Third Party & Independents Archives

The Spin Stops Right Here!

Bill O’riley’ asked a Mass. Congressperson, and Tim Kane, who ran for president and James Carvel what the major problem was with the US. According to O’riley the main problem is not the debt, not that Obama is running a ‘nanny’ state but, the US voters/taxpayers have become so ‘out of touch’ with politics’gov’t . He believes that most folks just want more free stuff, spend their time playing digital games, and doesn’t mind joining the nanny state crowd.

The Mass. Rep named on the usual suspects, debt, mortgage crisis and so on as the culprit and couldn't give a good answer as to why the state remains largely democratic thru the recession.

Tim Kane chalks it up to voter ignorance and believes that near the end of Obama's term folks will wise up and turn conservative..??

James Carvel noted that the folks haven't had any real pay raises since the mid 70's, that Clinton had some down turns too, and couldn't explain why neither party has been able to turn things around. Mentioned that some folks believe the trade agreements has worked against us. He thinks things are slowly getting back on track.

Totally lame postulations, all, IMO. Lemme have a try.

One word. Globalism. Started in the Carter/Regan era, perhaps with the Panama Canal giveaway. Surely most are aware of the Bilder=bergers and G8 plans to globalise economy's, so entwining all nations in trade/commerce that no one country could go ballistic against another nation/region,

To globalise meant a lot of things like building up WTO's, IMF's, world courts, UN, etc, harmonizing laws between nations and, yes, harmonizing worker WAGES. Trade agreements advocating such efforts were put into place and corporations set off in search of the worlds cheapest labor markets. Witness Bangladesh and the recent factory fire taking some 1k lives.

The trick was/is to stay the course with globalization and get all this harmonizing of laws and wages done before the folks grew irate over the imbalance caused by the initial onslaught of all out globalization. This balancing act has gone on since the mid 70's and one would have to give all involved, the US gov't, US corporations, EU, Russia, China, Asia, IMF, WTO, etc good marks for preventing a world crash of economies/gov'ts.

Still a long way to go. US worker wages are still extremely high compared to China and India for example. A hat can be made in China for 15 cents and in the US for $8-10 dollars. Still, much progress has been made. One third of US workers now make less than $24k/yr.

So, what are the problems going forward and down the road? Corporations are fat with the cheapest labor in the world and with plenty of tax loopholes. They don't need to spend on R&D as they can just purchase whatever worthy tech stuff comes to market. Or, the entrepreneur can't play unless they agree to pay the big monopolies. They don't need to expand in the US and robots have replaced much of their high cost work force.

With falling worker wages and the EU operating as the ultimate nanny state the world economies are shrinking, Can the Corpocracy maintain economies at a level where the folks will not want to return to nationalism? Still remains to be seen. Globalisation still has a long way to go to be implemented as planned. Corruption abounds in China/India/others. Gov'ts are long on talking up globalization but slow to adopt the necessary changes.

The US is really on the brink with $17T debt, high unemp, rising prices. Many states have debt that can never be repaid no matter where globalization goes.

This is close to the unvarnished truth, IMO and I don't understand why Bill 'O' and his 'knowledgeable' talking heads can't address the truth rather than mealy mouthing around the edges.

Nothing said about a bought and paid for congress, corpocracy, etc.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by Roy Ellis at May 28, 2013 12:42 AM
Comments
Comment #366665

I wouldn’t expect much from O’Reilly. He tends to bloviate (to use one of his favorite terms) about how great he is and how fair he is and how the spin stop with him….BUT, he has on several occasions deliberately modified e-mails that I have sent to challenge him and turned them to support his position.

I guess you could say he modified my talking points.

So much for where the spin stops.

He does have a point about the intellect of the american electorate. Roughly half are completely disengaged. Many of the rest are incapable of independant thought and buy into whatever talking heads they listen too tell them to beleive.

