The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

crazyhorse1 wrote:Until your worldview is more balanced, it will be difficult to accept you as a libertarian, no matter how many times you say you are.

Agreed!

However, I'm never surprised to see that when a repoublican does something for the good of society its only seen by liberals as something self-serving. It couldn't possibly be that he actually just wanted to allocate some resources towards helping the least fortunate of us.

This is the point of the post!

Crazy, do you genuinely feel that Bush would only do this if there was some political or economic gain for himself? And do you think that when Libs put foward feel good resolutions they only do it for altruistic reasons? Is the political landscape really that black and white with you?

crazyhorse1 wrote:http://rawstory.com/news/afp/In_US_record_numbers_are_plunged_in_02242007.html

Whose fault is the above, primarily? The Dems? The Republicans? Bush?
The Poor?

I'm going to say...the editors!

I spent a few years om life living in what this article would define as deep poverty.....let me tell you it was by choice. Does this article control for seniors, college students, people working under the table? Don't know.

Are there poor people in this country? Of course, but this is the only society in the world where poor people can afford to be fat!

As for charity, and doing something about it ourselves; I spent five years of my career working in a non-profit helping the people in question. I volunteer and give money to my local homeless shelter. My wife works at the local halfway house. I know this issue well. Thats why its a pet issue of mine. Its not something that will be solved at a large governmental level by either party. But, when Bush gives money to the cause its only because of some insidiously selfish reason, and when the Dems do it its purely out of the goodness of thier hearts? I don't buy that.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Simmer down now.

I can't simmer down, I'm not simmered up. Your post is inane and shows everything I said about liberals.

crazyhorse1 wrote:You invite the assumption that you are a right winger, and possibly a Republican in Libertarian clothing.

Liberals have nothing in their arsenal except anti-Republican talking points, so that I have never, ever supported Republicans or Republican positions ever just doesn't deter you, you inanely post that I must be a closet Republican so you can pull out the anti-Republican talking points. Thank you for so clearly demonstrating my point.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Your special scorn is heaped on liberals (who are usually Democrats)

First, I realize in your world there are only Republicans and Democrats, but try to imagine someone who is neither. I know it's hard for you, but try. Now, why would you assume that person would hate both parties equally?

Second, it's liberals that keep arguing with me, not Republicans so maybe I've had a little more chance to express my distain of their views. We haven't really discussed issues i"m disgusted with Republicans on like Terry Scheivo, the drug war, their insistance on moralistic legislation, their ever growing love and trust of government or so on. When liberals argued with me was I supposed to come up with some anti-Republican arguments that had nothing to do with the topic?

Third, right now Republicans are useless and Democrats are hysterical. In that case, who will draw your ire more?

Fourth, those are reasons you see more dislike of liberals, but still it's true I dislike liberals more and the reason is that in the end there is no freedom without money. I can fight moralistic Republican laws. The ever growing desire of the left to confiscate my paycheck is more scary to me because moralistic laws can be undone but government programs never end.

crazyhorse1 wrote:and your obvious hatred for spending funds on the poor

Thank you for this comment in your post demonstrating the incredible slow learning rate of liberals. I say people should start effective charities rather then relying on corrupt, ineffective government and I will contribute more then my share and you post this gem I hate spending on poor. Thank you, thank you very much for demonstrating again my point.

crazyhorse1 wrote:is apparently not balanced by your nonexistent hatred or lack of knowledge of welfare/tax breaks/legislation/spin designed to enhance the power of the elite.

I wish we were in smack here, I'm really trying to stick to the post. So I will just say left spin aside these are areas libertarians typically agree with Republicans on and disagree with Democrats, so it's not demonstrating anything.

crazyhorse1 wrote:You seem to be relatively blind to GOP catering to Corporations, contempt for the environment , and support of social and economic inequites, as well as its falsehood and manipulation of the press. Libertarians, generally, are not so keen sighted in relation to the left and then so blind or subdued in regard to the right. Until your worldview is more balanced

Dude, they are BOTH CORRUPT. Your post is the result of running that through your liberal filter that there are only Republicans and Democrats. It's the only way you can solve the conflict a Democrat thinks Republicans are corrupt and a Republican thinks Democrats are and someone says both are. You just can't process the dichotomy so this is what you post. Thank you, thank you very much for again demonstrating my point.

crazyhorse1 wrote:, it will be difficult to accept you as a libertarian, no matter how many times you say you are.

