Third Party

I'm a Rush 24/7 subscriber, and I generally listen to at least the first 15 minutes of Limbaugh every day. I like the ability to access the content any time I want.

Listening tonight while coding, I hear Rush tell me - plead with me - that there are differences so vast between the Democrats and the Republicans. He intones:

Republicans aren't Marxists. Republicans aren't apologizing for America around the world. Republicans don't loathe our military.

His argument is that just as Perot eroded support for Bush I and got Clinton elected, so too would a third party erode support for a Republican in 2012 and continue Obama's presidency and Democrat domination nationwide.

Having participated in the Tea Party here in Iowa, I can tell you that many people don't see much difference between Democrats and Republicans. I'll counter Rush's insistent rhetoric:

• Republicans spend and earmark money just like Democrats.
• Republicans hold statist positions, wanting to use government to implement their morality - just like Democrats.
• Republicans use their power for personal gain, just as Democrats do.

Is McCain a capitalist? No, he's not.
Is he a statist? In some respects, yes.

And many other Republicans are like him: Snowe, Collins, Graham, Bennett, etc. Those big government solutions will kill our kids with debt.

I get what Rush is saying: a third party for conservatives is a victory for Democrats. And he's right.

But Rush had an opportunity to push the Republicans further toward embracing individual freedom, and passed it by.

Though he'll never see it, here's my memo to Rush: it's good for the Republicans to sweat right now. If they want to quash a third party, the best way to do it is by becoming the party that thoroughly believes in small and limited government. And today, that's not the Republican party.

by Brett Rogers, 12/2/2009 1:01:04 AM
Permalink

While I agree with Rush that a strong third party showing in 2012 could likely split the vote, I don't necessarily agree that it would hand Obama a second term. But it is possible.

There reality is that Rush is as strongly invested in the two party status quo as Barack Obama. As long as there are only two viable parties, everything is black and white, leaving a very clear demarcation line for him to focus his message. Rush has to decide at some point what his goals really are; success of Republicans, or success of this republic, for they stopped being the same thing years ago.

From the standpoint of defeating socialism, the only "good" time to really establish a third party at the national level, is when there's a Republican incumbent. But that would be a minimum of 7 years away and depending on who that Republican would be, I don't think that America has that much time.

Posted by Casey Head (http://www.thewarning.us), 12/2/2009 12:52:27 PM

And let's all bury our heads in the sand and hope for a conservative victory and a return to unregluated markets in partnership with the free hand of fraud. As we've seen, such markets can do great things in the hands of capitalists when freed to act in any manner and motivated only by their own self-interest. So, by all means, let's hope Ayn Rand objectivism triumphs, eveyone can wrap themselves up in self-centeredness and unbridled greed can prevail.

Turn off your frickin' right-wing radio and use your own heads.

Posted by M. Schaeffer, 12/3/2009 2:27:21 PM

One could ask you to shut off your left wing radio, but it would probably go out of business from poor ratings and lack of advertising before you could reach the dial.

Now stop chugging that donkey flavored kool-aid and actually read what the man wrote. The above statement is a REBUKE of the Republican party abandoning the ideals of the American people, how do you view that as burying heads in the sand and hoping for victory?

Reading (comprehension) is fundamental.

Posted by Casey Head (http://www.thewarning.us), 12/3/2009 3:58:43 PM

For all you radical anti-regulator tea-party conservative hacks out there, smoke this:

"But you'd have to be Ayn Rand's evil twin to believe government intervention hasn't helped the economy at all. It's perfectly valid to question whether $787 billion in stimulus money could have been better deployed or whether the Wall Street bailouts will ever trickle through to Main Street and the real economy, as intended. But antigovernment, tea-party nihilism overlooks the fact that when free markets fail, the government is usually the only party able to restore order. And determining what the government accomplished over the past 18 months will guide the fierce debate in Washington over how to regulate the banks and prevent more meltdowns in the future."

