeling of an action such as this. If it has some merit, it will start to gain support. THEN, once it really has legs, go after it full force where people will KNOW that this is really going on.
Hell, right now, hitting the Times front page - NOTHING, which means that this move is pointless. Without the public talking about this, you might as well not even try it.
RonB
Article III: Rattling Sabers at the Iranians (Score:2, Insightful)
Iran is building up nuclear infrastructure. It's been doing it for years, usually in defiance of UN attempts to regulate said development. Some people say it's dangerous for the Iranians to do this, and that an Iran with nuclear capabilities is a threat to the interests of the United States.
In sum, Kucinich's position appears to be "I think Cheney lied about Iraq, so he must be a nasty lying liar about Iran, too." After all, no one with any common sense could imagine an nuclear Iran using its newfound clout to, for example, threaten US shipping or hold foreign nationals hostage. They've never, ever done anything like that before. Why is mean, old Cheney threatening the poor harmless Iranians?
Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole left right thing is a bit of a red herring anyway. I prefer to skip the shorthand and go straight to candidates' records on the issues that are important to me.
Re:Unwinnable (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe that's why Kucinich can't find any co-sponsors. Not one.
This is of course the same brilliant strategy that the dems have been using for the last 12 years in elections -- fighting and winning the meaningless battles, and losing the important ones -- which is why I despair for the 2008 election.
No, this is Kucinich's brilliant strategy, not the Dems. It's been working for Kucinich though, he keeps getting re-elected. Not that the Dems don't have a record of dropping the ball, and not that the media doesn't play Steno Sue for the GOP enough, but why the hell would the actions of Representative Kucinich make you despair? He's been doing this crap for years, sometimes people agree with him, sometimes they roll their eyes. When he can't get any co-sponsors, they're rolling their eyes.
In addition, once this road is crossed -- impeaching for , and every time the president/vp is in office, and a different party has a majority in the senate and house, you'll see an impeachment. It's the same thing that happened once the line was crossed with judicial appointments.
Personally, I think Cheney and Bush have done more than enough to be impeached. Between the Abramoff corruption, fraudulently pursuing a war, the aftermath of Katrina, the US Attorney scandal and outing a CIA agent, the Federalist Papers make it clear that these two meet the criteria. Politically, I don't believe it's feasible right now, nor would it be well timed, given the number of investigations that are currently underway. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if during the course or after some of these investigations finish up that it became more politically feasible. There's a year till the primaries are done, there may be a lot of incumbents that need to distance themselves from this administration even more.
Partisian politics has made almost every parties' political victory a Pyrrhic one for the American people.
The American people wouldn't know objectivity if it slapped them in the face. BTW, what is this supposed to mean? The Dems political victory in October finally started to clamp down on the obscene amount of fraud and corruption after 6 years of a Rubber Stamp Congress.
We get the shaft, while the politicians get rich fighting each other. We need a 3rd party...
Dude, lay off the bong and get out of your dorm room. We get the shaft, because we don't fucking organize. Everybody loves to sit and whine about what's fucking wrong with politics, but the vast majority of you don't meaningfully participate. When is the last time you actually went to a Dem or GOP party meeting? You know, the one's where they plan and talk about who they're going to support and what they're going to do to get people elected. Every political meeting I attend, it's the same group of people, every rally, every candidate meeting, every fund raiser. Political power is simply laying there for you to grab, but very few people actually are willing to put in the work it takes to make the changes you want. This is not some new uncharted territory we're in, people have been successfully changing things around this place for the past 200 years. Really it would be hard to make this any easier, especially for WASPs.
If you don't like that the Democrats keep screwing up, then go take over your local Democratic Party. If you think you know better and you weren't around to mention that when it mattered, what use is your knowledge?
Finally, does Kucinich this this will help him get elected President?
No. But it will raise him money for his re-election campaign and maybe he naively believes it will get the ball rolling or something. Whatever, I have to go roll my eyes now.
Re:Unwinnable (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, something needs to be done about gerrymandering.
I've been preaching anti-gerrymandering for years. If there is ONE problem you had point to as truly fundamental, that's it. Here in California we have term limits on state offices, but the way the districts are drawn, you just get another extremist when the previous extremist has to leave.
We had a ballot initiative to change the redistricting process, but people are so stupid that voted against it. From what I gathered after the election, it was one of those initiatives people voted against because they didn't understand it, or they turned off their mind and listened to whatever ideological sewage source they favor.
Also, the Big Government groups and unions ran their typical "this proposition will eat your children and torture your pets" types of ads complete with ominous music. For fuck's sake you;d think society would have evolved an immunity to that crap by now. It's constantly parodied and made fun of, but droves still fall for it like brainless lemmings.
Is it any wonder I'm a total misanthrope? :-) Seriously, I consider any other view on humanity to be hopelessly ignorant.
I find less than 1 in 10 people even know what gerrymandering is. If anyone has a solution to stupid, ignorant voters coupled with evil politicians, I'd like to hear it, cuz I'm out of ideas.
Re:Unwinnable (Score:5, Insightful)
Another problem is that they are currently seen as nothing more than extreme versions of our current 2 parties. And then we had elections recently where they were seen as taking away votes from candidates that had a chance/might have won.
I think more parties would really help. Just look at France where they had 5 candidates for their Presidency. It gives more options and better representation of the people.
What the 3rd Parties need to do is be smart about making inroads. Don't go after the Presidency right off the bat, it is a waste of money and energy. Work in roads in more local government and at the congressional level. Once the party has good support, THEN start making a run at the Presidency with viable candidates. Eventually that would help them break through.
RonB
Re:Winnable is not the whole point (Score:1, Insightful)
What is the big one you are refering to? Evidence that will impeach the president? I doubt very much that there has been any action taken by the president that has not come from consitutional power. He's a man of honor. I know he's an odd duck and you can think him an odd duck, but I seriously doubt that he's done anything that should give the congress grounds for impeachment. And as far as trying to impeach Dick Cheney, it's again a witch hunt. The democrats ran on nothing last year and got voted in on nothing. Now, for fear of complete embarrassment at not being able to do anything in congress, they strike up one witch hunt after another.
