The Horror Is Getting To Matt Taibbi
Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi (if you haven't read his The Year of the Rat, do so, it's absolutely hilarious reading) sat down with Scholars & Rogues' Mike Sheehan on the state of politics:
S&R: Steve Rosenbaum wrote recently in The Huffington Post that Jon Stewart "isn't funny anymore," meaning that the joke of the Bush years is on us and Democrats can't and won't do jack to change things. Your recent RS piece ‘The War Party‘ blasted the GOP presidential candidates as "fourth-rate buffoons." Is this a good time for a major third party to formulate?
Taibbi: There's never been a better time. Both mainstream parties are looking likely to nominate deeply flawed candidates. If the race comes down to Hillary and Giuliani, the Green Party could nominate Big Bird and win 28% of the vote. And a third party is definitely needed, since the Democrats have become captives of the money wing of their party.
If Matt Taibbi does all the political writing for R.S. his article on the problems between the mainstream anti-Iraq War movement and groups like ANSWER is amazing.
Ralph Nader, where art thou?
Big bird doesn't sound half bad.
odanny @ 2:
Hopefully anywhere but messing up Florida and/or Ohio for the Democrats in 08.
We REALLY need a third party but not at the expense of living with the worse of 2 evils another 4, 8 or 12 years.
i am not for ralph nader, but it does appear that it's time
to just clean house completely of both the senate and the house.
we need true representatives of the "flesh and blood" citizens and
not the bastard corporate non-entity bastards.
Well, I don't know about Big Bird.
Kermit, maybe.
In my youth, I was frequently surprised by stupid, ignorant, misinformed people who advocated voting for a 3rd party. It has become so commonplace that I'm less shocked now.
For the minority who still possess functioning brains, come a bit closer so you don't miss this: "In your lifetime, it ain't gonna happen." Quite simply, if whatever 3rd party appeals to the Democrats, those who vote for it are effectively voting for the Republicans. If a 3rd party appeals more to the Republicans, those who vote for it are effectively throwing away their votes and voting for the Democrats.
While both of those groups may appeal to "the principle" of the thing, we will end up living with the winner of "the actual" number of votes (more or less) and not "the principle".
For those of you too simple, stupid, or ignorant to understand what I'm saying, even though you might prefer Steven Colbert for president (frankly, I would), he ain't gonna be elected, and whatever your second choice would be, if you vote for a 3rd party ...you will have aided, abetted, and effectively voted for "the other side."
In order for the pendulum to swing towards a third party win, it may have to pass the Republican marker on its way. Thats the inherent risk.
If Democrats continue to be feckless and accommodating, its worth the risk.
Too damn bad, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Might have to make the Democrats sweat and (GASP!) cost them their coveted White House.
TimothyD11 @ 4:
If we are serious about a third (and fourth and fifth) viable political option, we need ELECTORAL REFORM! We should all make that a priority.
Moreover, if we're serious about building a new party, we have to stop thinking about the presidency. We need to work from the bottom. Indeed, if we have a big movement that runs a third candidate in the presidential race, that third candidate will likely serve as a spoiler.
But perhaps it is indeed time to begin seizing upon the dissatisfaction with both parties right now, to run in local and state elections, and eventually work our way up. And one of our major platform planks must be electoral reform. Along the way, we could hope that some incumbents in the federal government might join us.
Anyone else in the San Francisco Bay Area? I do have a third party in mind to start into local politics here. Find my email here if you might like to meet up. ;)
The republicans fear John Ewards more than anyone. He is used to dealing with injustice by the corporations withhis experience as a trial lawyer. Vote for the one they fear most, John Edwards.
Wheres your story on Mike Gravel being censored from the debate tomorrow night by CHUCK TODD!!!??? After you posted a video about the important statements he made at the first debates. Todd just makes up a number off the top of his head and suddenly we're not allowed to listen to him speak?????? And this is a democracy?
I love Matt's work.... but this is why the democrats F - up everytime! Yes , Big Bird, 28% of the vote - Ha Ha! And a Guliani presidency !! Hillarious.
Democrats - How about lets STOP being idiots. How about lets STOP adopting the right-wing talking points and letting them getting away with the suggestion that Hilary Clinton is even CLOSE to being as "flawed" the ignorant xenophobic war-mongers on the right.
How about lets dedicate ourselves to WINNING, not making snarking punchlines about OUR OWN PEOPLE !!
Teddy Roosevelt, where art thou?
Greg @ 12:
Amen!
odanny @ 13:
Hee hee. His third party, the Progressive Party, didn't win the presidency either. :)
Everyone knows that fundamental change needs to happen. It needs to happen in economics, healthcare, education, foreign policy, the envrionment, yet no one is every suppossed to vote for candidates who will do just that. No, we're suppossed to vote for the same people, with the same tired ideas and continue to do as our parents have done to these problems: pass them on to the next generation, I guess until it can't be passed along further because the lack of needed change caused collapse. Horrible argument from people with no guts and no fight in them. The vote for the Democrats because otherwise you're voting for the Republican person basically says "I'm not gonna get off my ass and do anything, sacrifice or challenge anyone in power, I'll vote for the candidate who will only moderately screw me over and cross my fingers". Gets old. Bring up and issue, say universal healthcare with little to no input from big healthcare corporations. At what point does Clinton or the Republican candidate do what the country wants and what is needed? Never, so when does voting for the Democrats become something other than less bad?
Mr. Kucinich and Mr. Paul could progress to THEE THIRD PARTY! Now, wouldn't that be novel?
Left and Right or Right and Left united for.. name your cause.
The religious wing of the republican party is thinking about branching out and forming a third party. If they do this, then this year would be a perfect chance to try to elect our own third party. Since the religious nuts would be siphoning off a chunk of the republican base, the democrats could afford to lose a few voters to a third party without risking too much. I hope that the religious right forms a third party.
Only in America would voting for a third party candidate be considered an abomination. Someone once said, quite correctly, I believe, that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for an evil. As for those who still insist upon excoriating Nader for daring to run for president, perhaps they can point out how Nader was able to somehow mesmerize people to vote for him instead of Bush or Gore or Kerry. The last time that I checked my copy of the U.S. Constitution, there is no prohibition against third party candidates running for office in the United States. It is called freedom of choice, regarding those who are running for office and those who wish to vote for that particular candidate.
Ron @ 14:
Sorry, but if Hillary Rodham Clinton is one of YOUR OWN PEOPLE!, then you are a devout corporatist Republican. Just because a WalMart director now calls herself a progressive, it doesn't mean she is.
odanny @ 13:
Umm , I'd venture a 'guess' and assume he's still dead ..............
yo @ 16:
You're right. But this is a problem with the electoral system itself.
It's called Duverger's Law. When all districts are single-member, and all elections are winner-takes-all, the result is duopoly party government. People vote "tactically." They betray their true preferences in order to assure that the least of perceived evils loses.
There are a ton of other problems with our electoral system, all of which foster the problems we have today: big money in elections, non-responsive representatives, etc. We absolutely need to change our electoral system.
Unfortunately, for now, we do need to vote tactically. Because another Republican presidency is simply unthinkable. And we need to make sure that that evil ultimately loses. We have to.
As for when a vote for someone other than the Democrats can become something other than bad, well, let's start locally. Everyone is so sick of everything. Let's seize upon that sentiment in our cities and our states, and work our way up. Eventually, we can have a viable third party, and a new electoral system.
We have to start this now.