You and read it too if you can turn off Limbaugh, Beck, and all the other wingnut blowguts and open your little minds:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/4-Economic-Moves-the-usnews-688705804.html?x=0

Posted by M. Schaeffer, 12/3/2009 4:17:40 PM

Libertarianism is just a label for people who reject any notion of responsibility toward others in society, fail to understand that they are part of something larger than themselves, and choose to withdraw and imagine bogeyment while absorbing themselves in ego. If you wish to further expose your lunacy beyond what we've already witnessed in the unruly crowds of crude and screaming misfits, then by all means go forward. The bizarre spectacle that such a third party would likely offer to voters would certainly serve to reaffirm the traditional 2-party system.

Posted by M. Schaeffer, 12/3/2009 4:37:50 PM

Schaeffer

I don't reject the notion of responsibility to others, I reject the notion that they have a claim upon me, a right to the product of my labor.

Unlike Ayn Rand, I don't totally reject the concept of altruism. Generosity is a beautiful thing. But like all interactions in a free market/country, it should involve a voluntary exchange.

What your ilk propose isn't voluntary, it's coercive. That makes it theft. It isn't somehow made moral just because its legal.

Posted by Casey Head (http://www.thewarning.us), 12/3/2009 4:49:04 PM

Hey Ruby

Let's say that I came up to you, took $200 from you, gave $100 of it to someone else, and then burned the other $100.

You could argue that I helped someone else. What you can't successfully argue is that the net effect was positive.

Neither can anyone successfully argue that the stimulus was a net positive. Or they can, but they'll be laughed at for their inability with math.

Posted by Brett Rogers (http://www.beatcanvas.com), 12/3/2009 4:54:01 PM

Hey Casey

I love the words "voluntary exchange." It sounds so, how does one say it... freeing.

Posted by Brett Rogers (http://www.beatcanvas.com), 12/3/2009 4:56:44 PM

Head:

You are not an island, nor am I. Is it coercion to remind my fellow citizen that, as members of a SOCIETY and are inextricably linked by a network of inherent interdependencies, social, economic, political, etc.? Should we not expect something of each other in the way of mutual transactions, including individual sacrifices for the benefit of the whole--perhaps even guided by ability and need? And yes, as you proclaim we should also expect to keep some portion of the product our labors. However, it is NOT a right, and it is certainly not absolute and total in nature. That seems to be part of the problem with the thinking of some people these days, most notably the rabble who are screaming obscenities and brandishing crude signs that border on sedition. It is flawed-thinking to ignore that as a member of society you, your labor, and your productivity are part of the collective economic activity that propels the market; so what you jealously claim is yours and yours only, in fact, belongs to all of us. This dynamic is part of the economic dimension of a "social contract."

Now, if you choose to live in a society of any sort, this is a reality you cannot escape. Of course, you can certainly try...you can withdraw, lock yourself behind the doors of a cabin in the wilderness, and stockpile ammo to your heart's content, but the wolves will eventually find your door. There are a lot of wolves...and sooner or later you'll have to come out.

Posted by M. Schaeffer, 12/3/2009 5:11:34 PM

Rogers, your example is distorted and your thinking is flawed, as usual.

Your example illustrates how you folks think everything is being taken from you. It isn't. Even if it were, you also claim you're getting nothing in return. Wrong again. Next time you drive to a tea party, you can thank yourself and all the rest of us for the road. I could go on.

The condescending attitude toward the $100 that you gave away also doesn't hold. Who's to say that the recipient didn't buy $5 painting at a garage sale, discover it was a David from the French Revolution, sell it for $25,000, use it as seed money to finance one of your infinite great ideas, and end up making millions?

As for the stimulus, you should certainly understand that ambitious plans in times of challenge often take time to gain traction and work. Patience, Grasshopper. We were in a hell of a bind and there is much to do. Most of the ARRA money is yet to be allocated. I'd certainly like to see a bit more urgency in the dissemination of this money.

Just curious, have you applied for some?

Posted by M. Schaeffer, 12/3/2009 5:26:48 PM

Ahh, the social contract.

Sooner or later all pseudo intellectual collectivists trot out social contract theory as their trump card, that because I must give up some of my rights as they exist in nature to enjoy the benefits of society, surely I have no rights that society does not bestow upon me.

That argument, of course, is fallacious.

