Here’s one of the many things that puzzles me about the libertarians who call themselves "conservatives" — you know, the kinds of people who will support Mark Sanford again for governor even though the actual Republican conservatives in the General Assembly can’t work with the man.
These supporters love him particularly because of his anti-government beliefs: If he won’t work with the people who make the laws, fine! They’re government after all, and we hate government. They overlook, of course, the fact that he accomplishes nothing for them by being so ineffective. The government stays the same, and they get to keep griping about it. Best of all possible worlds to them, I suppose. Sort of like the NAACP adopting an anti-flag strategy that is perfectly designed to keep the flag up forever — that way they can complain about it forever, as a raison d’etre.
Anyway, the puzzling thing I was going to talk about is the inconsistency that the libs can’t seem to see. (This is one of many reasons the "left" and the "right" as we currently designate them make so little sense to me.) The folks who cheer the loudest for Mark Sanford and Thomas Ravenel on this blog tend also to be red-meat-eaters on immigration.
Never mind that the governor’s true ideological brethren wouldn’t put a stop to the flow from Mexico.
Check this link from the Cato Institute — real libertarians — that was just sent to me. It’s by one of their resident experts, Daniel T. Griswold, and for those too lazy to follow links, it sort of goes like this:
At a recent White House ceremony, President Bush put his signature to a bill authorizing 700 miles of additional fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border. The bill supposedly demonstrates the determination of Congress to stop illegal immigration, but like much of its other efforts, the fence legislation is more symbolism than substance….
Even if we could fence all 2,000 miles of the border with Mexico, illegal immigration would continue because of visa “overstayers.” A third or more of people living in the United States illegally actually entered the country legally and then overstayed their visas. On a typical day, 800,000 Mexicans enter the United States through 43 legal ports of entry along the border. They come to shop, visit relatives, and conduct business. The large majority goes back home within a few days, but a minority stays and disappears into the general population….
Drastically reducing legal entries from Mexico would be an economic disaster. Mexico is America’s second largest trading partner, and expanding trade and investment ties depend on expanding cross-border visits. Mexican shoppers and tourists have fueled economic growth in U.S. border communities. The only lasting solution to illegal immigration will be to offer a legal alternative.
If congressional leaders truly want a “secure border,” any enforcement efforts must be combined with comprehensive immigration reform. A temporary worker program of the type supported by President Bush and approved in May by the U.S. Senate would allow peaceful and hardworking people to enter the United States legally instead of illegally….
So if you’re the libertarian type, but you think a fence is a great idea, tell me how that works in your mind…
Related Posts
True libertarians have no problem with Mexicans entering the U.S. and performing hard and much needed labor.
True libertarians would legalize all the various victimless crimes: drugs, prostitution, gambling etc.
True libertarians would call for an immediate withdrawl of troops from abroad, especially Iraq.
True libertarians would abolish most forms of gun control.
True libertarians would abolish most government regulation of business.
True libertarians would be pro-choice.
And on it goes. Most of the self-described libertarians on this blog are really something else. I would call them neo-cons. They want to eliminate many of the government regulations on things they desire, gun control for instance, while maintaining a very strong government role in other areas, foreign policy.
A good example of a phoney libertarian is radio talk show host Neal Bortz. He claims ad-infinitem that he’s a libertarian yet strongly supports the Iraq war. That in itself disqualifies him from libertarian status.
Libertarian, Democrat, Republican. What’s the difference? No matter who wins elections, “the government still gets elected”. I see no difference (from my own personal perspective) between Mark Sanford and Jim Hodges, between David Beasley and John West. As for Sanford “doing” anything, he can’t. No governor can “do” without the approval of the Legislature. Until the Legislature changes (ALL are thrown out), government won’t change. Simple fact.
The “wall” is an OK idea, but it won’t have any noticeable impact unless ALL immigration laws currently on the books are totally enforced. Neither GWBush, Clinton, GHWBush nor Reagan saw that immigration laws were enforced. Maybe even Carter and before, but I’m thinking of time since Simpson-Mazoli.
Ah well, another yawner of a day in the old “cesspool” of local, state and federal government. The more things change, the more they remain the same.