MCMetal @ 21:
Bull Moose in '08!
odanny @ 23:
As opposed to the Bull Shit of the last 7 years ..........
arnold l mckenzie @ 17:
I would wholeheartedly support that. I've advocated it for years. Progressives and Libertarians working together in a political alliance, and a political party that marks a synthesis of the two. (It's not as crazy as it sounds. ;) )
Again, please feel free to find my e-mail address. :)
Too late. Where is the infrastructure?
Just slapping together a clumsy run at the last minute is a bad idea, in my mind. Ross Perot set up a third party fairly well after his first good run... before it was sabotaged, of course. Whether you agree with his politics or not, I think he had the right idea as far as a third party.
My bet is still on Edwards. I'm sure he is human, with flaws, but he is BY FAR the only canditate with the balls to do something like this:
Edwards: 2-year Ban on New Drug Ads
Not to mention he is the only candidate to go with public funding instead of more corporate lobbyists. Does that mean anything to anyone? Apparently not.
I thought it refreshing... until I realized that NO ONE picks up that stuff. Do a count of your favorite news site and count the Obama, Hillary, and Edwards (the three are or were basically tied in Iowa). Yet Edwards articles are conspicuously absent or orders of magnitude less.
You want change? Fight the damn system from within. A third party is no solution right now, because WE FAILED (I include myself) to set it up and get it running in the "off-season".
Whoops. Meant to say the Perot had the right idea that the first time you run a viable third party candidate there is NO WAY you are going to win. The point is to get funding and access for the 2nd time.
We would need this to work on the first try this time, however. Unless the idea of Huckabee preaching gospel from the White House excites you...
Karen @ 25:
You're correct .........It's crazier than anyone would want.
I have many issues regarding Ron Paul ; and the fact that Tucker Carlson supports him also cements his uselessness ...............
#26-
Your statement that Edwards "... is the only candidate to go with public funding instead of more corporate lobbyists'' is in need of a correction because, if I am not mistaken, Kucinich is not beholden to the corporations for donations to his campaign.
Erroll @ 19:
Well, not necessarily. Only voting within our electoral system. Our single-member-district/office, winner-takes-all system. Most democracies in the world have abandoned it in favor of systems that make multiple parties viable.
In the UK, they still use our system (we inherited it from them, of course), and they still have a two-party system. Labour vs. Conservative. There is a third party, called the Liberal Democrats, but they are considerably smaller, even though they win some parliamentary seats every election. In various districts, however, the Liberal Democrats can spoil elections, however.
Sure, but you can't blame people for voting tactically to protect their own interests in an archaic and absurd electoral system.
Mesmerize? Nobody claims he did. He ran, got votes, and arguably, spoiled the Florida election for Gore. (It's arguable that he didn't. Many of Nader's voters would not have voted at all had he not been on the ticket. Not to mention that Gore would have won had the state not been rigged in the first place.)
Of course there isn't. In fact, there's nothing in the Constitution that mandates our single-member, winner-takes-all districting scheme. We could be rid of it simply with the political will to do so.
Agreed. In principle, at least. Join the effort for electoral reform, and we can make multiple parties a viable reality.
The whole thing is like watching a massive train crash in slow motion.
Just a shame the rest of the world is getting effected.
MCMetal @ 28:
I have plenty of issues with Ron Paul as well. I don't want him to be president. I'm not a Ron Paul supporter.
Nevertheless, I do think that progressives and libertarians ought to work together against authoritarians. Right now, adherents of both philosophies would rather work with authoritarians than each other, and we continue to suffer for it. It's why every friggen candidate for president but Kucinich and Gravel show up as authoritarian on the four-sector political compass.
By the way, when asked whom, among the current candidates he would think about supporting were he himself not on the ballot, Ron Paul said Dennis Kucinich.
If Hillary wins we'll all be able to live at work. "L.A. hows that list of tasks going? Busy busy busy! Don't forget tomorrows pet day. And the nap room is officially opening. Don't you look forward to working this Sat and Sun? I thought so. Home? We'll why would you need to do a silly thing like go home? Don't you want to be a super achiever?"
Karen @ 32:
Doesn't Ron Paul have the most consistent cancervative voting record ?
I believe he does , and ergo , doesn't merit one bit of consideration on any level.
Cancervatism is a genetic defect............
Taibbi: "...If the race comes down to Hillary and Giuliani, the Green Party could nominate Big Bird and win 28% of the vote..."
If Big Bird ran, he'd have more credibility than all of the other candidates and the idiots that are currently in the White House. Absolutely sad.
IMPEACH.
Erroll @ 29:
Admittedly I don't know much about Kucinich's campaign; it was not my intention to "get" him. I did enjoy his book however... very... imaginative! Not my choice for pres though. To listen to drunk at a BBQ? Absolutely! Interesting fellow.
Did Kucinich take public financing for sure?
"Ron Paul said Kucinich" because he cynically know that Kucinich versus fails. It was a joke. Just like when I say, "Gosh I sure hope Ron Paul runs independent" I don't have his best interests at heat. I just want him to split the Republican vote, Nader-style.
Count me among those who say we need to vote out the ones we have and start over. The Dems have proven to be ineffective, and the Repubs are just plain evil.
Get them out-Reid/Pelosi/Emmanuel....I feel they have played voters as fools.
patasalada @ 7:
In 2000 Gore had more "actual" votes from citizens. It was that pesky electoral college where he got 0 points for losing his home state that cost him.
We don't need a 3rd party, as you point out, people can already vote for a number of choices.
We need an election system other than "winner take all," that allows multiple views to be represented by multiple parties.
Instant Runoff Voting is a good start and can and should be implemented immediately.
http://fairvote.org/?page=19
L.A. Confidential @ 33:
Aren't you the same person that constantly defends Nancy Pelosi ?
Bet ya' Hillary hopes Ms Pelosi remains Speaker when she gets elected Prez so she can shit out of Air Force One before machine-gunning orphans flying over Utah and knowing that impeachment is still off-the-table .............
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 27:
Absolutely! Thats the plan.
Ron @ 10:
I heard on the Thom Hartman Program the other day that there are polls out that show Edwards hammering the Republicans worse than Hillary would if he were to be the Democratic candidate. Has anybody else heard something along those lines?
I think I am going to watch Brewster's Millions again and vote None Of The Above. What if a vote of no confidence in all of the candidates beat out all in contention? But I guess I am wishing...or hoping to be able to "throw away" my vote on Nader.
navyswan @ 18:
This would be a big mistake. Don't trust anything the religious nuts tell you. If anything this sounds like a Rovian tactic to get people feeling so disenfranchised that they do what you suggest. Then, on election day the religious nuts vote Republican as usual.
MCMetal @ 34:
This is the kind of "logic" and rhetoric I would prefer to avoid.
After everything I wrote, you respond simply with "Paul is conservative; conservative is bad; ergo Paul is bad, and worthy of no consideration."
Paul is a libertarian. There is a difference between libertarian and authoritarian, though both are arguably "conservative." I can appreciate the arguments of those who disavow libertarianism, but not the simplistic argument you make.
No, conservatism is not a genetic defect -- and I'm not even taking you literally. At the very least, we ought to understand and engage people with whom we disagree -- something Bush and his maladministration do not understand. I would hope people who post here know better.
odanny @ 40:
Perot's second presidential bid fared worse than his first. We can create a viable third party. We just shouldn't try for the presidency immediately. Unfortunately, we have made the presidency the end-all-be-all of American politics.
Let's think locally first when it comes to creating a third party.