The social contract is the voluntary exercise of individual rights by a group. My rights are inborn. I lend some of them to government under the social contract in a mutually beneficial exchange, to achieve goals in a scale that I could not achieve myself in a timely manner. Individual aims/rights, accomplished through collective endeavor. This is the nature of group effort.

For example, I have the individual right to defend my life and that property that is essential to sustain my life. But defending my life is a full time job, and I could scarcely accomplish anything else, I choose to lend my right of defense to a group effort to accomplish my goals. I call them the police, and the military.

Infrastructure, basic government services are much the same. Things that I could achieve myself, but choose not to. This is the only proper place of government.

But because the rights I lend to the group are individual rights, the group cannot posses any right that the individuals behind it do not. The right of the group therefore cannot supersede the right of individuals.

If you as an individual need something that I have, you do not have the right to take that thing for your use because that would be a violation of my rights. Similarly the group does not have the right to take that thing from me, and give it to you as an entitlement.

If they do, my participation is no longer voluntary. They have both coerced me, and violated my rights, invalidating the contract.

Plunder and theft is not moral, simply because it is legal.

Posted by Casey Head (http://www.thewarning.us), 12/3/2009 5:45:10 PM

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

This observation by Madison should make us all think about the longstanding relationship between the unbridled proclivities and consequences of self-interested humans on one hand, and the desire for a measure of order and civility on the other.

Let's suppose Brett teamed up with FreedomWorks and led a tea party and overthrew the government. He and Dick Armey then decided to institute Casey as Grand Poobah and Pale Rider as Minister of the Economy, and Pale Rider's first act was to abolish the entire tax structure and replaced it with a voluntary "gratis" offering. How much would I give? Hmmmm...probably nothing. But to hear all the idle prattling about giving, donating, freewill voluntary transaction and the such, it would seem that under this sort of system your freedom would unleash your compassion and your innate desire to give to humanity would overtake your present self-interest. I envision swarms of happy moths finally freed from your musty wallets, and tea parties would be suddenly transformed into charitable events for the purpose of giving to support and protect your newfound freedom.

Not really.

Posted by M. Schaeffer, 12/3/2009 5:54:45 PM

You might be surprised Schaeffer.

If those in need were allowed to ask me for my help, rather than have the government pick my pocket on their behalf, they might find me very generous indeed.

I would gladly pay my share for what I receive in government services and infrastructure. I would even pay a little bit more than I currently do if I felt the government would use the funds responsibly, and the government could be trusted to extricate us from our national debt. I realize that living in the greatest country on earth comes with a price tag.

But I do not believe that entitlements, and wealth redistribution are what makes this country great. They dilute our national identity, making slaves and thieves of us all.

For that reason, I pay my share and nothing more. I will fight every expansion of government, every grab for money or power. I will fight until people are free to live their lives free of government interference and commonsense is restored to governance.

Maybe my side will win. Maybe yours will. But I will never quit.

Posted by Casey Head (http://www.thewarning.us), 12/3/2009 6:09:55 PM

"Let's suppose Brett teamed up with FreedomWorks..."

Well, I am traveling to Galveston this Saturday to meet with them for a few days next week. That's for business... but you raise an intriguing idea, Ruby.

If you know anything of the beginning of this country, you would know that taxes were initially levied not according to donation (who in the world ever suggested that? You really must read my site more thoroughly more often...) but rather according to property. That seems quite fair. Have more property? You pay more taxes.

Ours, as I've said before, is not a system of property taxes, but of income taxes. And progressively, at that. How convenient to protect the wealth of the Rockefellers of the world, but punish the economic engines we lovingly call "small business owners." Yes, of course. That makes sense.

Oh, and Ruby - surely you don't suggest that the stimulus is the reason that I'm able to drive on the streets, right? I have no problem paying for streets. I do have a problem giving the money to bankrupting corporations. I have a small issue with that one... sad that you don't.

Posted by Brett Rogers (http://www.beatcanvas.com), 12/3/2009 6:14:11 PM

Rogers,

Rockefeller... Yes, I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the philanthropical works of John Rockefeller Jr. How interesting that his views and actions would be such a radical departure from the Social Darwinism of his father. Bill Gates is doing some great things in our era too.