I’m a Libertarian and I’m for a fence. More for the symbolic than the law enforcement reasons. I’d be more interested in heavy fines for employers who use illegal aliens. If the jobs weren’t there, the flow into the country would dry up.
But, Mr. Cato Institute doesn’t even consider the real and hidden costs of thousands of illegal aliens on our healthcare, education, and legal system.
Every “English As A Secong Language” student drains resources from the system. Every illegal construction worker who cuts a finger off while working without insurance costs the rest of us who pay insurance.
Personal responsibility. That’s what it’s all about. Being accountable for your actions. Doing no harm to others. Supporting a government small enough to remove all the waste, fraud, and abuse that is built into a system steeped in greed.
How’s the war on drugs going? Are we winning that multi-billion dollar effort? Or are the same 10-15% of drug users still using drugs like they always have?
Conservatives care about a fetus but don’t care a bit about the impact unwanted children have on society. Liberals support a structure that rewards people (using my money) for having illegitimate kids and keeping them sucking from the
government teat.
Conservatives get their knickers in a twist if they see Janet Jackson’s nipple. Liberals think tax dollars should be used to fund “art” that includes dipping a crucifix in urine.
Conservatives think the U.S. is the world’s policeman and that every human being should experience the beauty of capitalism. Liberals cry when a homeowner shoots an intruder.
Conservatives think we should let Terry Schiavo gurgle on forever. Liberals think we should let cold blooded killers have access to more TV stations in prison.
Conservatives think that a cancer patient smoking a joint is the start of the slippery slope to rampant drug use. Liberals think its okay to let their underage kids drink at home.
The society we have today is a result of the Conservative/Liberal philosophy. You all deserve what you’ve asked for. Every week, take a look at your paycheck and ask yourself whether you’re getting a good deal on the government you pay for.
“THE WORLD HAS CHANGED IN THE PAST DECADE!!
About Jobs taken by the SO called ” Illegal Immigrants take from “Americans , this is not true, I had many Americans not wanting to work in my warehouse, for minimum wage, that is all that I could be give, due to competition from aboard, mainly the far east.
It is not the poor Illegal that comes to feed their family across the border for 7 bucks and hour, ( also if you pay 35 bucks and hour to for picking lettuce, think how much it would cost you to eat ?) then you would blame the government. Stop blaming either the government or the immigrant. Each person is to blame for their own success or failure. I am a Immigrant that came here Legally, I owned a corporation before I even landed in JFK, and my corporation employed 70 Americans. My question is simple, Show me an American willing to work for minimum wage, in teh farms, the slaughetr houses, Etc?
The Corporations have outsourced the jobs overseas because of one thing, COMPETATION ” HERE IS A SMALL BREAK DOWN, The countries in Asia basin are trading within themselves, Japan, Thailand, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand etc.. Europe, has UNIFIED and are trading within themselves, they have even made their monetary system unified the EURO Dollar. The Arab nation started dealing within their own countries, what’s left is Africa who is a poor nation economically, They have many natural resources, yet they have to learn to come together and start using their natural resources. Then there is our Good Old USA:) Which I LOVE AND WILL GIVE MY LIFE FOR
. We cant compete because the Corporations are forced to show profits and meet the estimates on their stocks every 12 weeks, which dose not give them a long term investment strategy, the labor costs are high, heating, insurance, social security, the unions, leasing, Research & Devlopment, production costs are high, advertising, state, city and local taxes, Payroll, by the time the corporation finishes paying all these , there is nothing left to show as Profits, SO WHY SHOULD THE CORPORATION KEEP FACTORIES IN USA?? SHOW ME ONE GOOD REASON ? heck, Even FORD is closing factories and moving them overseas, that is what’s HURTING AMERICA, “NOT” THE POOR MINIMUM WAGE IMMIGRANT,
There must be a change in our own perception, First We the People must be willing to roll up our sleeves and do what’s needed to bring back our Nation on track, which might include, , learning the skills for today’s job requirements, Learning skills that employers look for when they bring in one million Professionals every year.