Cheney's actually my hero. He's quiet, calm, collected, well spoken, and brilliant. I doubt you'll see Republicans who know what Cheney is about throw him under the bus. I know that he probably wouldn't want the office but I would be glad to see him as President.
Re:Unwinnable (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Article III: Rattling Sabers at the Iranians (Score:5, Insightful)
Two, nuclear infrastructure is no threat to the USA. Even a working nuke isn't. You still need delivery vehicles. As for that, I think the ratio of USA to Iran is roughly 20,000:0
Finally, the position in the paper I read was "Cheney lied and betrayed the public while holding an office where he swore an oath to protect and serve that same public". Iraq/Iran is merely what he lied about.
Write your Congressional Representative. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Winnable is not the whole point (Score:5, Insightful)
He has done everything he can to subvert the intent of our constitution. He has appointed people who call the most important document in our country a mere piece of paper.
He and his crew are bandits. They have come to power to sack the treasury, transferring as much cash to their cronies as possible. The situation is so bad that one risks sounding slightly insane even talking about it honestly.
Cheney, the man who told someone, on record, to fuck off, is "quiet, calm, collected, well spoken, and brilliant?" I understand we all have differences of opinion, but that is like calling white black. The crew of pirates and thugs running the White House have demonstrated that they will throw absolutely anyone under the bus for the smallest of reasons.
I'm sorry that we have such different viewpoints and I don't wish to offend, but you should know that the majority of Americans feel more like I do than like you do. We're tired of these thieves and crooks bending us over the barrel. No punishment is too great for these scoundrels.
Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Winnable is not the whole point (Score:2, Insightful)
So you're saying the Republicans were right to impeach Clinton? Just making sure.
Re:Unwinnable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unwinnable (Score:3, Insightful)
If Nader were speaker of the house, your loser logic would be just as applicable.
Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
At some point of our 230 year existence, we began to evaporate the states' rights for federal ones. It is impossible to deny that this is a LARGE country with varied demographics by region. Many things currently decided by federal laws, should have remained within the rights of the states, and this is what I support more than anything. As for a totally free market, it would probably never exist, but if our government seriously wants to keep up the song and dance like they are trying to enforce some sort of market regulation, I guess we can at least sit back and laugh. (I love AT&T as the prime example of how the government has no real control. Break them up and watch a "Baby Bell" buy back the others and eventually the parent company.)
Re:Winnable is not the whole point (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Kucinich is not only headhunting, he's hunting for truth... where that truth leads is anyone's guess.
To blame the Dems (not that you did) for politicization of impeachment is a bit off... the administration and their allies can cry foul all they want, but it seems to me that Bush & Co have been acting like they have a get-out-of-jail free card simply because Clinton was impeached. Not only that, but if there were not impeachable actions taken, it would be a moot point -- so any finger-pointing needs to be directed at the administration, not it's critics.
The OP should remember that it's not just the right, but the duty, of the public (and their representatives) to question elected officials.
Re:Winnable is not the whole point (Score:4, Insightful)
On his perjury? Hell yeah. Everything before that? Stupid fucking waste-of-money withchunt. Dumb fucker should have told the truth, the public was behind him anyway.
New for nerds? (Score:1, Insightful)
I mean, that question has been asked for many a submission across the years - but this one really crosses the line. It isn't about technology, or YRO, or anything else 'slashlike'. It's pure politics and nothing else.
If this 'story' made the grade because of the firehose, I fear for the future of Slashdot.
This is Slashdot? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I'd like about 8 parties. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:1, Insightful)
The United States is its own business, period. We have earned that because we can effectively stop anyone else from making it their business. So, too bad, so sad, keep your opinions about how to run our country flowing and welcome to frustration land because we are never going to listen.
Bit of a broad brush there. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not all Libertarians are as "bug-fuck insane" as you're making them out to be; there is a clear line between Libertarianism and economic anarchism -- Libertarians generally advocate a form of government which creates as level a playing field as possible, and then lets individual actors do the rest; this is generally summed up by saying that it is OK for government to create a framework where individuals can make decisions on their own, but not to act redistributively. Although this would not allow for conventional anti-trust regulation in the conventional sense, their stance is -- and I think they have a very good point here -- much of the danger of monopolies and trusts isn't inherent in the monopoly itself, but in the accrual of power in a single organization which is then used to influence government and suppress competition; if you removed all the corporate welfare and protective legislation that large corporations have bought themselves, they would tend to be lumbering behemoths and, excepting some special cases which tend towards natural monopolies, generally aren't as competitive as they appear to be today.
There is a lot of debate within Libertarian organizations as to how those special cases should be treated, and setting aside orthodoxy, I think the vast majority of self-identified Libertarians would support some form of minimalist interventionism in order to counterbalance the distortive effects that some monopolies have had on the government, while the laws and welfare that they have purchased are repealed or dismantled.
In short, I think you're getting dangerously close to creating a straw man when you attempt to pigeonhole Libertarians so narrowly; like it or not, they're the closest thing that the United States has to a third political party, and their views are not nearly as simplistic as you seem to think they are.
Re:Unwinnable (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if found guilty of lying under oath. Which Clinton never was.
Sort of. (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I think the government would be far better if it were split between Libertarians and Democrats than between Republicans and either of the other two. Our government might still be torn over economic issues, and the economic divide might still be widening, but we wouldn't have to worry about the abuses of executive power that we've seen in the past few years.
Re:Winnable is not the whole point (Score:3, Insightful)
Bush has one strong defense though; all his cards were out on the table in 04, yet he still won the election. The American people have to take responsibility for that.
Re:Unwinnable (Score:3, Insightful)
Fine with me, I wish they would impeach more often, regardless of party. Even if it does consume a lot of government time, money, and public attention, the overall effect of regularly dragging our politicians through the coals for their misdeeds is priceless.