Thank you again for posting your support of my point.

Crazyhorse, "You are not a liberal, so you are a Republican. That makes it impossible to see you as a libertarian."

Again, your post demonstrates my point on the slow learning of liberals oh so effectively.

You know what would be more compelling that i am not a libertarian if you are right? Rather then posting i'm not a libertarian because i"m not a liberal why don't you try arguing my views are not libertarian? They are, but if that's your thesis it's the point you should address.

jazzskins wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:

jazzskins wrote:

ATV wrote:http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=17394&cid=4&cname=Business+Today

"The board ruled the choice of words was irresponsible, but the association with Mr Bush did not cause serious or widespread offence."

Those wacky Euro's! They really hate Bush!

I don't follow.

Well, perhaps not so much on your island, but on the mailland it seems that they can't get enough of Bush Bashing. Last summer I spent some time in Germany, and Austria. While there I spoke with several people from countries around Europe, watched alot of TV from other countries, shopped at the markets, etc. When I talked to people and they knew I was American they felt obliged to tell me just how much my President was ruining they're world. I felt it was strange that they felt so at ease telling me how much my country's leadership sucks. I don't even know who the leader of Austria is!

Chad

But what I didn't understand was what did Europeans have to do with the story?

UK Skins Fan wrote:But what I didn't understand was what did Europeans have to do with the story?

....following the link now to check my facts....
Oops! It happened in New Zealand! Not in Europe!

now with the left in rabid, ______ hysteria over Bush

No. That was five years ago. Now it's most independents and even many Republicans.

jazzskins wrote:

1niksder wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

jazzskins wrote:

ATV wrote:http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=17394&cid=4&cname=Business+Today

"The board ruled the choice of words was irresponsible, but the association with Mr Bush did not cause serious or widespread offence."

Those wacky Euro's! They really hate Bush!

I do too, where your reasoning is failing you is in not hating Democrats.

I'm willing to bet jazzskin hate the Dems more than you ever will

I don't hate the dems. I am a conservative christian. I don't make that a secret, but I don't hate the dems. There are several dems that I respect, and there are several Republican's that I don't like. I do agree with KazooSkins in one respect. While I don't think that the republican's and dem's policies are the same, neither one of them holds a consistent, or logically coherent philosophy. I mean, the republicans oppose Abortion rights, but have no problem with the death penalty? Dem's want peace....they want peace at any cost, even to the point of fighting you at one of their rallies for not agreeing with them. No, there is no consistency on either side of the isle.

My posts on here regarding the Dems are only to address what I think are logical inconsistencies, and of course my occasional pet issue.

The idea that dems want peace at any cost is a totally absurdity. Dems have either started or backed every U.S, war from World War II to Bush's attack on Afghanistan. Dems, Republicans, and Independents all want this war over and none advocate peace at any costs. There is no particular ideology driving the reaction against this war: It is simply a civil war; it's unwinnable; it's unjustified; it's too expensive; it's built on lies by the administration; it's costing way too much in human life and making the
U.S. look like an buffoon internationally; and it's pursuit has endangered American liberties even as it's caused the U.S. to abandon traditional values. It was, in fact, started by a moron whose sanity has seriously come into question. This mistake is the worse mistake since Nam and one of the most flagrant abuses in American history. There is absolutely no logical inconsistency involved in opposition to this war. Dems are not pascifists, quite the opposite, as history shows. Dems oppose this war, as do a huge majority in this country and in the war oppose this war, because it is wrong, not because of any ideology.

crazyhorse1 wrote:You invite the assumption that you are a right winger, and possibly a Republican in Libertarian clothing. Your special scorn is heaped on liberals (who are usually Democrats)...

I've been hesitant to do this because i have an issue with your basic argument tact that not being a liberal means you are a Republican and therefore not a libertarian. Your only arguments have been that I'm not liberal. No duh. But here's a link to check out.

Neal Boortz is a Libertarian talk show host, he's the 3rd or 4th most widely syndicated talk show host in the country. He is a card carrying Libertarian. Note two major things on his site.

#1) He hates Republicans and he hates Democrats FAR MORE. For the same reasons I do.