What Can WE DO to KEEP Those 1 Million jobs here? moving to another state, Relearning new Skills,etc.. How can America start its new journey into the New 21 St century and be competitive? This is what we should concentrate on as a Nation. We have lost our world market shares and now need to Regain it FAST, Which will not be easy. Fighting over Immigration is not the answer to Americas woes, Building the proper Economic infrastructure for competing with the upcoming world economies, China, India, Europe. I know this that anyone that wants a minimum wage job will always find it. Those that want job security are looking at pink clouds, Those days are gone. THERE IS A FEARCE WORLD COMPETATION From upcoming nations that have over a billion low wage workers.
We must FACE the realities of TODAYS ECONOMICS and stop blaming others and other nations for hurting our economy, THE WORLD HAS CHANGED IN THE PAST DECADE!! Lets Stop The HATRED,We are a NAtion Of Compassion, Lets not forget that, and START LOOKING FOR SOLUTIONS, NOT SILLY COMMENTS .
PS: What gives one the right to think that they are LEGAL and above other HUAMN BEINGS?
ALMIGHTY CREATED ALL HUMANS. NO HUMAN IS “ILL”LEGAL.
STOP THE HATRED OR OUR NATION WILL DROWN IN IT. THANK YOU.
What would You becomplaning about if there were no “Poor Illegal Immigrants” that youll are all balming our nations woes on ?
Why Dont You All show what you will do for;
Health care ? ………….
Social Security ?…………..
Education ? ………………
Balancing the Budget? …………..
Trade deficits? ……………..
Exporting of Corporations ?………
World Globlazation & Trade ? …….
How to Compete in Todays World Globlazation ?…………..
How our children will comepete in the upcoming decade…………
How to Assist the 36 million people from living in POVERTY in our “RICH” Nation ?………………..
Where do the 46 Million Uninsured USA Citizens go for health care?…………
We all are not Follies as many Ass-u-me!
SOLVE These REAL ISSUES mentioned above, and stop playing folly fear politics on the backs of the poor that come to work hard to build a life and feed their Famalies with RESPECT.
Who is Stepping up to the plate and solving these Main issues That are the real ailment of our nation.? Not the Poor “undocumented Human”.
PS: Our President is a Great Preson, he is a man of Convictions and knows to see the future that our Nations Economics is tied with our 2 neghibours,Canada & Mexico who is a Huge part of our foregin trade.
The latinos have spent 860 BILLION this year and are becoming a rising force in the upcoming decade, IS THIS WHATS SCARING YOU??
Im not Afraid of some poor Migrant taking away a Low paying MINIMUM WAGE JOB, If You are, then Get your Act together and start using our nations resources, and learning the skills & profession that are required in todays economy and market place, so you will have a future for yourself and your fmaily.
Complainers never win :).
Paying someone minimum wage because you have a ready supply of cheap, illegal labor does not make you a CARING HUMAN. Are you paying taxes on these workers? Are you paying healthcare insurance? Workmans comp?
Sick time? Vacations?
If not, then YOU are the problem. You’re an ILLEGAL AMERICAN.
CARING HUMAN should consider some remedial English classes, si?
$35.00 an hour for picking lettuce? Where?
What about the post?
Brad confuses diversity of opinion among many libertarians with inconsistancy among all libertarians, simply because he has only a cursory acquaintance with a what a few of them say in public print.
The vocal and well-funded libertarians in the media are the primary ones Brad sees wanting totally open borders and a destruction on nationhood. Theirs is an extreme and self-destructive position which they share with world government and global business leaders, who also do not want nationhood intefering with their personal desire for political power or profits.
The vast majority of libertarians and free-market conservatives know that allowing hordes of illiterate, low-skilled workers and welfare freeloaders to overrun our country is the quickest way to destroy our economy and freedoms.
Actually, it particularly stands out for me because usually, libertarians are so particular about getting the ideology just so…
Brad,
Your good friend, Howard Rich, is on the Cato Institute board of directors.
http://www.cato.org/people/directors.html
Would he give vouchers to illegals?
Brad, your picking one or two libertarians and declaring that their views constitute what all libertarians believe is a dumb as declaring that Brad Warthen’s views represent what all newspaper editors believe.
You need to watch less television and read some libertarian philosophy, like John Hospers or Roger McBride.