However, I concede the point that these are exception rather than the rule and I share your intense disdain for the crooks on Wall Street who continue to operate with impunity as though it's business as usual. BTW--PBS has a good Frontline piece exposing Greenspan as the disciple of Any Rand whose radical laissez faire market stance provided the context for the calamity that presented us with two courses: 1) let the financial system collapse and result in a Great Depression of unimaginable depth and duration in which we grope our way through uncertainty in a wrecked global economy, or 2) take firm federal action and intervention in the form of the Troubled Assets Relief Program passed three days after Mccain (on the advice of his economic advisor Phil Graham) proclaimed that "the fundamentals of the economy are basically strong."

http://video.pbs.org/video/1302794657/

I don't buy the line that small business owners are being punished, as you say. Any business owner in this country--large or small--has far, far more tax loopholes, write-offs and shell-game opportunities than a private laborer in this country--and we all use them. This is as it should be (in exchange for business risk) and the system itself encourages us to use them. That's why we buy new tractors, build new sheds, and make other capital improvements on our farm. In this manner the tax code itself stimulates spending that otherwise might not occur, creating jobs, new small business opportunities, fueling the economy, local and otherwise, and enlarging the GNP. It is the case that small businesses are at a comparative disadvantage relative to their resources and ability to navigate the complex web of tax laws to serve their benefit.

As you know, the Constitution is a living document in which property has always been subject to protection. That document also gives your government and mine the right to raise and collect revenue, and the 16th Amendment specifically provides for an income tax. Could it possibly be that the revenue needs of the nation in the 1780s had changed by 1913?

Taxes are not inherently bad. The economy grows and our nation strengthens through the utility of tax. Our tax system is far from perfect, and I understand your passion on the issue; I myself have my own passionate causes and beliefs. However, instead of making spectacles of yourselves by screaming at cameras like a horde of crude and unprincipled savages, perhaps you might be taken more seriously and the changes you desire might be enacted in a more expedient and conciliatory context if you engaged the system in a dignified and civic manner. Your present approach is simply inviting and breeding resistance.

Finally, your last paragraph reveals a myopic conception of my view of the intention and impact of the stimulus. As is your usual tactic, you distort and deceive merely to serve the purpose of the shallow arguments you seek to advance among the few readers of this vacuous and self-serving blog. This is a tired tactic, Rogers, and it's become rather comedic. It's certainly your right to reject the macroeconomic concept of a rapid stimulus policy in response to a tightening financial sector coupled with deflation and rising unemployment. Whether you can conceptualize how it may or may not have any relationship to your driving on the street or what your individual role and stake as a taxpayer is in this is another issue. Don't confuse the two.

And yes--you certainly have "issues."

Posted by M. Schaeffer, 12/3/2009 8:23:27 PM

Self-righteous tea-bagging libertarians can sit there from afar and scoff and spin conspiracy theories and condemn the swift and decisive action that was taken by our government (OMG--"the feds!") to avert a global financial calamity. While you do so, please try to remember that this unprecedented action was considered the necessary of two evils due to the implosion of toxic assets in the form of unregulated OTC derivatives in a non-transparent, financial black market. Libertarians would also do well to remind themselves that the radical laissez faire financial marketplace in which this extreme and fraudulent risk taking occured is wholly consistent with your vision and ideology of a hands-off economy in which some vague notion of an invisible hand and a shallow hope in trickle down operates to sustain the everyday operations and interactions within the free market. Nice.

The economic equivalent of Libertarianism in the financial marketplace damned near led us all to the abyss as greed and fraud and graft and all the other worst human vices suddenly came home to roost. You can BLAME our government for choosing to act in the broader systemic interest when faced with two terrible options, or you can suck it up and be thankful we aren't in the depths of a Depression that would make the 1930s look like a circus.

Wake up and shape up people! Start having a little faith in your country and try to understand the hard decisions our elected officials of every strip are faced with in the wake of the worst damned economic situation we've faced since 1929 (on top of all the other challenges on our doorstep). There's no magic wand, but all your pissing and moaning about big government does nothing in the way of contributing to a solution.