#2) And yet, he is more "Republican" then I am as he advocated George W Bush for President only because of the war on terror which Democrats scare the hell out of him. I criticize in words Democrats more becuase of what Democrats say. I vote for neither because I recognize in the end they do so little different it makes no difference who is actually in office as the current congress is demonstrating by focusing on inane issues like the minimum wage that affects only the 1% of workers who earn minimum wage.

In the end, he and I would agree I am sure it would be better to leave the middle east entirely, but he takes the realistic view we are there and are not leaving soon and I take the more idealistic view we should not be there.

So if you're going to argue the intelligence challenged view I'm not libertarian only becuase I dislike liberals more then conservatives, start by showing me how the currently best known and most widely heard libertarian today isn't one either.

www.boortz.com

crazyhorse1 wrote:

jazzskins wrote:While I don't think that the republican's and dem's policies are the same, neither one of them holds a consistent, or logically coherent philosophy. I mean, the republicans oppose Abortion rights, but have no problem with the death penalty? Dem's want peace....they want peace at any cost, even to the point of fighting you at one of their rallies for not agreeing with them. No, there is no consistency on either side of the isle.

The idea that dems want peace at any cost is a totally absurdity. Dems have either started or backed every U.S, war from World War II to Bush's attack on Afghanistan.

They also backed this war as well....that is until it became politically advantageous to do otherwise.

However, you take the above scenario too literally. Of course, not all Dems are total pacifists. Likewise, not all republicans are warhawks. But spend a few hours in Berkley and you might be convinced that both of the above extremes are true. My point is to demonstrate that the political parties on both sides will diametrically oppose themselves to the other party on an issue not due to any overiding philosophy, but solely out of a perceived political neccesity. This doesn't (at least not usually) occur on an individual scale but it occurs without fail at a macro-political or cultural level.

They also backed this war as well

Way to generalize! Nearly half didn't (while only one Republican didn't)....

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r ... vote=00237

ATV wrote:

They also backed this war as well

Way to generalize! Nearly half didn't (while only one Republican didn't)....

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r ... vote=00237

Let's look at some leaders here including the last and current senate Democrat Leader, their last presidential and vice presidential nominee and their current leader to be the next president.

John Kerry - Yea
John Edwards - Yea
Hillary Clinton - Yea
Harry Reid - Yea
Tom Daschle - Yea
Dianne Feinstein - Yea
Joe Biden - Yea
Chuckie Cheese Schumer - Yea

Now on the Democratic Nay's, are any on the record advocating:

- Bring our troops out of the Middle East so they are not targets of terrorists.

- Let gas prices fluctuate instead of keeping them artificially low by propping up bad Middle East governments.

- Reduce our dependency on oil by drilling off our coasts and in our own frozen tundra.

- Reduce our oil dependence and greenhouse gases by aggressively building zero emission nuclear power plants.

The list goes on. Buy hey, they don't need to have any solutions to any of our problems as long as they voiced their support for keeping a murdering dictator in power so we can admire them for their morality and conviction.

jazzskins wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:But what I didn't understand was what did Europeans have to do with the story?

....following the link now to check my facts....
Oops! It happened in New Zealand! Not in Europe!

So, you're denying that you thought New Zealand was in Europe?

UK Skins Fan wrote:

jazzskins wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:But what I didn't understand was what did Europeans have to do with the story?

....following the link now to check my facts....
Oops! It happened in New Zealand! Not in Europe!

So, you're denying that you thought New Zealand was in Europe?

Wait a minute, Europe is not in New Zealand?

Fios wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:

jazzskins wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:But what I didn't understand was what did Europeans have to do with the story?

....following the link now to check my facts....
Oops! It happened in New Zealand! Not in Europe!

So, you're denying that you thought New Zealand was in Europe?

Wait a minute, Europe is not in New Zealand?

They might be - could be the start of a World Tour.

UK Skins Fan wrote:

jazzskins wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:But what I didn't understand was what did Europeans have to do with the story?

....following the link now to check my facts....
Oops! It happened in New Zealand! Not in Europe!

So, you're denying that you thought New Zealand was in Europe?

Not at all!

ATV wrote:

They also backed this war as well

Way to generalize! Nearly half didn't (while only one Republican didn't)....

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r ... vote=00237

I don't think its a generalization at all.

