Klavan on Culture

[Mott the Hoople]

read my signature line.

and 'limited government' isn't a 'republican' party benchmark anymore, as should be obvious with the nightmarish creations of DHS.

there is nothing undefined in the constitution with regards to the enumerated powers. lets repeat that, there is NOTHING undefined in the constitution with regards to the constitution.

read my signature line.

Again, more generic ideological "Supposed to be" response. You can't even articulate a position where the government clearly exceeds constitutional authority with out giving some right wing lay persons opinion. This ideology seems to be more important than practical solutions to government. As far as I know our government is a constitutional republic and it operates within the limited powers enumerated by the constitution.

You don't want limited government what you want is anarchy.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Willing to compromise what?

Are you reasonably willing to compromise on ideology in order to be pragmatic and solve problems?

If it doesn't work, we have your say that it is because Democrats didn't want it to so they got elected and proved it.

That's a circular argument and is evading my question.

More seriously, in what way do you suppose I would need to compromise and what is your measure of "doesn't work?" Ideologically speaking we may have contrary views on "work" and "not working". Consider. People who believe that government isn't working because people take on risk in our markets and my get fired or lose their job and work to remove that risk believe that "government isn't working", but I would disagree. Were the roads available for them to get to work? Were there emergency personnel available if there was an emergency medical, criminal, or property threatening?

The idea that you can simplify it to "Libertarians think there should be no government" is silly. If they believed that they'd be Anarchists not Libertarians.

Bingo, I think you've hit the nail right on the head. Most libertarians I've met are not Libertarians per se but are anarchist in drag. You're argument is really dancing on the head of a pin. I am pointing out that governments legitimate function is to serve the people as determined by the people but with powers limited by our Constitution. I made no comment about government working/or not working. That's an ideological argument on your behalf. I expressed a belief in effective and competent governance. Meaning that when the government builds a road with our dollars I expect the road to be built to an acceptable level of quality. That when our government goes to war I expect it to go for the right reasons with the proper resources, personnel and training to be succesful. That when our government delivers the mail, it should do so on a timely basis or that whatever services the people determine the government should provide to solve a particular problem should be implemented by government in an effective and competent manner. I expect practical and pragmatic solutions to problem and that means if you have to compromise on ideology in order to acheive those solutions, well so be it! I reject this ideological notion of "work vs don't work". If our government is not being ran effectively to serve the needs of the people, then those responsible should pay the price (i.e. be elected out of office.) and that is what has happened recently to Republicans and you see that reflected in the last two elections and in the most recent polls. Republicans/conservatives do not have the public trust to govern effectively or competently.

 

[Damocles]

Are you reasonably willing to compromise on ideology in order to be pragmatic and solve problems?

You provide a vague question while demanding specifics, physician heal thyself.

That's a circular argument and is evading my question.

Hence my "more seriously" and the rolleyes showing it was sarcastic and not my answer.

Bingo, I think you've hit the nail right on the head. Most libertarians I've met are not Libertarians per se but are anarchist in drag. You're argument is really dancing on the head of a pin. I am pointing out that governments legitimate function is to serve the people as determined by the people but with powers limited by our Constitution. I made no comment about government working/or not working. That's an ideological argument on your behalf. I expressed a belief in effective and competent governance. Meaning that when the government builds a road with our dollars I expect the road to be built to an acceptable level of quality. That when our government goes to war I expect it to go for the right reasons with the proper resources, personnel and training to be succesful. That when our government delivers the mail, it should do so on a timely basis or that whatever services the people determine the government should provide to solve a particular problem should be implemented by government in an effective and competent manner. I expect practical and pragmatic solutions to problem and that means if you have to compromise on ideology in order to acheive those solutions, well so be it! I reject this ideological notion of "work vs don't work". If our government is not being ran effectively to serve the needs of the people, then those responsible should pay the price (i.e. be elected out of office.) and that is what has happened recently to Republicans and you see that reflected in the last two elections and in the most recent polls. Republicans/conservatives do not have the public trust to govern effectively or competently.

Well duh, I've been saying that the Rs don't have that trust for quite some time now and how we lost it and where we need to go to return to it.

The reality is you say "most Libertarians" are something vague, do not provide specifics, then request them from others. "Most Libertarians" are not what you say that they are, they are what they say they are, none of them advocate a total removal of even the Federal government this "anarchy" stuff is just rubbish.

Again, you ask me to compromise. What must I compromise? Where exactly do you think I would need to compromise being a Libertarian-leaner type of Republican? Would I be willing to? I think too much "compromise" of that sort led us to where we are now. Would I be willing to compromise some things in order to drive towards what I think is more important, of course I would, but you assume that only Libertarians need to "compromise" and if they don't on certain areas they are "anarchists".