As citizens, we need public officials to fear us, and by extension, the other public officials who serve us. When politicians establish tacit agreements not to be "too hard" on each other, or even make public statements like "impeachment is off the table" (Pelosi), it creates a climate where officials don't fear repercussions for their actions.
Partisan politics is a corrupt, vicious, and deeply cynical game, but it does produce one valuable outcome: it pressures politicians keep their noses clean in order to avoid landing in the crosshairs of a partisan witch hunt. Or at least it should. But when politicians refuse to hold each other accountable, that's game over, because the way our government is structured, the public cannot directly influence the government in any significant legal ways, we have to go through our "representatives".
I know all discussions like this have a subtext of "anti-bushism" right now, but I hope that when a democratic president is elected in '08, people will continue to demand accountability and impeachment in response to the inevitable government misconduct we'll still see.
Re:Unwinnable (Score:3, Insightful)
To really have a system where third parties actually stand a chance of winning, and people don't feel like they're throwing their vote away, we need a different electoral system. I don't know which specific system would work best, but it can't be our simple majority system. Our 250+ years of history shows that.
Re:Unwinnable (Score:2, Insightful)
But I agree with you, having only 2 parties is smiliar to having no choice. The only thing both parties agree on is to not allow any change to the system.
Bipartisanship is just a pretty word for what is really a political cartel.
Re:Unwinnable (Score:5, Insightful)
The American political system, however unintentionally, was de facto built for two parties. However weary the founder were of parties, they did institute a system that creates the perfect environment for two parties. It's the natural outcome when you combine a simple-majority, winner-take-all system with human nature. People naturally form groups of all kinds. You can't prevent political parties from forming without throwing out our rights of free speech and free association. Because a simple-majority election means that any 3rd party candidate is a throw-away vote, we now have a 2 party system.
If we want more than two parties, we have to adopt one of the electoral systems found elsewhere in the world, where 3rd parties have actually won seats. If we want no parties, well, we have to think of a new system and try it out, see if it works. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Re:Unwinnable (Score:5, Insightful)
So if you lie about something that isn't anyone's business regarding the behavior of two consenting adults, then it's an impeachable offense. On the other hand, if you lie about matters of improper squandering of our nation's lives and treasure, you're just being persecuted for political gain?
No. It's just not true. You couldn't find a prosecutor in this country who would prosecute either of us for lying about a BJ unless there were some ulterior motive behind it. And you wouldn't find an honest judge who would entertain such arguments.
Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:2, Insightful)
I see this comment in some form on Slashdot frequently, and it usually gets modded up as "Insightful."
I guess it never occurs to the posters or the moderators that the rest of the world (that is, France) is far left.
On a related note, was Hitler a moderate simply because he was at war with both the capitalist democracies of the West and the communist dictatorship of the East?
Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is out there for personal freedom. No one is out there who can say that the job of the government is to protect citizens from both enemies abroad, and the domestic ones: primarily corporations, especially those with large legal budgets. Really none of the candidates are afraid of the citizens much anymore, we're just tools in a phony holy war of the inconsequential.
Re:I'd like about 8 parties. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unwinnable (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole thing was practically the definition of a "perjury trap", following from a grand jury fishing expedition that lasted two terms and turned up not one single illegality aside from one it manufactured itself. Vintage republican dirty tricks.
There's no crime here, more's the pity (Score:5, Insightful)
Article I: Cheney lied about Iraqi WMDs. Reprehensible, yes. Cynical and morally bankrupt, yes. Criminal, unfortunately not.
Article II: Cheney lied about a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. But again, not a crime under any law.
Article III: Cheney's been rattling his saber at Iran. It may be foreign policy by sledgehammer rather than Xacto knife, but there's no law against this either.
So although I would really, really like to see Cheney removed from office, Kucinich's articles of impeachment don't contain any actual crimes for which he could be tried. Not that that's stopped impeachment proceedings before, but there was a better case against Clinton, because he actually testified under oath. We have some truly reprehensible people leading our country, and they should be stopped before they get us into even more trouble, but unfortunately this isn't going to do it.
Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parties were inevitable under our system. (Score:3, Insightful)
First, parties are inevitable. From an economic standpoint, they represent a pooling of resources that is more efficient for campaigning than individual candidates all going it alone. From a social standpoint, they are the result of likeminded individuals coming together for the same goals -- political bent in many ways is tied strongly enough to personality types and the background of your upbringing that it was inevitable that politicians would find that some of them had a LOT more in common than they differed on and choose to team up. From an mass manipulation standpoint, parties would provide a common set of assumptions to bring in less informed voters. You may not know what candidate X's standpoint on Issue Y might be, but you probably know what their parties stance is on Issues A-Z.
Second, Madison and the others missed the nature of future parties. The Constitution was written under the assumption that regional blocks would form and that factions would largely revolve around regional issues that were prevalent in the day -- slavery vs. abolition, agriculture vs. shipping, etc. etc. The general assumption seems to be that there would always be many candidates in a race. They failed to see that the electoral system would condense down to a winner-take-all system in almost every state and mathematically make the viability of anything other than two parties inevitable. While Madison speaks of the tyranny of the majority, I don't think he was really expecting for there to be only two parties at the time.
Anyway, for all the reasons in the first paragraph, you can't get rid of parties. Parties are a natural outgrowth of the existence of common political philosophies and the desire of people to pool their resources with others to achieve their goals in a world where each individual is relatively powerless. The only thing we really can (and should) do is to change the system so that it doesn't favor the dominance of only two parties. Breaking the collations of the main two parties into a more fine-grained choice would allow the will of the people to be expressed better, but you cannot expect for us to go back to the system of each candidate fund-raising and introducing themselves to the voters individually and from-scratch any more than you can expect us to go back to a barter-based economy.
Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
I've lived long enough to have actually met some Black Panthers, Weathermen and the SDS. Those were leftists. My grandfather was a union man working for the railroad many years ago and he used to tell me about the real Communists and Socialists that used to come around to talk to them about collective bargaining. Those were leftists, too.