First, the proper way for a libertarian, or anyone else, responds to the argument of a libertarian, or anyone else, is to ignore the claimed political viewpoint of the proponent of the argument and to look at the argument. My analysis of Griswold’s argument informs me that:
1. It’s not particularly libertarian.
2. It’s stupid.
What is libertarian about bringing in a bunch of workers that don’t have the same rights as other workers? It’s not libertarian, it’s simply an effort to use the government to push the labor market in a particular direction – to shift power away from workers and toward employers. An illegal worker is at a particular disadvantage, because he’s afraid not simply of losing his job and having to find another, but of being ratted out to the INS and having to leave the country. Similarly, I can’t imagine that a temporary worker program promoted by the Bush administration or any other conservative agency would allow workers free movement between employers. So a temporary worker program would bring in workers who were tied to their employer by fear of having to leave the country.
That’s why the argument isn’t libertarian. As for why it’s stupid, well, for one thing it makes a lot of conclusory statements without producing any evidence. It ignores rather than refutes the counterpoints against it. For example, Griswold says that 1/3 or more illegal immigrants are overstays. So a fence wouldn’t totally eliminate illegal immigration. OK, but Griswold shies away from the obvious point that, well, if those figures are correct, the fence would stop 2/3 of illegal immigration, making the overstays easier to deal with.
And Griswold says that cross-border visits from Mexico have fueled economic growth in U.S. border cities. Yeah, right, how much of San Diego’s growth comes from tourism from Tijuana?
As for the notion that a temporary worker program would allow presently illegal workers to gain legal status, well, a bank robbery permit program would allow people who are not robbing banks illegally to rob them legally. That doesn’t mean we should institute a bank robbery permit program.
One part of a real libertarian solution would be to eliminate farm subsidies. Farm subsidies distort the world agricultural market, so particular types of agriculture don’t pay in many countries, because they can’t compete with farmers who are assisted by handouts from the U.S. taxpayer. That drives people off the land, forcing them to seek employment elsewhere – like as illegal workers in the United States. Eliminate farm subsidies, force U.S. farmers to compete fairly, give workers an opportunity to earn livings at home, increase demand in other countries, so that other countries grow economically, raising the standard of living in the U.S. and around the world.
Now, that analysis doesn’t even take into account the fact that Warthen didn’t choose that argument randomly, instead, he hunted around to find an argument by a so-called libertarian that said what he wanted it to say. All that proves is that you can find someone of any purported political stripe to say anything you want if you spend 14 hours a day at it, 14 hours that could be more profitably spent volunteering at the VA hospital.
Brad, name a few of the “actual” Republican conservatives in the legislature. Would that be Knotts, Leatherman, let us know who these conservatives are. Harrell??
Mary, what a petty shrew. Now, I’m no cheerleader for Brad Warthen, but I doubt he spends 14 hours a day picking fly specks out of the pepper as you imagine. And this is the second time I’ve seen you take cheap and unsubstantiated shots at Warthen over whether he volunteers somewhere or other. First of all, what business is this of yours, exactly? Do you think this kind of stuff helps your tortured and pointless tirades? Lastly, exactly what first hand info do you have about Brads’ personal life? I suspect strongly that you have none, zero, nada. Here’s a tip: You’d look a lot smarter if you’d shut up about this. Ed
Libertarians are just following the theories set forth by the people that drafted the Constitution. Is that so wrong? Thomas Jefferson is probably tossing in his grave seeing what has become of the country.
So Ed, I take it that you, like Warthen, support the war but don’t actually, like, DO anything to shoulder any portion of the sacrifice it entails?
Warthen supported the Vietnam war, but for some reason did not serve. He supports the Iraq war, insofar as that involves attacking all the detractors whose predictions have been proven correct, calling them “defeatist,” and accusing them of not loving their country. However, just as in Vietnam, when it comes time to actually do something beyond attacking detractors of the war, Warthen is nowhere to be found. He is willing for others to make sacrifices, but he is unwilling to make any sacrifices himself.