Our education system has failed. Look at where we rate in academics compared to the rest of the world. Hardly a model to aspire to. Todays college students don’t seem possess the same knowledge of history, social studies, government or even common sense as high school graduates had 30-40 years ago. I guess you can’t expect a different result when our institutions of higher learning have become overpriced daycare centers for the over 18 crowd that just wants to party. When they are more interested in the nat’l ranking for their football team than the academic results of their students. When promoting a political adgenda is more important than preparing students for the real world.

Today, education is money. Only money. No-one gives a rats ass about the students only the tuition they can get away with charging and the bottom line profit margin. I would love to see a comparison of the profit margins of Ivy League colleges verses Exxon/Mobile. They both receive gov’t welfare and they both supposedly produce a product. I wonder which of the two would turn out to be the most evil, greedy capatalist pig.

Posted by: JWL at May 28, 2013 10:29 AM
Comment #366675

Somewhat agree, JWL. Where it gets really scary is when you hear your doctor got his education on-line, etc. I do believe it’s the same 20% of students who received good grades in HS and continued on to undertake professional studies in college that are still ‘carrying the freight’. Yes, there are more graduates, half the graduate classes are foreign students, but more does not necessarily mean better.

But, our problems go way beyond education, IMO. Like we have about had nationalism beat out of us. Latest effort in that regard is the MSM’s hiring foreign folks to parrot the nightly news to us, Farrid Zacara (sic) as policy wonk for CNN, etc.

Globalism is a complex critter. Like we will see, as the US cuts over millions to citizenship, that some US corporations will again start up some production/mfctring in the US. And, don’t think for a minit that the NAU is a daid issue. It was just rushed to the forefront too quickly. Soon as the corpocracy feels the time is right we will be regionalized again.

The elephant in the tent is the fact that globalism is being implemented on the backs of the working class. Case in point; stock market 15k+ while US workers struggle to stay afloat.

While I tend to see every facet of American life thru the prism of globalism it is seldom mentioned, IMO

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at May 28, 2013 5:38 PM
Comment #366676

The stock market is not an indicator of anything at all. It is nothing more than a casino. In fact you can get better odds in Vegas. The market is controlled and manipulated to achieve the desired effort for those doing the manipulation. I do not and will not ever have a single penny invested in such a scam.

Posted by: JWL at May 28, 2013 7:28 PM
Comment #366680

JWL,
Obviously there is an entire world out there- the financial world- about which you know nothing. Most people know little or nothing about it. That’s fine. Feel free to join that crowd. But don’t pretend to understand it well enough to dismiss it as a scam.

Generally speaking, the stock market is a forward indicator of the economy.

There is a disconnect between the stock market’s performance and the lack of participation of working people, but that disconnect is NOT the fault of equity markets. The stock market is just a mechanism.

Generally speaking, labor is undervalued while capital is overvalued. We’ve seen a horrendous number of jobs outsourced and offshored because of conservative political philosophy. Corporations no longer pay their fair share of the tax burden, the rich are undertaxed, the poor overtaxed, and the result is a grossly unequal distribution of wealth.

Tax havens and tax cuts for the rich are tolerated because, quite simply, corporations are able to buy politicians. Until campaign finance reform occurs, and elections are pubicly financed, that will not change. A good start would be repealing Citizens United, a ruling passed by conservative judges. The Democrats are the best hope for bringing in SCOTUS judges who will repeal it. For that reason alone, you should be backing Obama.

As for globalism, it is not so much a global problem as an American problem. Europe, and especially Germany, has done quite well with a more progressive political system, unions, progressive redistribution of wealth, and policies and attitudes encouraging exports.

But in the name of ‘free trade,’ American corporations export production, import and sell to consumers within this country, and pocket profits without sufficiently repaying the taxpayers who consume their products & services.

Posted by: phx8 at May 29, 2013 12:41 AM
Comment #366681

Yes, progressives have come to hate free speech… That’s really what it all boils down to.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 29, 2013 12:43 AM
Comment #366682

… While Libertarians think corporations are really people with 1st Amendment rights. I’ll take my chances with the progressives.