TimothyD11 @ 41:
Interestingly this was very true all along until the word got out that Edwards was stronger against the Reps.
Now suddenly Guliani polls somewhat better against Edwards than he used to. I don't believe for a SECOND. Such "predictive" polls are useless especially now, in my opinion. If you must you can find some at RealClearPolitics.com
The American people (outside of that magical 20%) just want someone to stop compromising and lying to them! Or "triangulating" or whatever Hillary calls bullshitting us. Even more so after the frustration with Reid and Pelosi. I don't think the "versus" poll accurately captures that.
But all the papers talk about is their darling Obama, who might, perhaps, if not too constipated, could possibly and obliquely imply that just maybe Hillary is not quite perfect. Give me a break! That's just as bad. If you have to take polls to know what you think, you've lost me Obama. Edwards has been poking some serious holes in Hillary's hipocracy for some time now. Again crickets, except for a few Edwards articles on Huffington Post today, finally.
If Obama wanted to be clear about where he stands, he could have said something like this (I promise my last Edwards post in thread):
Well, at least you can't say he is pulling his punches or is "just like the rest of 'em". He's got my attention, and as far as I can tell he is leading on every single policy issue with more detail than the rest. Like this, for example.
The third party already exists, its comprised of those voters registered as independents, or anything else except Democratic or Republican.
To get those independents under the tent The Democrats will have to change the way they do business. (Which means no Republican Lite, no Military industrial congressional complex.)
They could still lose this, Ed Schultz talked about the alienation of hunters and other moderates, that due to their concerns about the MIC, lack of fair justice, monsanto, corporate monopolies, etc they should be allied with the Democrats, but due to the Democratic parties over vocal extremists, they say no.
What really should happen is the party needs to be taken over by these independents, these moderates of common sense.
Till then we are stuck with what these clowns are trying to feed us.
So whats worse, "Voting for a third candidate" or staying at home and not voting?
perhaps we should have a write in for none of the above??
This is the clash of for the future of civilization, folks. It is the forces of fear and xenophobia versus the forces of ....progress. I know its hard to see this in the democratic politicians - I hate them too. But I would contend that its NOT hard to see in the republicans. They want to NUKE people, for god sakes. Murder. The flailing about of a declining superpower. THAT is what we must unite against. Its no joke.
Our current crop of democrats, not just the candidates but across the board, they suck. I hate them. But these republicans and their delusional sicko worldviews MUST be defeated. They are OURS, meaning, they are fellow americans, however misguided, who are leading the entire WORLD in a terrifying direction. Its that they MUST BE STOPPED; its is not that the Demos have to win b/c they're so great.
And we demos,... we F around and vote for Barney or Nader or Big Bird,... and the Republicans win - and THAT result is what we must fight against.
Karen @ 45:
I am. I am collecting signatures to get the Green Party on the ballot and went door to door this past weekend.
Karen, obiously it's a winner take all system, we have no proportional representation of any kind. However, having said that, why haven't the American people done something about that? Other citizens, in far more dangerous environments (many times thanks to us) don't accept flawed systems. Union organizers in Colombia face the bullets and the US supplied right wing paramilitaries and continue to fight for workers' rights. Maybe this is how the people who started the SNCC felt. Corrupt, immoral, outdated system and no one is doing shit but perpetuating it. If the young civil rights workers in the early 60's listened to you "don't vote for Nader" people they wouldn't forced the issue and try to actually change what was wrong, they would have voted for someone who wasn't that interested in civil rights at the time (or was passingly for years like RFK) and simply hoped for the best. Maybe by now I would be able to share a counter at a dinner with my black friends.
duncanidho @ 47:
In terms of the spoiler effect, it really doesn't make any difference. Either way, you remove yourself from the election between the duopoly party candidates.
In terms of citizen participation, and sending messages to our leaders, staying home is worse. Far worse. At least voting for a third party registers a measurable opinion. Staying home makes them think they can run roughshod over you.
a NOTA choice is but one of the many reforms we can/should institute.
dadams @ 5:
==========
You SAID it! I totally agree, we should vote in an entirely new House and Senate comprised of REAL Americans.
odanny @ 49:
I applaud your efforts. :) Where?
Karen @ 44:
Has anything from the past 7 years taught you anything ?
Apparently not ..........How many of those 25 or so %'ers do you not understand ?
What is there left to "understand" about them ?
Their bathroom habits ?
Any cancervative has at least one issue that revolves around including some sort of religious nonsense ; for Paul , he wants too add a Constitutional amendment allowing voluntary and unofficial school prayer ; why ?
This is the same guy that claims to want less government involvement and interference ?
How and why could anyone that claims to be a "Constitutionlist" rationalize their insistence on being involved in a question of religion ; didn't Mr Paul ever hear of the "separation of Church and State" ?
He's also a typical GOP loser that absolutely does not want socialized health care ; how come he doesn't remove or renounce his own then ?
Why do those like yourself want or seem to enjoy making things more complicated than they are ?
This is not atom splitting nor working on a formula to surpass the speed of light .......
Karen @ 53:
www.ilgp.org
BTW Ron Paul is pro life/anti abortion ; any man that believes they should be consulted , let alone decide , every woman's prerogative , is insane and clueless........
yo @ 50:
First, most Americans are completely unaware that other kinds of electoral systems even exist. We need to educate people to make them aware that the problems we face are part and parcel of our system, and that most other democracies have abandoned our system.
Secondly, any major change in America faces a myriad of potential judicial challenges that it would not necessarily face in other countries. Various localities have used different electoral systems, and they are often challenged as unconstitutional. (They're not, but the argument brought up most often is that they violate the principle of "one-person-one-vote." None of them actually do violate it, but misinformation is often enough to kill a campaign for an alternative electoral system. Here in the Bay Area we instituted Instant Runoff Voting, and even some of our most educated, progressive talk show hosts were duped into thinking it violated one-person-one-vote. It was a difficult campaign, and even after we won, it's been difficult to get the system up and running, since so many who are supposed to enforce it don't understand it.)
Moreover, most voting reform efforts in the U.S. have always been within the context of racial discrimination. Noble efforts, but efforts that have complicated matters within American Jurisprudence.
You're right. It can all be very demoralizing.
What we need is a system simple enough on its face to work well with American political culture, and durable enough to fit American Constitutional and common law.
It can be done. We just need to educate people on how. ;)
MCMetal @ 54:
I will resist the temptation to be rude and rash back at you. I'm not the enemy here, and your demeanor towards me reflects poorly on you.
I understand them perfectly well. They're hopeless. They're also not relevant to the discussion about a third party or Ron Paul. Ron Paul's supporters are not those hopeless Bush supporters.
So do plenty of progressives. I'm all for getting religious nonsense out of politics, it is not the sole province of conservatives.
You'll have to ask him. I've already said I have plenty of problems with Ron Paul. I believe such an amendment would be unnecessary. No one should be prevented from praying in school. The First Amendment suffices for that.
How does allowing "voluntary and unofficial" prayer count as government interference. It sounds to me like an ill-advised attempt to protect the rights of those who would seek to pray, but are stopped from doing so. That doesn't sound like government interference. It sounds like a silly belief that people who wish to pray in school on their own, not as an official part of the school curriculum, are somehow oppressed. They're not.
Again, if what he wants is to protect the rights of students to pray while they're at school, he probably thinks he's protecting the separation of church and state.
Yes. This would be part and parcel of right-wing libertarianism. I know this. I disagree with it. But I'm willing to have intelligent conversations with people who disagree with me. I'm even willing to ally with them on our points of agreement.