I know Warthen doesn’t volunteer at the VA, because bud called him out on it, and he responded with something like “oh, yes, this editorial page can just run itself” and talking about the 14 hours per day he spends. I don’t know how to take this except as an insinuation that he’s too busy to volunteer at the VA, or to do anything else to make any sacrifice in support of the war he advocates. That is, the activities he chooses to undertake don’t allow him enough time to do volunteer work to assist the soldiers who have been injured as a result of their following their orders, which were given to them in an effort to accomplish the policies Warthen advocates.
So yeah, I know about Warthen’s personal life because he has told us about it. The fact that my remarks have not been substantiated by anything that you have seen or paid attention to doesn’t mean they’re unsubstantiated. Remember, the fact that YOU DON’T KNOW something DOESN’T MEAN NOBODY ELSE KNOWS IT.
Here’s what the national Libertarian Party has to say about immigration. I can’t say I agree with some of the this but at least they are consistent:
The Issue: Our borders are currently neither open, closed, nor secure. This situation restricts the labor pool, encouraging employers to hire undocumented workers, while leaving those workers neither subject to nor protected by the law. A completely open border allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. Pandering politicians guarantee access to public services for undocumented aliens, to the detriment of those who would enter to work productively, and increasing the burden on taxpayers.
The Principle: The legitimate function and obligation of government to protect the lives, rights and property of its citizens, requires awareness of and control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demands that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.
Solutions: Borders will be secure, with free entry to those who have demonstrated compliance with certain requirements. The terms and conditions of entry into the United States must be simple and clearly spelled out. Documenting the entry of individuals must be restricted to screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. It is the obligation of the prospective immigrant to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. Once effective immigration policies are in place, general amnesties will no longer be necessary.
Transitional Action: Ensure immigration requirements include only appropriate documentation, screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. Simplifying the immigration process and redeployment of surveillance technology to focus on the borders will encourage the use of regular and monitored entry points, thus preventing trespass and saving lives. End federal requirements that benefits and services be provided to those in the country illegally. Repeal all measures that punish employers for hiring undocumented workers. Repeal all immigration quotas.
The problem Ed is not so much that Brad fails in any meaningful way to support the Iraq war effort. It’s not that he and other chickenhawks constantly ridicule those who want to withdraw from the quagmire. It’s not that every prediction by the “doves” has proven correct. It’s not that war supporters never offer any meaningful suggestions on how to win or even what constitutes a win. None of that is really important.
No Ed, what is really important is this: Continuing to stay in Iraq makes us LESS safe. If people would just understand that very simple concept then all other issues become irrelevant. But it is very frustrating to continue to be proven right at every turn and then have this “stay-the-course” crap thrown in our face. And sometimes it does get a bit personal. But in the future I’ll try to stick with facts.
bud, the slogans you parrot about Iraq are not even points of debate, much less arguments.
1. We are not in a “quagmire” so stop using that Vietnam propaganda term. We have an increase in casualties because we went on an offensive to seize control of some more urban areas.
2. Whether you want to believe it or not, we are in a religious war declared on the West by radical Islamic clerics. Iran is driving all the current guerrilla war in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine in order to fight us away from their soil, just as the US, Europe and Israel are smart to fight the jihadists on foreign soil.
3. The Muslims intend to continue bringing the war to us, just as they did while Clinton was in office. They are trying to influence our elections in order to put the weaker Democrats in office.
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated.” –Thomas Jefferson, libertarian
Mary, this is just typical. I suggest to you that you’d present yourself and your voluminous screeds in a better light if you’d drop the gratuitous personal attacks, and you respond with a gratuitous personal attack. I certainly owe you no answer, but as a matter of fact I retired from the US Navy after serving 20+ years, and yes I saw combat. So, by accident of timing I’m a little long in the tooth to participate in the current war, but I did my part when called upon. I’d lay my service record down beside yours for examination and comparison any time. In fact, you’re so quick to question everyone elses’ contribution to the war effort, I wonder what yours has been? Pretty slim I’d wager. Now, like you’ve done with Brads’ oblique little comment, why don’t you take what I’ve said here out of context and attack me with it repeatedly and senselessly so that everyone can see what kind of person you really are? You see, if you want to come in here and make lo-o-ong, rambling, convoluted and mind-numbingly boring ideological arguements to try and prove you’re the smartest person in the room, that’s fine. But when you resort to snippy little personal attacks for no good reason at the end of them, you just look silly. Especially when you base the attacks on nothing more than an out-of-context, tangential little vaporous nothing like Brads’ mention of his use of the hours in an “average day” which really wasn’t even what the original post was about. You don’t look like you have a piercing and prodigious intellect to me, Mary, you just look like a harpy, small person with a grudge and too much time on your hands. Ed
“In fact, you’re so quick to question everyone elses’ contribution to the war effort, I wonder what yours has been?”