Posted by: phx8 at May 29, 2013 1:07 AM
Comment #366683
While Libertarians think corporations are really people with 1st Amendment rights. I’ll take my chances with the progressives.

Nope, it just goes to show that progressives can’t fathom the situation… No one said that corporations had first amendment rights, the Supreme Court (rightfully) found that individuals have first amendment rights, even when they are acting within a corporate infrastructure.

I know, we don’t hate ‘corporations’ because we know that corporations are just a legal construct allowing individuals to pool their money together. I have never understood why some people hate a legal construct.

Still, get to banning those books I guess, that’s the way of the progressive mind.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 29, 2013 1:15 AM
Comment #366684

Because the legal construct is a legal fiction, yet demands the 1st Amendment rights of a flesh and blood citizen; at the same time, the corporation consists of people banded together, yet those people often escape all moral responsibility for the actions of their corporation.

Posted by: phx8 at May 29, 2013 1:20 AM
Comment #366685
those people often escape all moral responsibility for the actions of their corporation

LOL, ok… Ask Jeffrey Skilling how that works out…

Or Bernie Ebbers

The only fantasy are in the minds of people who don’t understand the realities of corporations and corporate law.

And again, the corporation does not have 1st Amendment rights, the individuals who run the corporations DO however.

Citizen United was the right decision because the argument that you make means that the US Government would be able to ban political speech, books, documentaries, etc… Even the government was forced to admit that. Most people are unwilling to ban books, save the progressives who know what’s best for everyone.

If you want to find a way to violate millions of people’s free speech rights, like the Sierra Club, NAACP, unions, etc, you’ll have to do it another way. I know it sucks that people you don’t like are allowed to have their say, but in order for people you do like to have theirs, that has to be the way.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 29, 2013 1:30 AM
Comment #366686
“If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

[B]ecause the First Amendment (and the Court) does not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs.

[T]he First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker.

Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation’s ability to spend money is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 29, 2013 1:48 AM
Comment #366690

Ph the biggest form of institutional corruption in Washington doesn’t come from corporations it comes from the two political parties. What has greater influence over a Congressman’s vote? Corporations or party affiliation? It’s so bad that Mark Sanford was able to replace Colbert-Busch’s face with that of Nancy Pelosi and secure a win even with enough junk in his trunk to litter the entire district.

I think you have the wrong Michael Myers.

Posted by: George in SC at May 29, 2013 10:29 AM
Comment #366692

George in SC,
Both parties are corrupted by the money provided by corporations and the super-rich (who often represent corporate interests). For example, Democrat Max Baucus, the Senator from MO, headed the health care negotiations. He immediately threw out consideration of universal health care. In a totally unrelated, wild coincidence, he had taken over $1 million in donations from that industry, and since then, 28 of his staffers have gone to work for private health care insurers.

I say both parties, but conservatives are far worse. Former Senator Rick Santorum used to run the “K Street Project.” He chaired weekly meetings on Thursdays to insure lobbyists patronized Republicans only. The corruption runs a gamut of issues with conservatives, but probably the worst are the ones involving Global Warming and the Fossil Fuel industries…

Posted by: phx8 at May 29, 2013 11:33 AM
Comment #366694

Typical partisan… The Democrat corruption is far and wide…

The problem isn’t the money, it’s the power. Without the power, there would be no money from corporations because it wouldn’t do them any good. But, the left can’t help crave that power. Which is why they corrupt so easily while thinking that they aren’t.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 29, 2013 12:06 PM
Comment #366698

PH, and because you have no proof of quid pro quo corruption, the “K Street Project”, you want to further restrict political speech to somehow magically get at this “appearance of corruption.” Do you not see the overreach?

And as Rhinehold points out the best anti-corruptive approach is to not have a goverment that has the power to imprison and that has men with guns that can come and take your property, your children, and your life. Since anarchay has its own set of problems, how about meet in the middle and support a Federalistic approach that gives the individual a greater voice in local government and places limits on a Federal government. And maybe that’s what they were shooting for some 300 years ago.