27 for.....Including the majority of the leadership, i.e. Biden, Edwards, Kerry, Clinton, Daschle, Leiberman, Fienstien and Schumer.

21 nea.......Thats not nearly half!

Bottom line....Dem's voted for the war! With access to the same info that the republican leadership had!

jazzskins wrote:

ATV wrote:

They also backed this war as well

Way to generalize! Nearly half didn't (while only one Republican didn't)....

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r ... vote=00237

I don't think its a generalization at all.

27 for.....Including the majority of the leadership, i.e. Biden, Edwards, Kerry, Clinton, Daschle, Leiberman, Fienstien and Schumer.

21 nea.......Thats not nearly half!

Bottom line....Dem's voted for the war! With access to the same info that the republican leadership had!

He's kidding ATV. We all know the Democrats are noble, pure and virtuous and only voted for the war out of the most honest and sincere belief Hussein would use WMDs and that we didn't find stockpiles of them was of course proof he never had or could use them on anyone and that Bush lied when he said what the Democrats did for the 8 years Bill Clinton was President.

Oops....bad fingers for typing that last part, I'm smacking them now!

Fios wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:

jazzskins wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:But what I didn't understand was what did Europeans have to do with the story?

....following the link now to check my facts....
Oops! It happened in New Zealand! Not in Europe!

So, you're denying that you thought New Zealand was in Europe?

Wait a minute, Europe is not in New Zealand?

Of course not. New Zealand is on the coast of Canada. Europe is in Newfoundland.

21 nea.......Thats not nearly half!

44% isn't nearly half? Whatever. I guess 98% (the percentage of Republicans who "voted for the war") isn't nearly everyone, either?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:You invite the assumption that you are a right winger, and possibly a Republican in Libertarian clothing. Your special scorn is heaped on liberals (who are usually Democrats)...

I've been hesitant to do this because i have an issue with your basic argument tact that not being a liberal means you are a Republican and therefore not a libertarian. Your only arguments have been that I'm not liberal. No duh. But here's a link to check out.

Neal Boortz is a Libertarian talk show host, he's the 3rd or 4th most widely syndicated talk show host in the country. He is a card carrying Libertarian. Note two major things on his site.

#1) He hates Republicans and he hates Democrats FAR MORE. For the same reasons I do.

#2) And yet, he is more "Republican" then I am as he advocated George W Bush for President only because of the war on terror which Democrats scare the hell out of him. I criticize in words Democrats more becuase of what Democrats say. I vote for neither because I recognize in the end they do so little different it makes no difference who is actually in office as the current congress is demonstrating by focusing on inane issues like the minimum wage that affects only the 1% of workers who earn minimum wage.

In the end, he and I would agree I am sure it would be better to leave the middle east entirely, but he takes the realistic view we are there and are not leaving soon and I take the more idealistic view we should not be there.

So if you're going to argue the intelligence challenged view I'm not libertarian only becuase I dislike liberals more then conservatives, start by showing me how the currently best known and most widely heard libertarian today isn't one either.

www.boortz.com

Your point is well taken in regard to your being a Libertarian. From now on I will take a different position: as a Libertarian, I believe you should
greatly prefer the current Democratic Party to the Bush Administration. Note that I'm writing Bush Administration, not the Republican Party. Out of the grip of the criminal Bush and his neocons, the Republic Party might be able to return to its past ideological respectability-- at which time you will be correct about the parties being largely the same.

crazyhorse1 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:You invite the assumption that you are a right winger, and possibly a Republican in Libertarian clothing. Your special scorn is heaped on liberals (who are usually Democrats)...

I've been hesitant to do this because i have an issue with your basic argument tact that not being a liberal means you are a Republican and therefore not a libertarian. Your only arguments have been that I'm not liberal. No duh. But here's a link to check out.

Neal Boortz is a Libertarian talk show host, he's the 3rd or 4th most widely syndicated talk show host in the country. He is a card carrying Libertarian. Note two major things on his site.

#1) He hates Republicans and he hates Democrats FAR MORE. For the same reasons I do.

#2) And yet, he is more "Republican" then I am as he advocated George W Bush for President only because of the war on terror which Democrats scare the hell out of him. I criticize in words Democrats more becuase of what Democrats say. I vote for neither because I recognize in the end they do so little different it makes no difference who is actually in office as the current congress is demonstrating by focusing on inane issues like the minimum wage that affects only the 1% of workers who earn minimum wage.