I keep seeing this. Advocates of the war who don’t do anything in its furtherance other than to sit on their sofas attacking critics of the war are constantly demanding that critics of the war shoulder its burdens. What are you going to do next, pick out a car and demand that I buy it for you? You and Warthen wanted the war; I didn’t. I predicted (accurately) that the war would not make America more secure and would, in fact, turn into a disaster. Why is it MY responsibility? Why do YOU decide to do something and then make it MY responsibility to make up for your inability or reluctance to bring it to fruition? Why don’t YOU have a greater responsibility than I do for something YOU wanted, and I didn’t, for something that I TOLD you was going to turn into a disaster, and that DID turn into a disaster? Why shouldn’t YOU bear primary responsibility for the disaster YOU caused?
But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. The population of South Carolina shares a characteristic with many conservative states, that is, they’re freeloaders. South Carolinians receive $1.38 in federal handouts for every $1.00 they get in federal taxes. So it shouldn’t surprise me that you think it’s everybody’s responsiblity but your own to make possible something you want done.
Oh, can you tell me exactly why you attack me for inviting Warthen to do more in support of the war than sit around attacking its critics, and you say nothing about Warthen’s constant attacks on critics of the war? Is there any reason other than that you’re a hypocrite who doesn’t actually mind the making of personal attacks, so long as they’re directed toward people with whom you disagree?
Mary, you sound like you want America to lose the war with radical Islam. Why?
What do you hope to gain by helping the terrorists?
This is a good time to point out an important difference between today’s liberals and conservatives. Conservatives see the world as black and white, up and down, north and south. There is no room for nuance. No middle ground. Liberals recognize there is gray, middle ground and everything is not always at the extremes. Conservatives believe every Muslim person in the world is either for America or against America. Liberals understand that most Muslims decide who to support based on circumstance. A benovelant America is likely to create an environment that makes almost Muslims friendly or at least neutral to America. But a hostile America results in turning many of these otherwise friendly Muslims into America hating radicals. And that is the real tragedy of Iraq.
When it is pointed out that our war in Iraq is creating more terrorist wanting to do harm to Americans the conservative answer is to point out that there were radicals long before we went into Iraq. That is simply a truism. Sort of like saying there was crime before the creation of the FBI. Of course there are people who want to do harm to us. And there ALWAYS will be. But to enhance our security we should strive to reduce the number of people who want to do us harm. Not by fighting wars against nations that are not a threat. Instead we should focus on diplomatic engagement with those middle-ground people who don’t have any engrained hatred for us while at the same time seeking out the hardcore radicals.
But our current policy treats all Muslims alike: as enemies. That is simply not correct. We should immediately withdraw from Iraq as 70% of Iraqis now want us to do, and start over in our our foreign policy efforts.
The first step in this healing process is to elect Democrats on November 7. That would move us toward a broad policy that takes into account a variety of mindsets in the middle east and away from the black and white thinking that has brought us a ruinous quagmire.
Lee, you mean that I sound to you like I want to “lose the war with radical Islam”. I said what I said, and people can read what I said. By saying what I “sound like” you are not telling anything about what I said, you are telling what your viewpoint is. So your question “Why?” should really be stated as follows:
“Why does Lee believe that Mary Rosh’s statements suggest a desire for the U.S. to lose the war with radical Islam?”
And I can only respond by saying, you tell me. Because you’re a broken-down alcoholic suffering from D.T. hallucinations? Because you’re suffering from an opium-induced psychotic episode? Because you’ve developed the equivalent of a bedsore from sitting motionless on your sofa, producing a clot that has broken off and traveled to your brain?