Posted by: George in SC at May 29, 2013 12:34 PM
Comment #366701

phx8 said:

“JWL,
Obviously there is an entire world out there- the financial world- about which you know nothing. Most people know little or nothing about it. That’s fine. Feel free to join that crowd. But don’t pretend to understand it well enough to dismiss it as a scam.

Generally speaking, the stock market is a forward indicator of the economy.”

My response:

Yeah man….thats brilliant. The stock market was near record high territory within 6 months before the crash of 2008. That was a real forward looking indicator of the economy wasn’t it. But then again, thanks to phx8, we all know that I know absolutly nothing about the financial world.

If our current records highs are indicators of the future like phx8 says they are then we should expect a 20% plus drop in the DJIA within the next 6 months…right???? But what do I know. I’m just a simpleton.

Posted by: JWL at May 29, 2013 2:55 PM
Comment #366705

JWL, if the stock market is at it’s high because of a bubble then it may very well drop in the next 6 months.

My opinion is that the powers that be found it very easy to steal the billions of dollars the media has convinced us has “disappeared”. It didn’t disappear. The powers that be, the people with enough money, stocks, and computer programs, needed to initiate a drop of that kind did it intentionally to cull the profits from that drop.
Since the government replaced that loss, and the stock market regained the previous levels with the help of the unsuspecting worker bees (401k ect.), it’s time to do it again.
The powers that be have been doing this for hundreds of years. They are over confident and they’re getting greedy and they think the people are stupid.

Mostly they are, which is why they get away with it.


Posted by: Weary Willie at May 29, 2013 6:19 PM
Comment #366707

Weary…

This is exactly what I was trying to say to all knowing guru of everything financial, and the now banished in my book; phx8.

I don’t now or have ever trusted the market. Way too many billionaires will auto programmed buy and sell orders to artificially increase of decrease the value of any stock they can exploit. At least in Vegas you know who your up against, the odds are set, and you can take a shot. It is a known commodity if you will excuse the pun.

The value of individual stocks used to be a lot more indicative of the actual value of the company. It was a snapshot of a companies wealth, market share, diverisifcation, etc, etc. Today, you can’t really trust what you read about any given company. Who did the audit, were the books cooked, who owns major shares and what are they going to do with them, what politicians are they in bed with and whos looking to buy them out. Way, way too many variables. For the most part, IMHO, the big winners in the market are more likely to be the fat cats, the inside traders, and the folks gambling with other peoples money. The little guy can usually do just as good elsewhere, with less risk. But what do I know?????

Posted by: JWL at May 29, 2013 6:53 PM
Comment #366710

If you look at the history of our country you will see a pattern. Every three generations some caticlysmic event changes everything.
One: Revolutionary War 1776
Two: Civil War 1861 85 Years later
Three: Great Depression 1929 68 Years later
Four: Great Recession 2008 79 Years later

Is this a co-incidence, or do they wait for the old to die off so the young won’t remember?


Posted by: Weary Willie at May 29, 2013 7:34 PM
Comment #366711

Weary…

Thats what happens when we don’t teach our children history.

Posted by: JWL at May 29, 2013 7:39 PM
Comment #366712

Democratics are blaming Republicans and Republicans are blaming Democratics, but just like the WTC collapse, it’s the man behind the curtain pulling the strings. The guy nobody sees.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 29, 2013 7:44 PM
Comment #366715

”..how about meet in the middle and support a Federalistic approach that gives the individual a greater voice in local government and places limits on a Federal government.maybe that’s what they were shooting for some 300 years ago.”

George,

The tension between the elites (Hamiltonian Federalists) and the common man (Jeffersonian Anti-Federalists) has been present from the very beginning of this nation. The founders had not envisioned a two party political system. It emerged as a result of that fundamental disagreement.


Posted by: Rich at May 29, 2013 8:46 PM
Comment #366716

”..how about meet in the middle and support a Federalistic approach that gives the individual a greater voice in local government and places limits on a Federal government.maybe that’s what they were shooting for some 300 years ago.”