I'd like to see a resurgence of true left-wing thought in the US. Not because I agree with everything they say, but just so that people who make their living lying to Americans like Hannity could get some idea of what being on "The Left" really means.
I'm starting to believe that the politics of division is finally starting to jump the shark. More and more of the people who used to think Rush Limbaugh or Hannity were serious thinkers are starting to catch on when they say how Harry Reid is an "enemy of America" or John Kerry "hates America". Most Americans really don't want to go around thinking that half the country is the enemy. At heart, Americans are too smart and too tolerant for that. It takes a while, but Americans generally do come around and do the right thing eventually.
Showing Dick Cheney the door is a good start. I'm willing to give up Rosie O'Donnell. I think it's a fair exchange.
Re:Article 1: Why stop at Cheney? (Score:1, Insightful)
And George W. Bush was never the head of the CIA, that was his father.
Re:Unwinnable (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the question the rest of us are asking: what will it take for the American people to wake up?
Here in Canada we are having a major flap about Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan following NATO protocols for the war there and turning their POWs over to Afghan forces, in possible violation of the Geneva Conventions and international treaties on torture. There's some evidence of incompetence in the government's handling of the problem, but so far little or no evidence of wilful wrongdoing. And yet the Minister of Defence is likely to be out on his ear over it, and it could well be a significant issue in the next election.
In the U.S. you have a government that has suspended habeas corpus, lied to the public for the purpose of invading a peaceful nation that had no ability to do you any harm, and continues to spend your children and grandchildren into poverty.
Why don't you care?
Re:Winnable is not the whole point (Score:1, Insightful)
The difference your skewing is that Bush's decisions were 'legal'. Clinton's decision to lie under oath was not 'legal' (and a pretty poor decision given that the majority of the public cared less about his sex-capades). Given that Congress approved the Iraq war and there's no laws that say spending money to fund a war is illegal, then yes. Also, it's Congress's responsibility to approve funding of the war. Maybe we should impeach all of Congress for 'waisting' billions of dollars?
Interesting, even with the 60% turnout for the 2004 US election, France (who's in the midst of a presidential election right now, if you didn't know) had a record 84% turn-out... which is better than their LOW of 74%. From what I hear, France would cease to exist if they ever got a 60% turnout AND during for an election during polarizing issues such as war. However, your comment...
I agree and on many more levels, not just elections. It feels as though American culture continues to slide into the "it's not my fault" finger pointing. This goes for parenting (it's not my fault my kids are deviant. It's the Schools fault for not controlling them!), government (It's not my fault my country is at war! It's Bush! I didn't vote for him! I didn't vote at all because they all 'suck'), your financial situation (I cannot help I'm poor or have piles of debt! I cannot get a job because of racism,'the man',the economy, Bush, etc. and it's not my fault the credit card company sent me all these cards! I didn't ask them too!), the environment (It's not my fault the environment may/may not be in trouble. I'm not wasteful! It's my right to drive to the store 1-block away to pick-up a gallon of milk in my SUV! Leave lights on in 5 rooms, when I'm watching TV in one. Let water run down the drain when I'm not using it. etc) and Common courtesy (hey, it's not my fault my Dog has to crap! I don't have a bag to clean it up. I pay taxes/rent/etc and have the right to let my dog crap wherever it wants! It's not my fault your pregnant/old/disabled you can wait in line, open your own door, etc like everyone else. You already get special treatment like special parking spots.)
It's something that I believe is the root cause of all of America's problems. It's summed up in a "don't care" attitude. It's something I feel needs to change.
Take the Inheritence Tax (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the problem is that without acting redistributively, you simply can't create as level a playing field as possible. Take the inheritence tax, for example. Without the inheritence tax, you get economic dynasties where the child of a wealthy and powerful individual not only starts off with an advantage in education and political connections (that you can't really erase) but also with an entire foundation of wealth that an otherwise equally talented individual would not start with. In essence, the race is already lost. I've always been of the opinion that wealth should be earned, but a lack of inheritence tax allows for the existence of an upper class that has no need for work when they can simply let their money work for them by entrusting it to investment advisors. Most if not all Libertarians consider the Inheritence Tax to be an abomination, though it is widely considered outside of the American Right to be a necessary foundation for the creation of equality.
I think the vast majority of self-identified Libertarians would support some form of minimalist interventionism in order to counterbalance the distortive effects that some monopolies have had on the government, while the laws and welfare that they have purchased are repealed or dismantled.
The problem is that most Libertarians don't seem to believe that there's a problem with a monopoly having a distortive effect on the market or on consumers as long as they don't get the government to do them any special favors. I, too, would like to see less corporate influence on government, but until corporations are prohibited from or (by force of law) gain no profit from donating to the campaigns of politicians, you'll never see and end to special favors for industry. I find it very rare (i.e. I've never met) a Libertarian who does not consider the ability of the wealthy and powerful to spend their money as freely as they want on political donations to be a matter of their free speech rights, nor have I met a Libertarian who thinks that the idea of corporate personhood and the existence of the same free speech rights for corporations should both be abolished.
Re:Wow (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:"No threat" (Score:4, Insightful)
Ahmadinejad is a nut, and perhaps a dangerous one. But so is Kim Jong Il, I'd argue moreso. So is China. But we can't win those, so we've looked the other way. (Of course, given what we've seen in Iraq, I doubt we could win in Iran, either.) This is not the Iranian government posing an immediate and direct threat to the U.S. -- this is the current administration's dislike for radical Islam. I'm not too fond of the radical part myself, but we can't go around blowing up everyone who may one day pose a threat.
The American people get this (more than the White House originally gave them credit for), and therefore lies must be told to make the threat seem more imminent than it is. The first three articles of impeachment spell out this tactic fairly clearly, and the only reason the fourth doesn't do as well is because the Iran issue hasn't been around as long. Give it a year or two, and more lies will be told about them. Sadly, I think all it takes is one level of lies, and many Americans (due to media fatigue) seem to just buy it.