Posted by A final thing..., 12/3/2009 9:09:34 PM

My career is in finance, so I know I'll offend someone by speaking from a perspective of actual knowledge, rather than opinion.

Anyone who regards the most recent financial crisis as a failure of the "free market" or "Laissez Faire" run amok might want to get informed. In 2008, when the market began to tank, there were more than 45,000 pages of SEC regulation governing the creation, distribution, and trade of securities. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, an industry regulation group, brings 19,000 pages of its own to the party. That's a grand total of around 64,000 pages of regulation which is only about 6,000 pages short of the U.S. tax code.

That doesn't exactly sound like a "free" market to me. I'd tend to think over regulation and safeguards prevented several smaller market corrections in place of one great big one was the problem. I would listen if you instead wanted to make the argument that there wasn't enough oversight, or that regulation was poorly/randomly enforced. That is at least plausible.

But sighting this recession as an example that free market principles lack viability simply doesn't hold water, because we haven't seen anything like a free market since pre 1929.

Posted by Casey Head (http://www.thewarning.us), 12/4/2009 9:25:32 AM

Ruby,

Having read through your latest comments, I could certainly spend time lampooning your positions about the Constitution, small business, taxes, regulation, and the government in general. The funniest line you had, for all of its easily proved ignorance, was this: "making spectacles of yourselves by screaming at cameras like a horde of crude and unprincipled savages." It'd be a lot easier to take you seriously and have a factual discussion if you weren't so... I dunno... ridiculous in your hyperbole.

The bottom line is this: everyone has the natural right of individual freedom. I never signed a social contract, and I'm absolutely ready to pay my share of necessary expenses. In my life, I donate far more than I speak of here on the web site, as do most conservatives. We're not showy about it. In fact, red states out-donate blue states by significant margins - not that facts would sway you...

For whatever reason, and sadly, you don't believe in freedom. You believe, bewilderingly, that there are these great smart people out there who know how to run my life and your life better than we do. I reject that premise utterly, and we'll obviously have to agree to disagree.

Posted by Brett Rogers (http://www.beatcanvas.com), 12/4/2009 10:24:40 AM

"As you know, the Constitution is a living document..." - M. Schaeffer

Actually, I don't know that. Unlike the lion's share of constitutional law professors, and the activist judges they educated, I know the founders intended the constitution to be a semi permanent document. They did not intend for us to read between the lines, or twist and reinterpret the words to suit each new generation.

How do I know that?

Specifically because they DID write the power to amend the Constitution into the document itself. I realize that as the nature of society changes, certain aspects of the constitution will need to change with it (13th, 15th, and 19th Amendments are really good examples of this).

If a matter is pressing enough to change our interpretation of the document that describes the very nature of our union, it deserves an amendment. If you can't pass an amendment or get it ratified, then that interpretation of the Constitution is invalid.

I don't think it's so much to ask that the judiciary and legislative branches actually obey the law in this regard.

Posted by Casey Head (http://www.thewarning.us), 12/4/2009 10:44:51 AM

Head,

Actually, you should know that.

Google it: "Living document"

The fact that you don't suggests that we need to place more emphasis on the teaching of Civics and US Government in this nation. We seem to have departed radically from such a course since the Reagan Administration issued "Nation at Risk" which has now relegated the social studies to hind teat, at best, within the curriculum.

Just to clarify, our plan of government includes a provision for AMENDMENT (see Atricle V), hence the concept of "living document" as articulated by virtually all constitutional scholars. Google it to find over a million hits. The founders, in their infinite wisdom, embedded the amendment mechanism precisely so this plan of government that they created might be adapted to suit the needs of governance of a future nation the course of which they could not predict.

Thus, contrary to the rigid conception underlying your assertion of "permanence," one of the fundamentally defining features of the U.S. Constitution lies precisely in its "living" nature.

I would expect that people who protest against our Government and scream "I want my country back" would "get" this basic fact about our Constitution.