George,

The tension between the elites (Hamiltonian Federalists) and the common man (Jeffersonian Anti-Federalists) has been present from the very beginning of this nation. The founders had not envisioned a two party political system. It emerged as a result of that fundamental disagreement.

“The supporters of Jefferson organized a political party of progressive liberalism that has continued in American political life down to the present day. That party is today known as the Democratic Party.

The followers of Alexander Hamilton also banded themselves together as a political party. This, the party of conservatism, the party of rule by the privileged few, has its counterpart in our national life today.

I have long been impressed by the continuity of these two political philosophies throughout American history.

I have been impressed because the policies of their disciples are such faithful images of the philosophies themselves. The parcel of reactionary conservatism may be wrapped in bright colors and gay tinsel, but when you open it, you always find party rule for the benefit of the privileged few. Inside the parcel of progressive liberalism, however, you always find government for the benefit of all the people—true democratic government.” Harry Truman, 1948.


Posted by: Rich at May 29, 2013 8:49 PM
Comment #366717

I’ve always agreed with the individual having a greater voice in local government and the local government having the greater voice in our political affairs. Our tax money should go to local government first, not the federal government.

The power of the federal government to exert it’s influence on local governments comes from the 16th amendment. There is inherently too much waste in having our money going through that many levels.

State governments can better manage regions within each state much more efficiently than the federal government can. The state’s influence on the federal government was taken away by the 17th amendment. The state’s checks and balances with the federal government were destroyed.

Both the 16th and the 17th amendments were a disaster to our constitution, local governments, and individuals.

If we were serious about effecting change we would first identify the problem. That problem being the 11th, 16th, and 17th amendments specifically, and progressivism generally. Nibbling around the edges leaves the core problem intact. Nibbling around the edges causes more problems and solves nothing.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 29, 2013 9:07 PM
Comment #366718

Hamilton wanted a monarchy, much like the present day progressives. Democracy is subterfuge, a means to an end. That end being the subjugation of the American people.

Jefferson wanted the individual to be the master of his destiny. He recognized the need for a federal government but he also was very protective of the individual’s right to self-determination.

Hamilton’s monarchy came much closer to fruition with the adoption of the 16th and 17th amendments. Ironically, they were adopted in the same year and there is much controversy as to whether they were even adopted legally!

Think of all the lies that are being told in today’s political atmosphere and then ask yourself, in a time when communication was as slow as a horse and as brief as a telegram, just how easy it would have been to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people.

Think Corporate Personhood and it’s conception.

Doubt everything!

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 29, 2013 9:21 PM
Comment #366720
“The supporters of Jefferson organized a political party of progressive liberalism that has continued in American political life down to the present day. That party is today known as the Democratic Party.

Um, no.

The party of Jefferson is the Libertarian. It *USED* to be the Democrats until the progressive/populist takeover of the 20th century.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 29, 2013 10:14 PM
Comment #366727

The party of Jefferson was actually called the Democratic-Republican party.


Posted by: Weary Willie at May 29, 2013 11:57 PM
Comment #366730
The Democratic-Republican Party was the political party organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791-93. It stood in opposition to the Federalist Party and controlled the Presidency and Congress, and most states, from 1801 to 1824, during the First Party System. It split after the 1824 presidential election into two parties: the Democratic Party and the short-lived National Republican Party (later succeeded by the Whig Party, many of whose adherents eventually founded the modern Republican Party).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party


Posted by: Weary Willie at May 30, 2013 12:00 AM
Comment #366831

The Libertarian Party is the party of the Koch Bros and other elites who use the rights of the “individual” as cover for corporate interest Rhinehold. The Party was founded by corporate lawyers wasn’t it? Who else would find “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” fit to be their motto as they enjoy so much free lunch from the taxpayers of this country.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 31, 2013 9:16 PM
Comment #366832

j2t2, wow, the Koch Brothers are so powerful that they created the Libertarian party decades before anyone had ever heard of them!