Gee, Mary, you might want to get an attorney to read your posts before exposing yourself to a libel suit. Your amateur attempts at anonymous lying will not protect you. If Brad won’t clean you up, I will. Look around for some of the other punks who no longer haunt this scene.
I don’t expect you or any other person who constantly calls our war with the terrorists “a disaster”, “quagmire”, “unnecessary”, “based on lies”, “unwinnable”, etc, to provide any factual basis, because it is not their opinion. They are just carriers of a social disease call Seditious Hate.
bud, the conservatives you need to worry about are the Muslims who want to return to the 18th century, and wipe you out in the process.
I do worry about the fringe radicals who want to wipe us out. That is exactly why we need to leave Iraq immediately.
It is becoming clear that we need to move toward a three state solution in Iraq. This will require international support and an immediate withdrawl of American forces. That is probably the best outcome we can hope for at this point. Are there risks? Yes, but it’s worth taking a shot. This comes close to the libertarian plan.
Yo, Lee, I’m not making any claims about what your condition is, because I don’t know. I’m just looking for reasons why your views of reality don’t match up to what people perceive with their senses. That’s why I said, you tell me. I don’t know why you perceive things the way you do, you tell me. All I know is that your perceptions don’t seem to track with generally accepted reality.
WHY do you think my views on the Iraq war, shared with about 60% of Americans, reflect a desire for the U.S. to “lose the war with radical Islam”? WHY does your perception of the war diverge so greatly from what we can perceive with our senses?
And WHY is it acceptable for you to call others traitors, seditious, to make constant false claims about others, to cast constant aspersions on their motivations and patriotism, but unacceptable for anyone to question your perceptions and motivations?
Mary, you sound like John Kerry – you know you are wrong, but cannot bring yourself to apologize without weasel words.
I have every right to question the motives of those who entire position on Iraq is based on their hatred of President Bush, who supported the war when Democrats authorized it in 1998, and now lie about it all day long.
bud, what is your (Democrat) plan to stop the Muslims from attacking us here if we were to coward out from Iraq like Clinton did in Somalia?
Bush destroyed Al Qaeda after Clinton had helped it grow.
I’m not in charge. The question is, what is Bush’s plan? So far what he’s done has made us less safe.
With over 150 attacks on the US now prevented by our military and law enforcement, anyone who says America is less safe than it was under Clinton is grotesquely ignorant or dishonest.
Lee, if Bush has destroyed al Qaeda, where are these 150 attacks coming from? And if these attacks were real, and not products of your imagination, how would the fact that that there were 150 attacks to prevent make us more safe rather than less safe?
Oh, and why should I apologize for raising the simple question of where it is you get your unusual approach to reality, a reality, that, in many respects, is uniquely yours? I have no way to know anything about you other than by drawing conclusions about you from what you post here, but I don’t see your arguments as representing a unique brilliance or insight. You have a unique view of facts, and you see “facts” that no one else in America sees. Now, in some cases, when someone sees things that no one else sees, it’s because he has unique wisdom. In some cases, however, when someone sees things that no one else sees, it isn’t because of unique wisdom.
Your view of the Iraq war is one shared by no one else. I have to say, I haven’t seen any evidence of brilliant insight coming from you. I haven’t perceived in you a prophetic wisdom. You don’t strike me as a leader and philosopher, able to lead a benighted world to a new day.
It’s true that you see things that no one else in America sees, but I don’t see that as indicating that everyone else in America is wrong and you’re right.
So tell me, WHY do you see every American soldier’s death as bringing us that much closer to victory?
My view of the war is shared by those in the military and our 38 allies, who KNOW a lot more than ignorant, lying, traitors who want America to fail in Iraq because they want to regain power over the public trough.
Al Qaeda is kaput in Iraq and Afganistan. Now there is only a remnant of them, and the Taliban is in Pakistan. Iran is the source of most terrorism now, and they have to be taken out next.
There is no dispute about 150 attacks being thwarted, not among informed and honest people.