As for your quibbling over loose or strict constructionism, that is another matter. First and foremost, although judges are supposed to be "above ideology," the existence of competing strict and loose judicial philosophies has always been the case. That's one of the reasons we have an appeals process built in to the system of justice. Furthermore, judicial interpretations relative to the broader societal construct of meanings and implications of law and justice are certainly subject to change over time. Society changes. Context changes. The times change. However, to follow the logic of your argument, African Americans would still be equivalent to 3/5 of a person, considered property. Social institutions by their nature are not static and fixed.

Your points collapse like a house of cards. This is one of the problems with rigid ideologies that close one's mind and deny the fact that change is an immutable law of social existence and, in that regard, the final word on anything is never in.

Posted by M. Schaeffer, 12/4/2009 2:30:10 PM

Actually, I can't see that you've refuted a single one of my points.

You've simply reiterated them with added pomposity to make them your own.

If you re-read my comments (again with your lack of reading comprehension) it is the fact that lawmakers place the emphasis of the living constitution concept in the judicial element rather than the amendment process that makes their concept of the constitution as a living document flawed.

That there are a million Google hits for the search terms, doesn't lend any credence to the notion that there are a million opinions to support your interpretation. They could as easily agree with me that the judicial interpretation concept is flawed. If you have made an exhaustive survey of them to verify that you're all just peas in a pod, I await you annotated excel spreadsheet, and anxiously await publication of your findings.

However, even if you had majority opinion on your side, it wouldn't make you right. The subject matter is subjective, therefore no objective conclusion can be reached. You might be able to build a consensus of a million people who agreed with your interpretation. But I could as easily provide you with a million people who interpret the politics of Barack Obama to be socialist. If I did, would that make you concede that he is?

No, It's subjective. While you might have a few more constitutional scholars on your side of the living constitution debate, I'd wager of have considerably more of the common man on mine. You know, the people?

Posted by Casey Head (http://www.thewarning.us), 12/4/2009 2:51:59 PM

Twist, distort, thread, and wallow and weasel all you wish within your rigid ideological coccoon, Head. Fact is, the concept of "living document" is well known, and I'm still surprised at your obstinance in acknowledging it and your inability to understanding that its complexity is not limited to the amendment process, but also resides in the judicial function. Why must you continue to argue against the premise that the Founders, in their infinite wisdom, designed it as such?

It is not a fixed and immutable stone tablet subject to a singular, universal interpretation that is above question. If you want to live in a country like that, go to Iran. If not, then conced that the judiciary has a role in interpreting the laws relative to constitutional meanings.

Certainly, meaning varies. Not even the meaning of the Ten Commandments is settled in all quarters--and they WERE written in stone (supposedly)! Heck, I just read that Schafly is rewriting the Bible to suit current conservative ideology, and I have no problem with that. Certainly, the long-standing debate on the 2nd Amendment phrase "well-regulated militia" in relation to individual rights versus state authority, as well as the expressed, reserved, and implied powers of federal, state and local government is a good example of how meanings are fluid and necessarily subject to interpetation. And no right is absolute. There is always a caveat, and chief among them is responsible exercise thereof.

And regarding the strict/loose constructionism issue, you are simply wrong. You can argue to the contrary all you wish, but there is a reason that the Founders provided for a Judicial Branch, i.e. to review law relative to the meaning of the Constitution.

While I work to craft my thesis on the concept of living document within the sociopolitical temporal context, I encourage you to work on your own epic. Since you apparently believe the final word on the meaning of everything in the Constitution is in, that every word means the same to every person everywhere, and there is no need for judicial review and/interpretation of meaning now or in the future, then I suggest you begin by calling for abolition the judicial system and hand down "Head's Declaration of Universal Meaning," for which I will anxiously await. Don't bother with the stone tablet though.

What is comical about this dialogue is that our debate rests upon our varied interpretations and meanings of a document that has been variously interpreted and its meanings applied differently across time. The fact that we are doing so inherently bolsters my position.

Posted by M. Schaeffer, 12/4/2009 4:35:39 PM

What I find comical about this debate is your ability to refer to the founders in their infinite wisdom, yet abandon at every turn the elegant common sense principles of individual rights they set forth, in favor of interpretation in "sociopolitical temporal context".

For those playing at home that's newspeak for "political expediency of the day".