I didn’t know that David Nolan was a Koch Brother? How did that escape my limited brainpower…

The Party was founded by corporate lawyers wasn’t it?

No, David Nolan earned a BS in political science from MIT. All of this is easily obtainable by someone who could use google… Of course, anyone with any comprehension wouldn’t fall into the Koch Brothers conspiracy camp, so, there you go.

Who else would find “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” fit to be their motto as they enjoy so much free lunch from the taxpayers of this country.

TANSTAAFL came from Robert Heinlein (a libertarian) in his 1966 novel The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, sometimes dubbed “a manifesto for a libertarian revolution”.

Unlike the Democratic or Republican parties, the Libertarians actually have principles. I know, a tired worn out cliche…

For example, to join the LP, you have to agree to the NAP (Non Aggression Principle). Obviously the Democrats and Republicans cannot do the same, since their entire platform is based on aggression.

“Since the Libertarian Party’s inception, individuals have been able to join the party as voting members by signing their agreement with the organization’s membership pledge, which states, based on the Non-Aggression Principle, that the signer does not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.”

In addition, the Party is democratically controlled, unlike the Democrats and Republicans…

“The Libertarian Party is democratically governed by its members, with state affiliate parties each holding annual or biennial conventions at which delegates are elected to attend the party’s biennial national convention. National convention delegates vote on changes to the party’s national platform and bylaws, and elect officers and “At-Large” representatives to the party’s National Committee.”

Where did Libertarianism come from? The farthest traces of it can be found in the writings of Lao Tse (which is why most libertarians are also taoists, or vice versa as it was in my case).

It was furthered during the age of enlightenment when John Locke put forward his ideals:

“John Locke greatly influenced both libertarianism and the modern world in his writings published before and after the English Revolution of 1688, especially A Letter Concerning Toleration (1667), Two Treatises of Government (1689) and An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690). In the latter he established the basis of liberal political theory: that people’s rights existed before government; that the purpose of government is to protect personal and property rights; that people may dissolve governments that do not do so; and that representative government is the best form to protect rights.[60] The United States Declaration of Independence was inspired by Locke in its statement: “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”

It then led to the development of the political beliefs of Jefferson and Madison. I guess the Koch Brothers influenced them too?

And Paine as well I guess… God the Koch brothers have been around the block, they must travel with a Time Lord!

“The object of classical liberals was individual liberty in the economy, in personal freedoms and civil liberty, separation of state and religion, and peace as an alternative to imperial aggrandizement. Rothbard cites Locke’s contemporaries, the Levellers, who held similar views. Also influential were the English “Cato’s Letters” during the early 1700s, reprinted eagerly by American colonists who already were free of European aristocracy and feudal land monopolies.

In January of 1776, only two years after coming to America from England, Thomas Paine published his pamphlet “Common Sense” calling for independence for the colonies. Paine promoted classical liberal ideas in clear, concise language that allowed the general public to understand the debates among the political elites. Common Sense was immensely popular in disseminating these ideas, selling hundreds of thousands of copies. Paine later would write the Rights of Man and The Age of Reason and participate in the French Revolution. Paine´s theory of property showed a “libertarian concern” with the redistribution of resources.”

BTW I’m sure you are pretty bent out of shape that a Koch was considering buying the LA Times, right? Were you as equally bent out of shape when Warren Buffet purchased the Roanoke Times? I’m guessing no…

“Berkshire has acquired over two dozen newspapers in the past year and a half, according to its most recent annual report.

Now, David Koch did run for VP of the LP in 1980… Why did he enter politics?

“Koch credits the campaign of Roger MacBride as his inspiration for getting involved in politics, telling a reporter from New York magazine:

Here was a great guy, advocating all the things I believed in. He wanted less government and taxes, and was talking about repealing all these victimless crime laws that accumulated on the books. I have friends who smoke pot. I know many homosexuals. It’s ridiculous to treat them as criminals—and here was someone running for president, saying just that.”

Ooooo, such a bad guy, standing up for the rights of pot smokers and homosexuals. He should be lynched!