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Again, more generic ideological "Supposed to be" response. You can't even articulate a position where the government clearly exceeds constitutional authority with out giving some right wing lay persons opinion. This ideology seems to be more important than practical solutions to government. As far as I know our government is a constitutional republic and it operates within the limited powers enumerated by the constitution.

it does? explain the controlled substances act or wickard v. fillburn please?

You don't want limited government what you want is anarchy.

bullshit getting deep.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Most libertarians I've met are not Libertarians per se but are anarchist in drag.

more bullshit, unless you also feel that democrats and republicans are authoritarians in drag.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You provide a vague question while demanding specifics, physician heal thyself.



Hence my "more seriously" and the rolleyes showing it was sarcastic and not my answer.



Well duh, I've been saying that the Rs don't have that trust for quite some time now and how we lost it and where we need to go to return to it.

The reality is you say "most Libertarians" are something vague, do not provide specifics, then request them from others. "Most Libertarians" are not what you say that they are, they are what they say they are, none of them advocate a total removal of even the Federal government this "anarchy" stuff is just rubbish.

Again, you ask me to compromise. What must I compromise? Where exactly do you think I would need to compromise being a Libertarian-leaner type of Republican? Would I be willing to? I think too much "compromise" of that sort led us to where we are now. Would I be willing to compromise some things in order to drive towards what I think is more important, of course I would, but you assume that only Libertarians need to "compromise" and if they don't on certain areas they are "anarchists".

I think your missing my point. Conservatives have had a "politics is war" mentality and have refused to compromise for practical and pragmatic solutions. Grover Norquist summed it up by saying that from the conservative point of view bipartisanship is another word for date rape.

So though I was talking in general if you want to talk specific examples. Would you be willing to compromise on a tax increase if it will help reduce the federal budget deficit and help finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Would you compromise on illegal immigrant amnesty if by doing so we could create a guest worker program and be able to better control our borders?

Would you be willing to permit the teaching of ID or Creationism in a comparative religion or social studies class as long as it's not taught as science in a science class room?

These are just examples and they are compromises that I am willing to make. I seriously doubt that any of our far right conservatives would be willing to compromise on any of these examples.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

and when one starts compromising with what they already have, they've already lost.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

and when one starts compromising with what they already have, they've already lost.

Thank you for making my point for me.

 

[Damocles]

I think your missing my point. Conservatives have had a "politics is war" mentality and have refused to compromise for practical and pragmatic solutions. Grover Norquist summed it up by saying that from the conservative point of view bipartisanship is another word for date rape.

So though I was talking in general if you want to talk specific examples. Would you be willing to compromise on a tax increase if it will help reduce the federal budget deficit and help finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Yes. I've made it clear that we need to start paying our bills now, while they are more affordable and will be less onerous than after inflation takes hold. Instead we mortgage our futures. While I think we should begin with cuts I realize that may be difficult. But we need to start paying bills rather than making them.

Would you compromise on illegal immigrant amnesty if by doing so we could create a guest worker program and be able to better control our borders?

Already promote that idea, and in fact almost all Libertarians believe in open borders. I personally believe in the "control the borders, amnesty, guest worker program" in that order.

Would you be willing to permit the teaching of ID or Creationism in a comparative religion or social studies class as long as it's not taught as science in a science class room?

Already promote it, and you and I have had that conversation.

These are just examples and they are compromises that I am willing to make. I seriously doubt that any of our far right conservatives would be willing to compromise on any of these examples.

Again I think you mistake what Libertarians are for what you pretend them to be. The one you may have the most problem with is the tax increase with Libertarians, the others, almost no objection from any Libertarian.

Your original point was that Libertarians were "Anarchists" and I've been telling you that is simplistic and wrong, pointing out to you that if they were anarchists they would call themselves anarchists.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Thank you for making my point for me.

but that's not a conservative position, that's a human position. no point was made for you.

 

[Demwit]

That's the first thing that extremist attack. The intelligencia and academics and those whom promote critical thinking skills.

Critical thinking skills are the enemies of the true believer. That's why you find so many on the far right who are so hostile towards those who are educated.

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are perfect examples. Both are college dropouts (actually Limbaugh attended two semesters and flunked out) and even though Hannity owes his career to academia he's been down right militant in his attacks on academia, the little hypocrit.

What's hugely ironic is how academia and the ACLU are two of the biggest targets of Hannity's vile attacks but he owes his career to both. Gives you some insight to his character, doesn't it?

Daddy gave Rush a job at his station though.