I suppose that would be one way to take a principled stance. But then, no one person is single-handedly in charge of all of the rules of the game. For instance, many candidates would rather big corporate money not be a part of the elections game. Nevertheless, they accept it, because not to would put them at such a monetary disadvantage that they couldn't get elected, or even heard, in the first place. Are they hypocrites for accepting such donations? Perhaps. But I can't always blame them for playing the game under the rules as they are set up currently, in order to change them later.
If that's what you think I'm doing, you're sadly mistaken. I'm sorry if my refusal to call all conservatives losers or cancerous bothers you as too complicated.
No, but real reform will not be generated by people whose rhetoric reduces everything to us/them dichotomies, or who say that all conservatives are losers.
I'll continue to put ideas out there, even if they're too complicated for you. People can agree or disagree, and I'll be happy to debate.
Karen, you seem like an intelligent person, who obviously has a background in law somewhere. Your argument isn't about universal principles; it's about the particular nuances of American law. Venezuela, a country that sent more military men to the school of Americas than almost any other in Latin America, voted in an entirely NEW constitution with entirely new social rights in 1998 and have voted in national referendums to amend the constitution multiple times since then with another coming up regarding term limits. None of that existed at all before the 1998 creation of the new constitution and none of the social rights guaranteed in the constitution now and the participatory nature of the government existed before then. They were created by citizen participation, social groups, networking, organizing and education. Old, outdated ideas, like orthodox economics, can at times begin to do more harm than good. I would not be for doing away with a lot of common law (the Magna Carta was peachy) and many things within the US constitution are just as relevant now as when it was created. However, if the changes we're talking about are needed, are overdue and will have to happen at some point to avoid worse disasters in the future, the current legal environment will have to adapt, we shouldn't adapt to it. Whatever is logical should stay and everything should be on the table. It not now when?
Third Party? Let's ask the evangelicals. From what I read, they can't stand Bush, Cheney or any of the Republican candidates and want a third party themselves. If they start a third party, then we can have a fourth party and we'll draw off from both the Republicans and Democrats. It'll equal out and then we'll see if that mythical center really exists.
MCMetal @ 54:
I don't know about being a genetic defect (except for the case of the authoritarians), but conservatism is sure as hell defective thinking......it's the heralding of illogical thought (yes they accuse us of the same thing, but we have fancy names for theirs like strawman and circular reasoning) to advance goals that are not in the best interest of 99% of society as a whole, including most often it's supporters......and it has to be illogical (a form of deception) as if it were honest about the true agenda (permanent entrenchment of the aristocratic class) no one would support it against their own interest.
As I've said numerous times, Ron Paul is correct about the war, and to some degree about foreign policy (and he has my thanks for bitch slapping Rudy) .......but otherwise, he is FUCKING NUTS aka "Libertarian" (note the capital L.....I am all for freedom, but not the wacky party of no government)......let's think for a second.....we've seen what can happen with a slimy corrupt government (which despite their best efforts still has some good people acting to fulfill their righteous function......EPA, FDA, Justice Department...)........what do you think would happen if there was NO government around to protect the have-nots from the haves......are we to believe that the corporations will suddenly spontaneously start acting in the good of humanity.....recent history indicates otherwise. Oh yea, right, "The Market" will take care of everything......take it from someone who know a hell of a lot about how markets work......in the absence of regulation, the powerful will do everything possible to AVOID the competition (example...crony capitalism, or monopoly capitalism) that will supposedly keep them on the straight and narrow.
V V
Ron @ 14:
AMEN!
Taibbi has some really great lines in the interview
yo @ 59:
Why thankya. ;)
Yep. :) I do criminal defense, but have written about voting rights and Constitutional law.
I don't disagree with that, actually. All I really meant to convey was that we have a very unique system of government here, not to mention a population that tends to balk at major change.
I suppose I should also have said that we need an electoral system itself that can help advance American voting rights law, rather than one prone to being overturned by the courts.
Are you interested in such subjects, yo? I'd be happy to pass along some writings of mine. I mention a lot -- perhaps annoyingly so to some ;) -- that I've written on this subject, and am happy to pass along my writings on the system I've devised. Every once in a while, someone takes me up on it. :)
Vitam Vas @ 61:
Indeed, capital-L Libertarianism would lead to the very kind of tyranny they seek to prevent. I do not believe that government marks the only threat to individual liberty. I believe that lack of government can be a threat to individual liberty.
In the Declaration of Independence, it says that "governments are instituted . . . in order to secure" our rights and liberties! In the modern world, this cannot be limited merely to protecting us against violence. We must recognize that government programs play a role in ensuring that each of us has an equal opportunity to pursue our own happiness. Under an orthodox Libertarian government, the vast lot of us would be reduced to pursuing our bare survival.
At the same time, we need foundational principles to determine when economic or social programs are counterproductive or wasteful. And what was once thought of as "conservative," such as balanced budgets, spending only on what's genuinely needed, is not defective thinking.
I would love to have a new party that recognizes the principles of our Declaration of Independence:
1. All people are equal.
2. All people are endowed with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
3. Governments have a responsibility to secure those rights for all people equally. In fact, that's the only reason for governments to exist at all.
4. Governments derive their power from the consent of the governed.
Such a party would concentrate on equal freedom for all, and synthesize progressive and libertarian (small l) thought. ;)
Funny this! Very much along the lines of my thoughts way back in 2000 with Al Gore. Why not vote Nader as a protest, third party candidate vote considering the lameness of Vice Prez Gore while also knowing my state would go to Gore. Well that was a terrible idea. Bush won and the damage since has been incalculable. No, my vote did not count towards Bush's victory in Florida, but I still felt like I used my vote irresponsibly.
2008 will have to be a hold your nose and vote the Dem nominee. She may be bad, but I, maybe naively, believe she won't touch this administration for corrupt and inept leadership. Think hard before voting a third party candidate, then don't do it!
Taibbi is great!
I had the pleasure of meeting Matt (be still my heart) last year while he was working on a piece about the Jean Schmidt/Victoria Wulsin race in the 2nd. It was hilarious as well and right on the mark. Can we just clone him and have him work for all the major newspapers and magazines, pleeeaaase? He is a great political reporter and I give him credit for being able to keep reporting on the hell our government and political system have become.
Adding a Constitutional Amendment that is the brainchild of a Congressman doesn't sound like government involvement to you ?
Very intuitive .........
School is for learning , not praying ; that's why there's Catholic schools.
Do they allow prayer at work ? Gimme' a break with that nonsense.........
Paul , as a self-styled "Constitutionlist" , should be leading the charge to have the Chimpy administration arrested and brought up on charges of disregarding their 1st oath ; defending and adhering to that which is written in our Constitution ........
Not worried about this type of nonsensical crap.
Hardly ........You are no Madame Curie ; and I didn't claim they were "losers" .
That whole ideology is archaic and selfish ; that you cannot seem to grasp that the basis of cancervatism is so narrow-minded , speaks volumes of how bright you actually are , as opposed to how clever you view or belief yourself to be.
What , do you foolishly believe that talk of "working together" is somehow productive ?
How well has that worked for Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the spineless Dems , and worked out for America and Americans ?
By being anti-abortion , Ron Paul is part of that "us/them" crowd.
GOP backers , almost down to the very last soul , always vote 1 way on that singular issue and absolutely refuse to budge on that.
Is that okay with you ?