But, why isn’t he running for LP president now? Oh, because he isn’t one.

“He broke with the Libertarian Party in 1984 when it supported eliminating all taxes and Koch has since been a Republican.”

He also said something very true when he changed parties:

“I had enough,” he said. “We are not a nation that debates issues. We vote on candidates’ personalities.”

Now, George Koch is still a libertarian, but he isn’t interested in politics as such anymore…

“After the bid, Charles told a reporter that conventional politics “tends to be a nasty, corrupting business … I’m interested in advancing libertarian ideas”.”

You’ve created boogey men and attempt to use them as hammers against people you don’t like, because, as I point out in my latest post, the progressive has no concern for rights, they just want power… By any means necessary.

Including denigrating the very ideals that this country was FREAKING FOUNDED UPON.

Disgusting, sad, pathetic.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 31, 2013 10:01 PM
Comment #366833
Mr. Nolan studied political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he was a student when Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) ran for president in 1964 on a platform of limited government. Enamored, Mr. Nolan founded M.I.T. Students for Goldwater before graduating in 1965.

He continued building a network of like-minded citizens as a member of the Liberty Amendment Committee, an organization whose mission included limiting government activity to duties expressly authorized by the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. Nolan worked in marketing and communications throughout his career. After living in Colorado for about two decades, he relocated in the 1980s to Orange County, Calif., where he ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2000.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 31, 2013 10:09 PM
Comment #366866
j2t2, wow, the Koch Brothers are so powerful that they created the Libertarian party decades before anyone had ever heard of them!

So one must be heard of before they can create anything Rhinehold? That of course was my first thought on this silly twisting of my words. Are the Koch Bros corporate lawyers was my second thought on this silly twisting of my words. But then I thought why would Rhinehold try to confuse the issue by twisting my words, so let me make it clear Rhinehold I didn’t say the Koch Bros created the Libertarian party. I said “The Libertarian Party is the party of the Koch Bros and other elites”. I also said, in a separate thought “The Party was founded by corporate lawyers wasn’t it”. My recollection of early party candidates for office was that there were many corporate lawyers running as representatives.

Thanks for the “history” but I fail to see how these tidbits of opinion would sway one to believe what I said wasn’t accurate. I mean the conservatives also claim the founding fathers were conservatives all, just as you seem to think they were all libertarians.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 1, 2013 11:15 PM
Comment #366881
Thanks for the “history” but I fail to see how these tidbits of opinion would sway one to believe what I said wasn’t accurate.

Wouldn’t expect it to, you can’t look at facts and history and change your distorted biased hate-filled opinions because they are based on a belief system, not facts.

The Libertarian Party was not started by ‘corporate laywers’.

The Libertarian Party was not started by the Koch Brothers.

The Libertarian Party was not started by any ‘elites’.

The basic philosophy of the Libertarian Party is that ‘everyone should be free to live their lives as they choose as long as they don’t infringe upon another to do the same’. Where else is that philosophy seen?

“A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities.” - Thomas Jefferson

“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That “all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.” [X Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” —Thomas Jefferson

If you were to study Jefferson, then look an honest look at the three parties, you will find that Jefferson’s views are embodied by the Libertarians. The same with Madison. Locke. Paine. Franklin.

I don’t claim to share the same views on our government as the ones who founded it based on wishful thinking like the Democrats or Republicans, I back it up with an understanding of what those ideals are and live them and put them into practice.

Go read the words of the founding fathers, not just what you’ve been told about them by the Democratic leadership, but really look into their own words.

A great place to start is the old Jefferson archive located here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090727064309/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeffcont.htm

Or you could get a copy of the Complete Works of Thomas Jefferson, like the one I have on my bookshelf. There is an online version located here:

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1734

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 2, 2013 10:37 AM
Comment #367037

The founding fathers are old white men. Old white men are not allowed to have an opinion in the Democratic party.

Posted by: Joseph at June 6, 2013 12:17 AM
Post a comment