I don't doubt that Ahmadinejad is a bad guy. Nor did I doubt that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. But if we look the other way on North Korea, China, Sudan, and others while cutting a path through the Middle East, it looks more like either religious or oil-based profiling than it does like policing to me.
How completely disenginuous! (Score:4, Insightful)
Show me the evidence from an actual intelligence agency that says Saddam had weapons in 2002 or 2003, hell anytime after 1998. Other than the rockets that exceeded the allowed range (which were destroyed before the war by inspectors and had no WMD warheads), Iraq possessed no capabilities to threaten the US or it's neighbors. The Democratic strategy of containment was working until Bush decided it wasn't good enough for his delusions. It's the same thing in N Korea, the !Clinton policy of the Bush Administration has managed in 2007 to get the same agreement Clinton got in 1995, but now Pyongyang has a couple more warheads it can sell to real terrorists. How did Bush's actions advance the interest of the United States? Why did we invade Iraq? To what purpose are our soldiers and treasure being spent?
I'd really like someone to show me a person with actual intelligence credentials that believes invading Iraq was a good idea. Defectors provided by "heroes in error" over at the INC don't count, they have been exposed as frauds. Plagiarized thesis don't count either. Show me the CIA approved intelligence, show me the mid-level analysts who actually believed Saddam was capable of building nukes, would in a million years team up with Al Qaeda or provide them with WMD or would be stupid enough to attack the US with the amount of US military power already pointed at him.
I want something that didn't come out of the the White House Iraq Group, the INC, the Office of Special Plans @ the Pentagon and that wasn't a delusion with no evidence (Atta in Prague). I seriously challenge you to come up with something.
What Bush and Cheney said:
DICK CHENEY: (Speech to the VFW 8/26/02) Many of us are convinced that Saddam Hussein will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon.
DICK CHENEY: (Speech to the VFW 8/26/02) But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.
DICK CHENEY (MEET THE PRESS NBC 9/8/02): It's now public that in fact he has been seeking to acquire and we have been able to intercept to prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge and the centrifuge is required to take low grade uranium and enhance it into highly enriched uranium which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb."
PRESIDENT BUSH (Discussion with Congressional Lea
Re:Bit of a broad brush there. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to break into the car market with your own little startup, odds are that you're going be driven out of business by the likes of Toyota or GM. There's nothing morally wrong about that. Being rich, and using your wealth strategically, is not a sin.
But if the big auto maker were to, say, pressure all the tire manufacturers not to sell tires to you... well, that should be illegal.
Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it's possible to have a mixed voting record on an issue. Such people are usually demonized as flip-floppers who have no convictions, however. And really, how great is the middle ground? Want to take the middle ground on, say, the Iraq War? "Let's not commit significant resources, but let's not withdraw either" -- sound like a good plan? Not to most people.
Anyways, people who are all high and mighty because they're "moderates" are one of my pet peeves.
Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
They will retain control of the Supreme Court for quite some time, however. None of the right-wing of the Court are likely to retire in the next 10 years. The left-wingers are all over 65, and the oldest right-winger is 58. The only likely chance of shifting at all is when Kennedy (70) retires, and that's assuming that Stevens (87) manages to survive until a Democratic President.
Re:Next up in the news ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'd like about 8 parties. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that, by "street protests," the parent meant the mindless rioting that occurs every time the French government thinks about removing some group of self-interested leeches from the public tit.
Although the rioters are certainly protesting, it is not democratic - it's simply tyranny by the minority, with the government held hostage to the desires of any small group willing to riot.
"Protest," as it occurs in the US and most other democracies -- where the purpose is actually to protest and raise awareness -- is definitely a normal and necessary part of the democratic process.
Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wealth *is* zero sum. Wealth comes, ultimately, from the exploitation of natural resources, which are of finite quantity. Yes, you can build several economic layers on top of that, but ultimately, you've got to have a product in order to have a product to service. Wealth creation may be spread out, but it certainly doesn't equate with equal opportunity when you have the existence of a privileged class.
I, for one, am certainly not advocating socialism, so don't set that up as a straw man. Well-regulated capitalism is just fine with me. It's just that our government has fallen down on the "well-regulated" aspect.
Re:Take the Inheritence Tax (Score:3, Insightful)
nor have I met a Libertarian who thinks that the idea of corporate personhood and the existence of the same free speech rights for corporations should both be abolished.
You have now. (Small-"l" libertarian, at least). I'd rather people were required to face all of the consequences of their actions, rather than the Government allowing them to redistribute many of the negative ones back onto the rest of society.
downward wealth redistribution (Score:3, Insightful)
This is in effect a stealth RECURRING tax on money that you and I have already paid taxes on.
Re:That's absurd (Score:3, Insightful)
A lack of street protests can mean either one of two things: a very successful system where all issues that would result in street protests are solved within the legal process before they become a real issue or a very repressive society where organizing such protests is a Very Bad Idea.
It's usually very easy to distinguish between both.
It's also very easy to transition from the good one to the bad one.
Re:That's absurd (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you didn't read my post, that is impossible. There is no way an issue like abortion can be "solved". A large minority of our society will not be happy unless it's completely illegal, a small majority of our country will not be satisfied unless it's legal in most situations. There is no way that this (or many similar issues like it), will ever be "solved". The situation you describe would mean a legal system that can solve unsolvable problems, an impossibility, an absurdism.
Blah. blah, blah. (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, it's not World War II. It's also not the American Revolution, and it's not the Star Wars Trilogy. The mess we find ourselves in in Iraq is more like France's involvement in Algeria, or in Indochina, or our own involvement there. It's not an honorable thing, it's not an admirable thing, and it's one of the worst foreign policy decisions ever, right up there with Operation Ajax and the Kirkpatrick Doctrine. We're not fighting Hitler or Sauron, George Bush isn't Winston Churchill or Aragorn or Feric Jaggar, or whatever your preferred fantasy trope is. This was a stupid mess, and it cannot be made better. Our options are (a) leave, and watch the region descend into utter chaos and barbarism, (b) keep doing what we're doing until the Republicans are safely out of office and the disaster can be blamed on the Democrats, then watch the region descend into utter chaos and barbarism, and (c) roll through Iraq like the Ottoman Turks, the Roman Legions, the Golden Horde, the Germans or any other empire-builder of yore, and exact disproportionate revenge on random civilians for any act of defiance, causing them to fear us more than they fear the insurgents. (I provide option (c) only for completeness; if you find it appealing, please seek help.)