Work/comprise together on every issue , except you have absolutely NO SAY on that one ; would you or anyone with a functioning brain stem ever agree to that ?
BTW There is a tremendous difference between truly complicated , and making things that way ; you are the latter , even if you want to insist otherwise.
There is nothing you have written that is beyond the scope of the imbecile currently occupying the Oval Office ; never mind someone like myself.
Ease up on your patting yourself on your back , because you aren't worth debating ..............
It is when it's a Cancervative ; because look at what they deem as being "genuinely needed" ......
Do you somehow find that no bid contracts or "Star Wars" programs as being necessities , while welfare or public funding in schools to retain their arts and music programs are deemed worthless ?
Karen @ 65:
I never really bought that "fiscal responsibility" line from conservatives - partly because I've never even seen one in power actually act that way, and partly because I think fiscal responsibility is just a corollary to their 11th Commandment: "Thou shall not tax the wealthy."
But mostly, I don't believe Conservatism is even an actual ideology. As Galbraith said:
If Ron Paul was honest, he wouldn't be running under a Republican banner. It seem duplicitous to me.
But worse, worshipping Libertarianism makes no more sense than blindly worshipping Authoritarianism. Talk about unrealistic idealists. Libertarians want ALL land, ALL dams and public works to ONLY be privately held. You think you have a problem with corporate corruption now... (that's an official plank of their platform, btw -- just one of many such staggeringly silly ideas).
I was thought that might make sense when I was 12, but in the real world, an armed society is NOT necessarily a polite society, some taxes will ALWAYS be necessary, and establishing some agencies of the government for the common good are a prerequisite for freedom.
There are many, many flaws with this in reality, not that worshippers of Ayn Rand will admit. Government may exist only to protect its citizens against aggression, but defining "aggression" can be very tricky. The long term interest of protection still dictates most structures of government we have today anyway. Though I admit, when the world was a MUCH larger place (with less of us in it), and there was always a new frontier, this looked like it might not be so silly.
But anyone awake with eyes open today, should admit the realities of what they see. Demanding the shut down the Department of Education tells me Ron Paul still has his head in the sand. America doesn't need to serve as an experimental rat for any more petty political theories from rich folks; if you can't tell, we are pretty damn tired of that.
Almost forgot, calling him a "constitutionalist" means nothing. All Americans are "constitutionalists". I think he has become afraid of the Libertarian label (out of vogue, Ron?).
odanny @ 8:
Been there, done that in 2000. How did that work out for ya?
Tshober @ 72:
I spend a fair amount of time reading through conservative blogs (usually because I am trying to figure out what the hell could possibly be going through the heads of these people) but what I find amusing is that their distaste for Ron Paul is as great or even greater than MCMetal's. I have to say I am a little more confused by it here and it makes me wonder if some don't understand what libertarianism is.
First off, believe it or not, there is a bit of a political spectrum when it comes to libertarian thought.
the more left leaning libertarians actually believe in some forms of redistributing income, with an argument based on equality, or the idea that we should all have a fair share of resources in order to insure liberty (see “Left-Libertarianism: A Primer edited by Peter Vallentyne)
the more right leaning conservatives would be against this on the grounds that it interferes with property rights. They tend to be for the separation of church and state. Strongly support the second amendment and usually favor limited government in all phases of life (meaning they too are scared shitless of George Bush listening to their phone calls).
The common ground between these two are the ideal of liberty above all else. Both strongly oppose any goverment infringement upon civil liberties and both very very strongly favor free speech and are against censorship in any form.
The ideas of libertarians are based on the ideas of Hobbes and John Locke, who wrote we are all entitled to 'life liberty or estate" (Thomas Jefferson borrowed this phrase with one minor tweak). Jefferson himself would be considered a libertarian and is someone libertarians often reference.
I bring all this up because one I have a a very strong libertarian streak, and two because most differences between conservatives and progressives lie in the economic realm (at least with the right leaning conservatives).
Where there is common ground is that libertarians do not believe in spying on their people, they do not believe in torture, they do not believe in suspension of Habeus corpus, they do not believe in starting wars of aggression, they do not believe in telling people who they can marry, they do not believe in putting people in prison for victim less crimes like smoking pot, they do not believe arresting people who carry peace signs to presidential rallies (or war signs for that matter) They let people live their lives as they chose.
there is a lot of common ground on some very important issues. I too have some problems with Ron Paul but he is one of the very few candidates (because of his belief in limited government) who would role back ALL the abuses of power from the Cheney Bush regime.
I understand that many here disagree with libertarians on issues like national healthcare and other social programs, but seriously, the biggest threat to us right now is the gigantic expansion of executive power under this administration, and I wouldn't turn on anyone who will fight that.
Oh, this is gonna be fun. :)
To MCMetal @ 68,
I wrote:
You responded:
Hee hee. Ok, let's forget about your add use of the word "intuitive." Your argument is that any time a Congressman proposes a Constitutional amendment it marks "government involvement" that threatens the separation of church and state? I mean, yeah, it's government "involvement" when a member of the government gets, ahem, involved with something. But you were arguing that Paul's amendment threatened the separation of church and state.
You don't really think you're coming off as the smarter one here, do you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You wrote:
So, let me ask you (yeah, yeah, I know, I'm not worth debating, but humor my poor, uneducated soul): A religious student quietly prays to himself before taking a test in a public school class, as he is taught is proper by his family. Although he disturbs no one, his teacher tells him to cut it out. She tells him, "School is for learning, not praying. If you want to pray, you'll have to go to a private, religious school."
The child's parents then bring First Amendment lawsuit against the school. They claim that their child's freedom of religion was unconstitutionally abridged by a public school teacher, and demand that he be allowed to pray quietly before a test, provided he does not disrupt the class or others trying to take the test.
You're the judge. How do you rule?
Careful, now. If you say, "Well, of course he has the right to pray quietly to himself," then you actually agree with what I was saying about Paul's amendment. Good in principle, but unnecessary because of the First Amendment.
However, if you say, "Sorry, but school is for learning, not praying, and he does not have that right," well, Paul's amendment just might be needed after all, and you'll have frightened a lot of progressives here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You wrote:
I agree with you on this. And, frankly, I disagree with Paul's understanding and interpretation of the Constitution. Moreover, I don't see anyone in the presidential field leading the charge to have the Bush Administration held accountable for its actions except Dennis Kucinich.
As for "Not worried about this type of nonsensical crap," are you saying that you're not concerned with my nonsense or that Paul's not concerned with the Constitution?
Just asking, you know. I hate to be such a stickler for decipherable grammar.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wrote:
You responded:
Funny. 'Cuz at Comment 54, you wrote that Paul was a "typical GOP loser."
I'm sorry. Was I technically misreading you? Is it the GOP, not conservatives, that are losers?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You wrote:
Let me guess ---- you're applying to be a diplomat with the Bush Administration. Was I right?
Oh, my dear MCMetal. I'm sorry if my intellect threatens you. Kisses!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You wrote:
Are you saying that, as a general principle, "working together" (oh, the horror), is unproductive? Come on, admit it. You are auditioning for a spot in the Bush Administration.
I've been outspoken here about how the Democrats in Congress capitulate far too often to the Republicans. I want them to fight more, and "work together" less.
Somehow, however, you have mistaken my call for progressives and libertarians to work together against authoritarians for a call for Democrats to work with a petulant bunch of authoritarian Republicans. And I do think we can work together with someone like Ron Paul on many things.
That is, unless you insist on an us vs. them world, without nuance.......