Please do craft your masterful thesis, oh Schaeffer. Put down all of your ideas about how a man should deny his nature, his individual identity, and just join your selfless love fest. Call it "M. Schaeffer's Socialism: I really think it will work this time."

I mean, assuming you had the integrity/credibility (balls) to put the correct name to your philosophy for the public to see. Then shop it around to all of the publishers, and let me know how that works out for you.

If the new York Times Non-Fiction Bestseller list of the past few years is any indication, I could scribble out my own ideas and reiterate a few from the founders on the back of a wet bar napkin, and outsell you tenfold.

Posted by Casey Head (http://www.thewarning.us), 12/4/2009 6:10:20 PM

In the manner of your mental intrasigence--dare I say igonorance--your ego certainly knows no bounds! Alas, the clarion of absolutist thought calls the empty headed to do its bidding, and you rush to the front of the line and proceed to grovel at the temple of the Party of No. I can recommend a couple carpenters to widen your doors so your head, Mr. Head, might then be able to pass through.

What I find intriguing about your dogmatism is that you assume that the Founders possessed the monopoly on Truth, and that they had suddenly solved the perennial philosophical questions that have preoccupied humanity since the dawn of civilization, and particularly western civilization.

How preposterous that you should adhere to the the notioon that the Founders held and imposed your particular absolutist brand of a definition to the concepts of "liberty," "equality," "justice," "freedom," "rights" and all other seminal principles that underlie our system of government. How remarkable that by virtue of a series of a few heavy debates in Philadelphia and the penning of the living document that serves as our nation's evolving plan of government they answered all those questions clearly and without need for further question by any man or woman ever! Wise indeed!

You're absurd, sir.

And thanks for doing the nation a favor by penning your silly tripe on a napkin. Should it happen to outsell my well-reasoned tome it will have everything to do with the fact that it's cheaper than the leading brand of asswipe.

Posted by M. Schaeffer, 12/4/2009 8:40:23 PM

You do this:

(1) assume a mean-spirited and combative stance
(2) twist and distort the words and positions of opponents
(3) assume nonviolence and pacifism is equivalent to passivity
(4) attack intellect by all means up to and including prevarication
(5) attempt to inflict emotional assault through insult.

Hereafter I will assume the nom de plume below.

Posted by Mean Spirited Liberal, 12/4/2009 9:28:28 PM

I can see I'm late to the party here so I'm just going to toss in a few comments as I read.

Ruby says "And yes, as you proclaim we should also expect to keep some portion of the product our labors. However, it is NOT a right, and it is certainly not absolute and total in nature." It is NOT a right? Where in the constitution does it state the government has a right to take all of what an individual produces?

Another gem from Ruby "Self-righteous tea-bagging libertarians can sit there from afar and scoff and spin conspiracy theories and condemn the swift and decisive action that was taken by our government (OMG--"the feds!") to avert a global financial calamity."

First, it was government that created the financial mess in the first place. BOTH parties had their hand in it and it wasn't a failure of conservatism. Conservatism calls for fiscal responsibility which was tossed by the wayside in favor of politics.

Second, what global financial calamity was avoided? I say the governments actions have worsened conditions. Unemployment 2% higher than what the current administration claimed it would be without porkulus (actual unemployment runs 17%, U3 unemployment figures are bullshit). Another trillion added to the national debt. This is what happens when you elect an idealist who has no understanding of economics.

Third, when they lose an argument, libs come unhinged and start tossing around insults such as tea-bagging. I just picture the image of Keith Olbermann coming unhinged, laugh, and know the debate is over.

Posted by Pale Rider, 12/6/2009 10:35:58 AM

Now that I've finally gotten thru the entire thread, here is another beauty from Ruby "However, instead of making spectacles of yourselves by screaming at cameras like a horde of crude and unprincipled savages, perhaps you might be taken more seriously and the changes you desire might be enacted in a more expedient and conciliatory context if you engaged the system in a dignified and civic manner. Your present approach is simply inviting and breeding resistance."

You've gotten your groups mixed up here. Show me some footage of savages please. What I see over and over again at the tea parties are peaceful people standing up for what they believe. No unhinged lunatics like you see outside the Obama town hall meetings (eh hem SEIU thugs).