In the end, he and I would agree I am sure it would be better to leave the middle east entirely, but he takes the realistic view we are there and are not leaving soon and I take the more idealistic view we should not be there.

So if you're going to argue the intelligence challenged view I'm not libertarian only becuase I dislike liberals more then conservatives, start by showing me how the currently best known and most widely heard libertarian today isn't one either.

www.boortz.com

Your point is well taken in regard to your being a Libertarian. From now on I will take a different position: as a Libertarian, I believe you should
greatly prefer the current Democratic Party to the Bush Administration. Note that I'm writing Bush Administration, not the Republican Party. Out of the grip of the criminal Bush and his neocons, the Republic Party might be able to return to its past ideological respectability-- at which time you will be correct about the parties being largely the same.

Excellent! I think that is a reasonable view for you to argue, let the games begin!

ATV wrote:

21 nea.......Thats not nearly half!

44% isn't nearly half? Whatever. I guess 98% (the percentage of Republicans who "voted for the war") isn't nearly everyone, either?

Not in politics it isn't.....especially when the other 56% contains nearly all of the party leadership!

I'm not really trying to argue that the war has been great for us, or that we should go seek out more wars. I'm simply stating that the Dem's aren't innocent in this matter. I don't believe that Kerry would have had the sack to push forward the war initiative in Iraq, but he sure did vote for it. In fact the reality is that in early 2003 everyone thought that Sadaam was hiding some sort of weapons program. We were all divided about how it should have been dealt with, but very few actually realized the situation on the ground. (Now, don't go finding some link to an obscure article from someone arguing that Sadaam never really had those weapons, at that point that was a vey fringe point of view). Therefore it was right for us to make the decision based on what we knew at the time. Now that we know otherwise doesn't make the decision any less valid, when the decision had to be made.

I'm simply stating that the Dem's aren't innocent in this matter.

No, they're not. You're implying, though, that the Democrats are just as guilty. The numbers don't support this. This is aside from the fact it was a Republican administration that was behind the whole push to begin with.

ATV wrote:

I'm simply stating that the Dem's aren't innocent in this matter.

No, they're not. You're implying, though, that the Democrats are just as guilty. The numbers don't support this. This is aside from the fact it was a Republican administration that was behind the whole push to begin with.

Agreed. No argument there. At the time I thought it was the right move to go into Iraq, even though I sensed that Bush Jr. wouldn't have been as gung-ho about it if it weren't for the incidents surrounding his father persidency. Now that we are there I think that it would be irresponsible to just up and leave.

Sometimes I wonder if the intention of goint there had less to do with WMD's and Human Rights, and more to do with having a strategic military presence in the region. Iraq, after all, is right between Iran and Syria.

jazzskins wrote:

ATV wrote:

21 nea.......Thats not nearly half!

44% isn't nearly half? Whatever. I guess 98% (the percentage of Republicans who "voted for the war") isn't nearly everyone, either?

Not in politics it isn't.....especially when the other 56% contains nearly all of the party leadership!

I'm not really trying to argue that the war has been great for us, or that we should go seek out more wars. I'm simply stating that the Dem's aren't innocent in this matter. I don't believe that Kerry would have had the sack to push forward the war initiative in Iraq, but he sure did vote for it. In fact the reality is that in early 2003 everyone thought that Sadaam was hiding some sort of weapons program. We were all divided about how it should have been dealt with, but very few actually realized the situation on the ground. (Now, don't go finding some link to an obscure article from someone arguing that Sadaam never really had those weapons, at that point that was a vey fringe point of view). Therefore it was right for us to make the decision based on what we knew at the time. Now that we know otherwise doesn't make the decision any less valid, when the decision had to be made.

Correction: Nearly everyone thought there was good reason to believe Saddam had WMD. As we now know Bush, the CIA, Cheney, other neocons at the top, and the arms inspectors were the exceptions. They knew there was no proof Saddam had WMD. That's why they deliberately distributed bogus photos, diagrams of mobile arms labs that didn't exist, and tried to discredit Wilson and silence other critics. This case is not about what they thought; it's about what they were willing to fake and cover up. They also had reliable information that 911 was coming and failed to react.