[Wait for it folks.....here goes.......]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You wrote:
Wow. Of course, you do have a rationale....
You know the GOP backers down to the very last soul?!?!
There are plenty of pro-choice libertarians with whom progressives can work quite well.
And I realize that you simply right off anyone who is pro-choice as "insane and clueless," but I can actually respect opinions with which I disagree.
Now, before you tell me what you think I believe about certain pro-life stances, why don't you ask me calmly what I actually believe about certain pro-life stances.
Or am I just stupid, clueless and insane for not seeing the world your way?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You wrote:
Someone like yourself, huh? Petulant? Angry with someone who dares to disagree? Who are you anyway? Do tell me your impressive resume of accomplishments in politics. Please enrich my poor brain that needlessly complicates simple things like philosophy of government. ;)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You wrote:
Naturally. That explains why you, ahem, debated me at length. And not only in that post, but in a subsequent one as well.
You're too funny, MCMetal.
Smooches!
heeheehee
I have 2 major problems with Paul ; his being an "unshakable foe of abortion" (his words) , and his insane insistence and persistence in never voting for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.
That is mind-boggling ........As brilliant as our Founding Fathers were , is Paul under the illusion that life hasn't changed in 200+ years ?
fiver @ 70:
If you mean that Republicans who tout fiscal conservatism have never actually behaved in a fiscally conservative manner, I pretty much agree. Republicans are not, in generally, fiscally conservative. They are more fiscally irresponsible than any Democrat they deride.
However, when Howard Dean was the governor of Vermont, he very much stuck to those principles (without that "Thou shall not tax the wealthy" part :) ), and he was constantly lambasted by Vermont Democrats for being too "conservative."
Of course, it was Dean's fiscal responsibility that enabled Vermont to reach near universal health care and fund a program to help new parents raise their children (if they needed help), which has subsequently lowered the crime rate.
In context, my remarks were designed to point out that merely because someone has a different approach to government than we do does not make him clueless or insane, and that we ought to be learning from people with whom we disagree. Just a basic rule of life: If you're dumb, surround yourself with smart people. If you're smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you.
:) Heh, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" mean everything and nothing these days.
MCMetal @ 77:
I agree with you on the first problem.
As for the second, I can't agree. While I might be more inclined to find the authority for certain government actions than Paul, ensuring that the government actually has the Constitutional authority to do something is ESSENTIAL TO PROTECTING ALL OF US.
It has nothing to do with whether conditions have changed, and no, of course Paul does not believe that life hasn't changed in the two centuries since our Constitution's adoption.
There are two basic ways to interpret the Constitution. You can allow the government to do anything it wants unless it is textually forbidden; or you can disallow the government from doing anything unless it is textually authorized.
Right now, we live under the former paradigm. And it's killing us. It's why crazy conservatives and the religious right argue that we don't have any rights unless they're listed. The government can ban your sex toys as long as your right to them isn't listed in the Constitution.
Better to force the government to justify its actions as consistent with the Constitution.
This is why you're not worth debating.......
Where did I claim that someone that is "pro-choice"
is "insane and clueless" ?
What does that have to do with Cancervatives ?
I wrote "Cancervative" , not "Libertarian" ; and more specifically , Ron Paul's stance on being anti-abortion ..........
If you want to peruse through each individual's psyche to find common ground , you have way too much free time on your hands.
BTW
Ms Frightening Intellect
It's "write-off" , not "right off" , Ms Marilyn vos Savant
*Smooches*
Karen @ 79:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Erroll @ 19:
True enough. There is also no prohibition against voting against your own interests or not voting at all. Effectively, they are the same thing, in my opinion. Just because something is not prohibited, does not mean it is always a good idea.
If you really believe that the Dem nominee will be no better than Bush, then you live in a reality that has nothing at all in common with the one that I inhabit. I know there are people (about 24% of the USA) that believe Bush is a good President. I sometimes wonder how these people's reality could be so different from my own? I read and listen to their arguments and spin but I just can't understand how they can see the world that way. To me the differences between even the worst Dem candidate and the best Repub candidate are so clear and so stark and so numerous that I assume they are obvious to everyone. And yet some people say they see almost no difference at all. How can people's perceptions of the same reality be so utterly different? People amaze me sometimes.
Karen @ 79:
I'm talking about Ron Paul , not Chimpy's horseshit administration .......
And as far as Paul , he can't even remove his head from his ass long enough to realize that some sort of gun control is not only necessary , but absolutely vital . (Him being such a strong proponent of gun ownership rights and the darling of the NRA)
I am not a 2nd Amendment opponent ; I have never in my life encountered anyone though that can give me a valid and justifiable reason why anyone needs a fully stocked armory and/or an automatic machine gun ............
In addition to my last post #83
That goes along with my statement about our Founding Fathers .......
Do you think they envisioned weapons of such mass force and power being hand-held ?
Shit , they didn't even have hand-held weapons that fired more than a solitary shot back then , which were about as accurate as the predictions made by the neo-cons these last 7 years or so.
MCMetal @ 80:
Ok, try to follow me here. When I, in comment 75, wrote that you called anyone who was pro-choice insane and clueless, I linked to the comment where you said that. See the words "comment 75" are in blue in the previous sentence? You can click on them. It will take you back to comment 75. That's how I documented your words. I made my words blue, so that you could click on them.
You wrote:
And you wrote that here. Click these words, and it'll take you back.
Yes, your portmanteau of cancer and conservative is pure genius.
And what does calling you out on your comments about pro-lifers being insane and clueless have to do with "cancervatives?" It demonstrates how you simply demonize those who disagree with you.
Psyche? No. Each politician's politics. His/her stances on issues and philosophy of government.
Do you think that members of Congress don't do that on a daily basis? Do you think they're not reaching across the aisle to find common ground with some "strange bedfellows?" Really?
Ack! You got me! What ever shall I do? I'm a savant now. :)
Don't get me started on your non-standard use of commas and quotation marks.
And by the way, when using it as a verb, there's no hyphen between "write" and "off."
Hey! No fair! That's my word! You can't steal it!
MCMetal @ 83:
But you disagreed with him on a general principle that has implications for the current administration. Or do you not understand that?
What? The principles I espoused would be ok if used against Bush, but not if advocated by Paul? You're so silly.
I'll bet you've never really studied the Second Amendment at all. Tell me, what's a state militia, and what does it mean within the context of the rest of the Constitution? Are state militias ever referred to in the Constitution elsewhere?
MCMetal @ 84:
No, they did not envision that. Duh.
Um, do you realize that Bush has made a similar argument about the Fourth Amendment? (The Founders could not have envisioned the situation we're in today with terrorists. We need to get around the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The world has changed, and the Constitution is in the way of protecting Americans.) (That was Bush's argument. Not mine. I say this so that you won't quote me later as though I had said it.)
MCMetal, I've written extensively about Constitutional interpretation. I've written all sorts of stuff about unenumerated rights, textualism, originalism, living Constitutionalism. I'd go into it with you, but you'd probably tell me that I was needlessly complicating that which you understand is so simple.
Karen , why are you attempting to conflate my remarks on cancervatives/anti-abortionists with "pro-choice" individuals ?
Ron Paul IS NOT PRO-CHOICE ; nor did I ever make any remark about pro-choice individuals at all ..........
Here's what I wrote :
I made absolutely no remark about the pro-choice crowd ........
BTW
I didn't use "write-off" as a verb ; you tried to (unsuccessfully).