Lee, you say these things repeatedly, and with great certainty, but repetition and your own personal conviction does not prove that they’re true. As I understand it, schizophrenics hear voices that they think are real, and see things that they think are real, and have ideas that they think are true, and they repeat them as often as you repeat your claims, and hold to these ideas with the same conviction with which you hold your claims.
The truth or falsity of your claims depends on how closely your factual statements align with reality. You do not prove the truth of your claims by simply repeating them, nor by accusing those who do not agree with your claims of dishonesty and treason. As I understand it, schizophrenics also sometimes react harshly to those who disagree with their view of the world. A schizophrenic may, for example, explain away a disagreement with his views by claiming that the detractor is somehow conspiring against the schizophrenic.
If you want your views to carry weight, you will need to show how they are aligned with reality. Claiming that the Taliban is finished in Afghanistan doesn’t help to support your views unless you can point to some evidence that the Taliban is in fact finished in Afghanistan. It would be helpful if you could point to some reason why the hundreds of observers who claim that the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan are wrong. Simply claiming that these people are traitors isn’t sufficient because
(a) a schizophrenic or other mentally ill person might make a similar claim against someone who disagreed with his insane delusions
(b) even if the hundreds of observers who claim that the Taliban is resurgent are in fact traitors, it doesn’t matter. What matters is whether their observations, and the conclusions drawn from their observations, match reality.
What evidence can you point to that shows that the Taliban is no longer a threat in Afghanistan? In order to be considered credible, this has to be evidence that can be seen by other people, not just by yourself.
Mary, you ignorance of reality is not my responsibility. All I can do is post the facts. If you don’t want to explore the news you missed, psycological counseling might be in order to acertain your motives.
Taliban losses in Afghanistan, gains in Pakistan
By Bill Roggio, embedded reporter with Canadian forces, June 25, 2006
The latest round of fighting in southeastern Afghanistan has claimed over 82 Taliban fighters in two separate engagements in Kandahar and Uruzgan provinces. Security Watchtower provides a breakdown of the estimated casualties of Taliban and Coalition forces in southeastern Afghanistan since the beginning of April. An estimated 600 Taliban have been killed and 22 captured, with 41 Afghan and Coalition security forces killed or wounded combined. The estimated Taliban casualties do not contain the number of wounded, which is often twice the number killed in combat.
Afgh-security-map-thumbnail.JPG
Afghanistan UN Security Accessability Map (as of June 20, 2006).Click to view map, .PDF, approximately 1 Megabyte.
As the Coalition ramps up its forces and adds another 9,000 troops to the southeastern theater, the Taliban continues to take a pounding on the battlefield. The security situation in the region is fluid, but the Coalition is clearly gaining the upper hand as it moves forces and devotes energy into regions largely ignored by the central Afghan government. Coalition and Afghan sources estimate the Taliban strength between 2,000 to 5,000 active fighters, while the Taliban puts their strength at 12,000. Using the high Coalition estimate of 5,000 and an estimate of 1,800 Taliban killed and wounded, the Taliban has experienced a 36% attrition rate over the past three months. Using the Taliban estimate of 12,000 strong, the Taliban has experienced a 15% attrition rate. Both are frighteningly high numbers, and belie the reports of a sophisticated and powerful Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan.
The closest Mary has ever gotten to a weapon is probably her granny’s knitting needle, yet she(it) persists in trying to tell others how the conduct of a war thousands of miles away is going.
If we had more like her back in WW2, we would have surrendered soon after Pearl Harbor.
Oh, there were Americans right after Pearl Harbor who wanted us to “be calm, and not rush to war”.
And plenty of Stalinists among the Democrats in power.
Hillary Clinton’s top advisor is the son of two Stalinists from the New Deal.
Here are three libertarian views on immigration from _Liberty_ magazine:
http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2006_10/cox-immigration.html
I agree with the first one, Cox’s.
And I’ll add — libertarianism is a philosophy firmly grounded in Western Civilization. Immigration from the third world will dilute and ultimately destroy Western Civilization in America. Therefore, open borders = the end of libertarianism. Pretty simple.
Oh, I should add, it’s perfectly true that Stalinists dominate the Democratic Party. Trouble is, Trotskyites dominate the Republican Party.