Shame on you Ruby. Instead of hurling insults take your own advice and write in a "dignified and civic manner." One suggestion, lay off the PBS and MSNBC.

Posted by Pale Rider, 12/6/2009 11:51:05 AM

Pale Rider is also Blind Rider. Clearly, you've been too attuned to the R-W media to actually see the raving lunatics coming unhinged at the rallies. Mainly lower-educated, confused, dispossessed, and quick to anger, these are the sorts of people who are being used as cannon fodder by the R-W machine. You wouldn't happen to be part ostrich, would you? Or is your head in another place? Wake up and open your eyes. You guys are screaming like a pack of idiotic fools.

On the other matter...okay, to hear you talk we should have all just buried out head in the sand or in our asses, done nothing, and let the financial markets collapse and try to battle out way through a deep dark depression while mired in two wars. Nice solution numbnuts. It was a lack of Fed oversight driven by an objectivist conservative market approach that led us to the brink. You can claim otherwise until you die, but the facts of history will not bend because of your passing. Again, wake up and open your eyes. Open your mind while you're at it.

What a sad, sick, and self-serving attempt at a revisionist argument. Go to bed.

Posted by Mean Spirited Liberal, 12/7/2009 11:38:26 PM

MSL, Let me reiterate:

45,000 pages of SEC regulations, 19,000 pages of FINRA regulations. The securities markets were quite well regulated.

You say it was a lack of oversight by the fed, but it's not the fed's job to oversee the mortgage and derivatives market, it sets monetary policy and the federal funds rate.

Try and lay blame at the feet of Greenspan and his supposed "objectivist" viewpoint, but even left wing economists (at least those who are more concerned with facts than politics) will tell you the fed didn't start this fire.

Two things started this crisis; the sub prime mortgage market, and the subsequent securitization of those mortgages.

The sub prime mortgage market was established after lenders were legally bullied into making loans to those who could not afford them by the Community Reinvestment Act. Proposed by Clinton, and passes by a Republican congress, the CRA mandated lenders write a certain number of mortgage loans in a given geographic area, regardless of whether borrowers were qualified.

Newly saddled with a large number of risky loans, the mortgage companies securitized those loans not because they were greedy (at first), but to distribute risk and protect their shareholders.

Both political parties INTERFERENCE with the markets is what started this crisis, you can scream "right wing" and "free market failure" until you blue in the face. It might make you tired, but it certainly won't make you right. Try educating yourself in market dynamics prior to regurgitating the fetid liberal talking points you've gulped down.

Posted by Casey Head (http://www.thewarning.us), 12/8/2009 9:53:18 AM

As you point out:

"Two things started this crisis; the sub prime mortgage market, and the subsequent securitization of those mortgages."

Exactly. The CRA (whether Democrat, Republican, or bipartisan in nature) operated with a free hand under Greenspan, and "securitization" (the bundling of risk in the form of OTC derivatives) encouraged the same sort of excessive and contagious speculation that led us to the brink in 1929.

Lesson: The modern market is not a friend of the American Dream, but policy-driven efforts to achieve broader socioeconomic equality and mobility in targeted geographical areas for preferred communities though greater financial access must be subject to regulatory oversight.

Don't lecture me HEAD. Lack of regulation in the context of a broader policy initiative is to blame here--and the ideological disposition of Alan Greenspan sealed the deal. History doesn't lie unless liars write it. Acknowledge the whole story, HEAD, not just the points convenient to your narrow world view.

The absence of REGULATION was the capstone of this crisis.

Posted by Mean Spirited Liberal, 12/11/2009 11:39:04 PM

I will not presume to lecture you again, because it's useless.

You're too invested in circular thinking to bring any discussion back around to
You talking points to actually learn anything from the instruction I would
provide.

Do forgive me however when I chime in with actual facts to refute your
partisan talking points, in case anyone who hasn't already drank the cool
aid stops by.

P.S. If the pressure of holding up the whole of left wing idealogy becomes
too great, I understand there's a very nice mental health center
not too far from where you live.

Posted by casey head (http://www.thewarning.com), 12/12/2009 4:38:54 PM