I can use the hyphen ........
fiver @ 81:
Yes! The Ninth Amendment! The forgotten and omitted amendment! I've written extensively on it as well!
MCMetal @ 88:
You seriously think that saying that any man who believes he (and grammatically it should be "he," not "they") should be consulted about about a woman's right to choose says nothing about the pro-life movement?
You're too stupid to talk to.
Bye bye. I'm done.
MCMetal @ 68:
Frankly we'll have to wait until the unraveling crisis reaches catastrophic proportions before real reforms are instituted. There is only one party (CorpRepubliCrats) with two divisions.
The days of representative government appears to be over, as most seem to be prattlling on endlessly about "strong leaders." I don't seem to remember anything in the Constitution that stresses leadership, but much about representation's necessity to thwart tyranny.
2012 will be the "52-card pick-up" election. I can't say I'm sanguine about the prospects of any non-authoritarian winning.
Karen , Ron Paul wants to basically eliminate the US Government totally ; you're trying to pick and choose specifics uttered by him like Chimpy and Co tried to use the "intelligence" supposedly gathered on Saddam/Iraq.
Just because he might have a valid point or 2 on certain things does not make him right or correct.
BTW
Shrub's ridiculous argument over the 4th Amerndment has 1 'tiny' caveat .......
He stands to personally gain from it ; and he has proven unworthy of anything , much less an unlimited expanse of power.
That's also a conflict of interest ; his job and oath are to defend the Constitution.
Not to determine its meaning .........................(not that he's capable of that anyway)
Karen,
While the 9th Amendment protects us from buffoons who love to argue that "we don't have any rights unless they are listed," it does nothing to protect us from corporations who argue that federal pollution laws are ultra vires because they aren't enumerated powers. We need the commerce clause for that.
And remember, while we can legislate against piracy under the Constitution, there is no mention of hijacking.
Professor Tribe would be proud. :)
Karen @ 90:
I was talking about the pro-life/anti-abortion crowd , you long-winded , arrogant twit.
You wrote "pro-choice" 1st , and now have reverted to prattling on about "pro-life" ?
You can't even differentiate between the word "choice" and the word "life" and are attempting to question someone elses intellect ?
Good call , Cher (from 'Clueless')
You're an imbecile.
Hey Karen , one last thing ...........
Ya' know what "choice" a woman has when it comes to the PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT ?
ONE ..........The "choice" of having the child.
Keep bragging about your understanding of the Constitution , the papers you have written , blah blah fucking blah ; you don't have the sense that God gave the common dog......
Tatonka @ 97,
I call B.S. I have no substantive reason to call B.S., but I simply could not resist. Great handle :)
fiver @ 20:
Oh yeah. Its just like that. Sad. This is why we lose.
MCMetal @ 95:
Hee hee. Yeah, I went back and see where I made the mistake. It was pro-LIFE people you called insane and clueless. Not pro-choice. That was my mistake. Sorry.
But the point was that you can't respect people with different opinions.
Anyway, just letting C&L-ers know I caught my own error. :)
But who is this MCMetal person? Do they come more dumb?
fiver @ 94:
I loathe the overuse of the commerce clause to derive such powers. It makes no sense to me. Merely outlawing pollution is not regulating interstate commerce, and the manner in which the Court has labeled almost anything interstate commerce indeed grants way too much power to the federal government. True, the Ninth itself doesn't give any powers to the federal government, but resorting to the commerce clause (though that's exactly the right answer in a Constitutional law class) is a pernicious move in my opinion.
Heh, I'm not sure Prof. Tribe would like me. I'm a textualist, and was never really welcome in either Federalist Society or Constitution Society circles. :)
MCMetal @ 96:
Heh, I'm awake and bored. So, MCMetal, on the off-chance that you're still out there, I'll be happy to have a real debate with you on the Constitution.
I'm pro-choice. Yeah, I wrote the word "choice" when I should have written "life" in one of my posts. My bad. (Cher from Clueless.) But I actually tried to engage you calmly and nicely at first. You decided to start the insults.
But since you have called into question my understanding of the Constitution, let's do it. Let's have a real debate somewhere. I'll invite everyone from C&L to watch online.
Will you? Please? :)
Karen @ 99:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Yeah , you caught your own mistake after it was pointed out to you by some "dumb person" ........LOL
Get a grip and a clue ; I don't respect anyone who doesn't have the slightest inkling on what the hell they're talking about , not someone whose opinion differs from mine.
And you're still questioning my intelligence ?
Whatsa' matter , they don't make mirrors in your part of the country , Cher ?
You're a mental furball.........
Karen @ 101:
It wasn't just one of your posts ; it was at least 3 .
You can't even be honest about where and how many times you erred .
True , I started with the insults 1st but you kept running with them ; even while you were just talking (writing?) out your own ass......
And now it appears that reading and comprehension is simply not one of your strong suits (as if you possess any to begin with) ; who questioned your understanding of the Constitution ?
Three words for you , girly ; Hooked On Phonics..........Learn it. Use it. Love it.
MCMetal @ 103:
No, no. I can be honest about it. I hadn't realized that I screwed up that first time. So I kept on typing, not realizing what I'd done. And yeah, it does look like I was using those words interchangeably several times.
As for your questioning my understanding of the Constitution, yes, I took the following to be just that:
Am I to understand that as acknowledgement of my understanding of the Constitution? You only meant to impugn my intelligence in general?
Hey, yeah. You got me. I was using the words "choice" and "life" interchangeably. It was dumb.
But, yes. I still question your intelligence. Or your integrity.
Did you really not know I had simply slipped and typed "choice" when I was demonstrating your disrespect for people who hold opinions with which you disagree? Really?
And with everything that I said, every argument that I made, you simply ignored all of my arguments, and instead seized upon my slip-ups of typing "right off" and typing the term "choice" when I had meant to type "life."
So, now that I have admitted that I was stupidly interchanging "choice" and "life," my point remains. It appears that when someone disagrees with you, you hurl insults about her intellect or sanity.
I defy you simply to go through the challenges I made to your points, and answer them without simply insulting me. Particularly my challenges in comment 75. Don't just seize upon a stupid mistake I made. Answer my arguments.
And I do still dare you to debate me on the Constitution. I'll happily debate you, calmly, and without insults.
Don't simply insult me. Don't just say I'm not worth debating.
Excuse me
Point out in how many of your own posts you didn't question my word usage , use of punctuation , or any other type of minute "slip-up" ................
None.
And you kept prattling on in the same incoherent manner , in post after post , as far as the pro-life/pro-choice discussion that continued.
Then you try and turn around and claim you caught your own error ?
And that it was basically an isolated incident or occurrence ?
Then claim my integrity is somehow questionable ?
Who made you arbiter ? Especially after seeing your own less than honest admission ?
Why would I consider debating someone like yourself who has no credibility ?
Or even consider responding to the rest of your insipid piss that resembles the long version of War and Peace , without any of the literary content or intelligence found inside of it or what it took to create it ?
I find your pseudo-intellectualism , haughty and arrogant behavior (and delusional belief in your non-existent superior intellect) , quite tedious and pretty worthless........
That summation sufficient enough for you , Cher ?
MCMetal,
Let me try to show you something. I want to try to demonstrate how you derail and degenerate a potential debate by not paying attention to your opponent's arguments, and by resorting to mean-spirited language or insults unnecessarily. Please understand, I'm not trying to insult you in this post. I just want to point something out.