Occupying a large country and pretending that we're not invaders is a stupid idea. It was a stupid idea before it was executed, and it's a stupid idea now. No good will come of it, no matter how much better you feel when you blame the person who points out that it was a stupid idea.
Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
BTW, the "middle ground" on Iraq was:
1. There's obviously no WMD in Iraq.
2. Saddam Hussein is still an asshole.
3. We've effectively contained him so he's not much of a threat.
4. We may have to do something about him in the future, but now is not the right time.
5. There's obviously no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
6. "I don't think our nation's military should be used for what's called nation building".
7. You don't cut taxes by 1.5 trillion and then start a war.
8. Let's deal with the important issues first (Afghanistan and al-Qaeda), but keep an eye on Iraq.
Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:2, Insightful)
With the exception of the death penalty, there is no major difference between the government policies of the U.S. and Europe.
Abortion? Illegal in Ireland and Portugal.
Seperation of Church and State? Official state funded churches in Finland, and the same thing in Sweden until a couple years ago. Religious education is a manditory part of British schooling. Italy only recently removed crusifixs from public schools.
"Universal Medicine"? The U.S. government spends more per capita on public health and health care than any country in the world.
Invading other countries? Um, we invaded Iraq with big help from England, as well as troops from Denmark, Holland, Poland, Romania, etc. And the Europeans and Canadians have pretty much been fighting the war in Afganistan for us. That is, of course, ignoring things like the war in Chechnia, or the recent conflict in the Balkans, etc. And what the hell do you think the French Foriegn Legion is doing all the time in Africa and South America?
Freedom of Speech? Insulting a religion is a crime in most European countries... Most European countries have far more speech regulations than the U.S..
Education? The U.S. is in the top 5 spenders per capita when it comes to education... and things like "School Choice" which are considered right-wing conspiracies in the U.S. are common place in Europe.
No, in many of the most meaningful ways, Europeans would be considered far-right compared to the U.S...
Re:Bit of a broad brush there. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
You see, State's rights is a load of crap. It's really about fiefdom, controlling interests in a particular state don't like the Feds coming in and telling them that they can't violate Federal law. The legal establishment of second class citizenry is a threat to the Constitution and to the peace, the last three points you make were solutions to this threat. You're outdated republican view of the state is unworkable, especially in a modern society with the infrastructure required to compete for the wealth necessary to defend any of our rights.
We legally and rightfully changed our form of government from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. The Federalist Papers in support of the Constitution are considered to be the "finest treatise on government in existence", not the anti-Federalist Papers in support of the Articles.
At that point, we, as a free people, specifically abandoned the republican view of states that you refer too. It was not working and we needed something better, a "more perfect union".
The Civil War (and again, I was raised 2 miles from where the damn thing started) was an act of immoral rebellion against a legitimate authority. Advocacy of violent secession was not a defense of some inherent rights, it was a betrayal of the underpinnings of Anglo-Saxon Protestant beliefs and culture that formed this nation's laws and the rationale for the Revolution. The Civil War was a fraud perpetuated by the wealthy of the South upon the poor and middle class. The only honor that came out of the Civil War for the South was the same honor that every soldier who believes he is fighting for his family and home. There is no honor in claiming that states have rights that supersedes the Federal government or that they have sovereign status, because there is no integrity to the argument. If states had the right to secession, the Federal Constitution would have no power. It would be a suicidal clause that would make the institutional structure unworkable, that is why the Constitution concentrates more power centrally than the Articles did. South Carolina agreed and ratified the Constitution, there was no justification for secession or the violence that followed, they committed immoral rebellion.
LBJ's Presidency, when the Great Society expanded the social safety net to include such frivolities as "Medicare" and we enacted "The Civil Rights Act of 1964" and "The Voting Rights Act of 1965."
You are in support of this erosion of "states rights to terrorize its citizens" aren't you? Otherwise I'd have to say that you have a delusional and unobjective view of freedom. This is obviously cribbing from ol'Milty Friedman with the horror and shock that brought you the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. I hope you don't think Brown v Board was judicial activism too. The stupidity of the argument that racism is some personal moral issue vs an issue that affects the interests of the state is the acceptance of different classes of citizens. This is not a viable situation. We cannot have inequality before the law for any human, regardless of their circumstances. If a person legally falls under the jurisdiction of the United States, they must be given the same legal protections as any other citizen of the United States. If you do not live up to this, then you invite tyranny (this is why torture advocates must be purged from our government). After all, if you can legally separate someone who has not violated the rights of another for an accident of birth or a matter of conscience then no one is safe. These are two factors upon which the state must seek equality. We can never be free people if we can be denied wealth accumulation, access to markets or equality in civil rights
Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:New for nerds? (Score:2, Insightful)
In a bizarre coincidence, I just happened to have replied you your comment, despite "not bothering to read the politics section" as you have said. Interesting, eh?
Get off your pedantic ass and actually look at politics.slashdot.org and note the type of story typically published there - and note how this one doesn't match the general tenor.
General tenor == politics. Story subject == politcal. Just like how I don't get pissy when I see articles about wristwatches, crays and Amigas under "hardware", I am prepared to see the spectrum under politics. It's general. Get over it.
There is a difference between the two even if you lack the wit or energy to actual read and understand my post.
Funny how you complain about lack of wit when you yourself can't conjure up something better than a bad adhom.
Fucking KDAWSON TROLL! How is this news for nerds (Score:1, Insightful)
All this post is is a political flamebait invitation.
Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
Montana - a state one would think would have plenty of viable libertarian candidates for Senate to choose from - ran a guy who turned himself into a smurf because he was afraid of Y2K. [cnn.com] In and of itself, this isn't a big deal, but it demonstrates the incredible political naivete of the Libertarian party leadership. And this isn't only a problem with Libertarians. It is a problem for ANY third party that wants to get taken seriously.
For a third party to become viable, they have to run a smoother, more professional campaign with a figurehead that is MUCH more charismatic than anyone the Dems or Repubs can run - because they have to overcome the "haha, you're independent which is a synonym for loooooony" stigma that has come about, in part, because people run Papa Smurf for Senate or go off about how Socialism is The Answer and maybe Stalin wasn't such a bad guy or whatever.
Anyone who could be a viable candidate for a national office will feel a great pressure to go Democrat or Republican because, while those parties may not be aligned with their views very well, they are still going to be less of a hindrance than any independent party.
We would have had a good shot at a third party being able to get funding with Perot - but he sabotaged it with is on-again-off-again decision to run. The Green party might be viable if someone like Gore were to go over to it and they shut assholes like Michael Moore up. Once we get one viable new party, then there would be a chance for others to come along.
That said, my views do line up more libertarian than anything else - but I'm realistic enough to know that until the party gets their shit together and stops with the Blue Man Group nonsense, nothing good will happen.
I'd run for something under the Libertarian party, but I'm an openly gay Jewish woman, and I don't live in New York - no way I'm getting anywhere.
Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the Dems may have inadvertently given someone a stronger start by ousting Cheney (which I doubt will really happen) but the person still won't be a shoe-in for the Republican nomination.
Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
A simple meaningful (meaningful as it tells you how much money you have in your pocket) comparison would be median weekly wages for a household, however the data is so hard to get at that it is impossible to do an accurate comparison (UK does median values for individuals but only averages for households, the US census bureau does the reverse...)
Lets try anyway -I'll use California as the US state as it is apparently the best performing economy, and the UK because their statistics are in English. Sources are census.gov for the US and statistics.gov.uk for the UK.
Califoria Median *household* income, 2003 $48,440 (annual) (lets average it out to monthly i.e. 48440 / 12) US$4036
UK Median *individual* income,2002/03 £447. (weekly) (lets average it out to monthly i.e. (447 * 52) / 12) GB£1937
The average exchange rate in December 2003 was 0.55 GBP to the US Dollar, (so 1937 / 0.55 gets you the dollar value) US$3521.82
That means that in the UK mean individual income is lower than US household income by about 13%. So what does that tell us? well not a lot, I have no idea as to how many of the households in the US data have multiple wage earners, and I have no idea how many earners would be present in a uk household.
The interesting thing with the above is that it shows that unless you have exact data, of exactly the same type, that is gained in the same way meaningful comparisons are pointless. GDP is not an indicator of anything substantial, yet if it is improving you will hear about it, comparative tax rates are meaningless if the services provided are different, average wages are also no use as they bare no relation to purchasing power.
In short, I am sure I could use the above to claim that UK incomes are higher than those in the US, an individual in the UK earns 87% of what a whole household earns in the US, so with two earners per household on average (or 1.5 or even 1.2) the average UK household earns 70% more annually than a household in the US (it would be 30% more with 1.5 earners or 4% with 1.2 earners), (obviously I could also claim the reverse). Even if I did, what of taxes, tax breaks, tax credits, services, pensions, investments, savings, mortgage values etc.
I can combine random indicators to fortify my claim, for example the average UK home is £184924 whilst in the US its £132270 (at today's dollar rate using the most recent data I can get hold of), that means that in the UK people can afford houses that are 72% more expensive than in the US, so surely the fact that UK households (2 earners remember) earn 70% more than their US counterparts must be correct!!
So what am I trying to say?
your statement of
Europe as a whole. But individual countries are still screwing the pooch worse than us.
Can not be substantiated, there are far too many variables, is the US economy stronger than the UK? maybe but there is no real way of knowing. Are EU citizens better off than their UK counterparts? maybe but again there is no easy comparison. Statistics are hard to interpret, The EU will claim its better than the US, and the media in the EU will do the same unless there is a crisis and the US will claim that it is better than the EU but again, the media will help people think that unless there is a good doom and gloom story that makes for better news.
In my opinion the best (but least useful on an economic or PR
Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:4, Insightful)
More accurately, at least by the standards of the developed West, the Democratic Party is mostly a center-right party and the Republican Party a far right party. The relatively exclusionary electoral system in the US that produces alienation and low turnouts tends to suppress participation mostly on the left (this follows the experience in most of the West, where more participation tends to pull the system to the Left more, and less pulls it to the Right) and skew the entire political spectrum to the Right; also, the US leans culturally more the Right than most of the West before that exclusion, perhaps in large part do to the degree of religiosity and particularly the uniquely strong cultural influence of Protestant Fundamentalism in the US.
That the US also has geographic distortions in its political system which tend to give more political power to regions that tend (overall) lean to more to the (for the US) Right, compared to those that lean, overall, more to the local Left combines with the other sources of distortion to produce a particularly right-leaning trend in government in the US.
Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
See the difference??
Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point is that to really be a "centrist", you'd need to be like the Neutrals in Futurama. There are very few people who actually take a "moderate" opinion on major issues. Rather, there are people who have a collection of stances which they believe in that don't simply match all of the stances of the stereotypical "left" or the stereotypical "right", but contradict the stances of other so-called "moderates". Appealing to the center, or to "moderates", is appealing to a largely mythical concept.
Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not a joking matter. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, how incredibly naive. The way non-regulated monopolies normally happen is that there's lead time, legal, organizational and practical hurdles to enter a market, while prices may be changed in an instant at the touch of a button. That means the company gouges you as much as possible, building up a large cash reserve. If their dominance is threatened they can dump prices to below cost, effectively forcing competitors back out of the market. That's a credible threat which results in a loss for any company foolish enough to try, unless they can undercut them on all their products simultaniously and sustain it long enough to drain their coffers which is practicly impossible.