You had previously written that Ron Paul appeared not to be "under the illusion that life hasn’t changed in 200+ years." It was your conclusion to a post that lambasted Paul for "his insane insistence and persistence in never voting for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."
I responded calmly, and without insulting you. I simply responded to your assertion that Paul's approach to federal powers under the Constitution was "insane." I argued that his approach was not insane -- that as a general matter, it was good to approach governmental power by insisting that the government be able to cite the textual authority for each of its actions. I argued that such an approach was far better than the one under which we currently operate, the approach that deems powers to exist unless forbidden, and rights not to exist unless enumerated.
You responded thusly:
Here, the debate begins to derail. I had not mentioned the Bush Administration in my response to you. I had answered you directly. I said that I agreed with Paul's approach to federal powers. However, rather than continuing the argument about Paul's approach, you implied that I was somehow inappropriately deflecting the conversation over to the Bush Administration. And you did so in a manner that was unnecessarily antagonistic and mean-spirited.
You continued:
At this point, you're refocusing the argument on the specifics of gun control, rather than a general approach to federal powers. Even though your original argument about Ron Paul was that his approach to federal powers was "insane."
You added:
At best, your argument is that because the authors of the Second Amendment could not foresee the kinds of weapons technology the amendment would be invoked to protect, it should not be interpreted to protect today's hand-held weapons of mass power.
There are so many serious implications to that argument. I pointed out but one of the flaws I saw in it by noting that Bush argues something similar in regard to the Fourth Amendment: that the Founders could not have foreseen the kinds of threats we face today with terrorism, and thus that we must now abandon the warrant requirement for wiretapping and other searches and seizures.
My point was that the Founders' inability to foresee some of the ways in which the Constitution would be used in the future is not, on its own, sufficient reason to abandon or otherwise interpret Constitutional text in a manner consistent with one's politics.
But here's how you responded:
This does not actually answer the argument itself. It attacks Bush's motives for making it. It's an ad hominem fallacy. I am not trying to insult you by saying so. I am pointing out a logical flaw in your response.
The fallacy alone is enough to frustrate someone trying to have a logical, cogent debate with you, because it avoids the argument altogether. But you began that post with:
I never argued any such thing. I mentioned many times that I had problems with Ron Paul's approach to the Constitution and his politics. I wasn't cherry-picking his points in order to support him in general. I was pointing out that I agreed, in principle, with his approach to federal powers, the approach you called "insane."
It becomes very difficult to have a reasoned discussion when you fail to pay close attention to your opponent's responses and when your tone is generally mean-spirited and antagonistic.
Indeed, last night I was drawn into that antagonism, engaged in it back at you. As a result, stopped paying close attention to what I was saying as well. I should not have done so, and I looked foolish in the process. I admit it.
But again, I will happily debate you calmly, without insults or anger, if you are willing.
MCMetal @ 105:
I did not question a "minute slip-up" in grammar, punctuation or typos here in comment 32. Or here in comment 44. Or here in comment 58. I simply responded to your arguments.
I already admitted that in many posts, I stupidly used the word interchangeably.
Apologies. I should have said "acknowledged" my error, rather than "caught." I was owning up to it.
It stemmed from one error that I hadn't realized. I continued to operate in under the impression that you were the one misreading me. I was wrong, and continued to be wrong in several posts. I have admitted it.
Yes. Merely because I have engaged in bad behavior or made mistakes does not mean that you haven't. Moreover, I have now owned up to mine.
No arbiters here.
Perhaps I have no credibility with you, but I assure you I have credibility on C&L. One need only read through this thread alone -- the conversations I was having with people besides you -- to see that I argue cogently and intelligently. I am well-known and respected here, by the site monitors, the site owner, and many regulars.
Perhaps that would be reason for you to want to demonstrate that you can debate me without antagonism or insults.
I have responded to your assertions and arguments with arguments of my own. Anyone reading my comments here can see that.
I have owned up to my own missteps, and have disavowed the insults.
Will you?
Ya' know .......
After reading through all of your posts , you're correct ; you are highly intelligent and I was/am wrong ........
I believe though that you are too concerned with dissecting every detail in someone's persona , to find something admirable/likeable about them.
My point being :
The whole Ron Paul discussion. I do not care to seek any nuance or a perceivable 'likeability' about someone like Paul who claims to be a "Constitutionlist" ; who is nowhere to be found when those in the Oval Office/this administration , are trouncing upon it with both feet and asking their friends and family to join them in the stomping. Why isn't this supposed "defender"/"true believer" of our Constitution leading the charge in having this horseshit administration removed for that which he claims is his whole basis as a Congressman (and perhaps American and human)?
And for that matter ; where are these "strict Constitutionalist" judges that have been appointed ?
It's the same to me as the horseshit GOP's claims of being the party of "family values" and/or the one that "supports our military" ; it comes across as so disingenuous that I do not care if they house homeless people they find on their way home in their own dwelling(s).
Their dishonest facade makes me view them as irrelevant and untrustworthy , no matter if any aspect of their being is admirable or worthy.
Looking for the "good" in people that are so glaringly and immediately phony is simply not something I care for , nor obviously allow myself to search for ; it seems pointless to me.
I apologize for treating you so poorly ..........
MCMetal @ 108:
I don't think I'm doing that, though I'll take it under consideration. My defense of Paul stems more from my defense of libertarian thought. While I am not a libertarian, libertarianism has influenced my progressive stances. I believe that many progressives merely lump libertarians, authoritarians and conservatives all into one category of evil. When I rise to defend some of Paul's stances, what you are perceiving as going out of my way to find the good in someone is likely my insistence that libertarianism be recognized for what it is -- its good and its bad -- as well as its distinction from neo-con authoritarianism.
Fair enough. I have plenty of problems with his interpretation of the Constitution myself.
Oh, you'll find no more "activist" (I hate that term) judges than the self-described "strict constructionists." The conservatives appointed to the courts have a radical agenda that undermines the Constitution altogether.
I think I understand where you're coming from. My only response is that there are genuine libertarian Republicans or "Goldwater" Republicans out there. They're not all monolithically evil. Though, indeed, they appear few and far between these days. To the extent that there are conservatives or libertarians we can woo to our side for certain political purposes, I'll not disavow the strategy altogether.
Fair enough, again. I guess we'd just disagree that Paul is one of those phonies. I admit that I disagree with him vehemently on many, many things. On some issues, I agree, he's a hypocrite. On others, I understand and respect his stances, even if I disagree. And on many issues, I agree with him.
I'm a sucker for an apology, and reiterate my own. All is forgiven. :)
I'm glad we were able to reach this point. A good night's sleep is worth a lot. For me at least. ;)
Got any room in that bed ?.........Heh
BTW
I'm not claiming to know more about the Constitution ; of Paul or yourself .......
I merely cannot fathom how someone like Paul (just like the dishonest GOP) , can try to talk so strongly about what he stylizes himself to be ; yet allows the most egregious conditions and actions to go unspoken (by him , anyway) and unpunished.
Especially that during the last Republican debate I believe it was , he's admonishing the other potential GOP presidential losers about not knowing what is written in the Constitution ; that's goddamn reprehensible and stupid ..........
MCMetal @ 110:
Heh, I think we have now reached a genuine 180-degree reversal of our approach to each other. It might be the first time it's ever happened on any blog anywhere.
I'm flattered, MC, but taken. ;)
Karen @ 112:
Figures ......
I get stuck with the Bush twins type ; when you ask them their name , they're stuck for an answer.
Gore/Nader 2008 anyone?
Comments are closed on this entry