The customers aren't happy, they're trapped. Other companies could provide better service at lower costs, but if they tried they'd be undercut. The same will happen on the offensive, big monopolies would look at smaller markets and say "I'm going to sell at half your price until you're bankrupt. Join us or die." which would crush innovation and competition on actual cost, quality and features. Inferior products backed by massive megacorps would be the rule, not the exception and total wealth would be lowered. That kind of pure laissez-faire policy would be as inefficient as a communist plan economy, without even paying lipservice to social equality.
Re:I'd like about 8 parties. (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking of revolution... wait someone's knocking at my door...
Re:How completely disenginuous! (Score:1, Insightful)
This is the problem that I have with these debates. People on both sides seem to be under the false impression that anyone who disagrees with them has no intelligence or is less intelligent than they are or is completely dishonest. What exactly do you mean by intelligence credentials? As measured by what? Level of formal education? Discipline of choice? Publications? Success? Your own assessment? Frankly, there is no way to accurately measure ones intelligence so such a claim is simply an attempt to intimidate the other side.
Time will tell whether invading Iraq was a good idea. Right now, it doesn't look good and it looks worse every day. However, depending on what happens to Iraq in the next several years, it might very well turn out for the better. It is really hard to judge these things while you are living through them.
Re:I am a centrist, and I approve of this message (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm. That's not a centrist. You've given almost the dictionary definition of a libertarian. Try the age-old political quiz [theadvocates.org].
A centrist beleives that government should control people and restrict their rights, just not completely. They believe that government should be big enough to do many unnecessary things, but it should strike a "balance" between liberty and socialism.
If you have a graph, where the x-axis is increasing personal freedom and the y-axis is increasing economic freedom, the libertarian is the furthest from the origin. A centrist would want a moderate amount of economic freedom and a moderate amount of personal freedom (for example, perhaps they have an agenda of being pro-life and anti-drugs, and want the government to control interest rates and feed the poor).
Re:Next up in the news ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Any elected official that allows policy descions to be made in their office by a civil servant should be impeached. We're good for a lot of things, but we shouldn't be doing a legislator's work for them. "Aides" should be just like the heads of gov't offices -- appointed by an elected official and serving at his pleasure.
Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it doesn't. Your view of economics is not even close to correct. There are many cases where the free market is very far from optimal, and government intervention is necessary to make it efficient.
The first problem is information. We have laws against false advertisements, and requiring that certain information be included, because the free market can't function without them. The second problem is externalities. An externality is when someone does something which harms an uninvolved third party, without paying for that harm. The classic example (which you got wrong) is pollution. If dumping toxic waste into the river is legal, cars will be cheaper and factories will make more money, but the people who live near that river will have a serious problem.
But the real problem is simply _power_. Large corporations are amoral entities with vast amounts of power which they can and do use to steal natural resources, unfairly destroy smaller competitors, blackmail their enemies and, above all, secure even more power. A strong government is necessary because a small government wouldn't have the power to stand up to a multinational corporation, even if that corporation was committing felonies.
The libertarian dream is admirable, but naive. Instead of giving power back to the people, it transfers power to the rich - a small, unelected elite which answers to no one. I'd rather have a devil I can vote against.
Re:How completely disenginuous! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not bragging if you won, unless you claim to always be able to win and cannot maintain the integrity of your claim. Perhaps you mean rubbing your success in other's faces. You can do this, but it's really crass and quite uncivilized. Such behavior is frowned upon in the culture that founded this nation and it shows a lack of virtue.
Sportsmanship defines who we are as Human beings. This applies to both losing and winning. No one likes a loser, but everyone loves a winner (again, except for most liberals)! Bragging is a form of self-rewardment at the others expense. This does not fit the definition of being arrogant as you've so defined. The reason being that sportsmanship is all about integrity!
We choose to define who we are as humans. It's an individual decision, I don't see how your idea of sportsmanship fulfills Kant's categorical imperative. Self-indulgence at other's expense is so counter to every aspect of WASP culture as to render your statement laughable. There is no description of a Gentleman that reflects the behavior you describe, it is only ever described as vulgar and obscene, the behavior of ignorant commoners. If this what you are holding up as an ideal? You've changed the definitions of sportsmanship and integrity in such a way as to render them meaningless. There is no integrity in your description.
I gave you one before. They want defeat.
Yeah, we're all just sitting around here trying to figure out how to destroy our own country. It's not a matter of conscientious or rational disagreement, we just want to fuck over the country by deviously subverting the national interest in foreign policy. This is more efficient than simply directly sabotaging the domestic war effort. No wait, we won't do that because we're all a bunch of unsportsmanlike nancies that are too afraid of direct confrontation with all you manly conservatives. Are you really this fucking stupid?
I have no clue and don't care if Bush is a complete fucking idiot or just evil. It doesn't matter because the results are the same. You've chosen to just ignore the actual results of your proposal and keep wishing for ponies. There has been no demonstration of capability to accomplish the goals given. I don't care about motive, this is politics and not a criminal trial. Motive is irrelevant proposals and results are what matters here.
Defeat is in our national interest? Your logic is twisted.
If we have not lost yet, then explain the plan for victory. What objectives will I have to measure "not defeat"? Do you seriously equate not being able to reach unobtainable goals with a conscious decision to give up on an obtainable one? Or are you simply redefining defeat to mean whatever the Democrats are saying? Are you not aware of the logical inconsistencies in your reasoning here?
Republicans do invest in infrastructure and they give people hope through faith. Republicans have the highest work ethic in America. Period.
This has to be the biggest crock of shit I've seen yet, blind faith is all you have to offer, you haven't actually delivered on anything else. We've got a saying down South, "Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining", that's this fucking faith game the GOP has been cynically playing. The evangelical community, especially in the South has been played for suckers by a bunch of opportunist false prophets. Bush's own Faith based office director blew the whistle on this with a book last year. This is precisely why the religiously motivated Founding Fathers declared the separation of church and state, they understood the corruption that government brought to religion and that religion brought to government. Church and state are oil and water, not peanut butter and chocolate.
This is the same jackass theology that those hucksters went around preaching in support o