On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:46:33 -0700, Dan
hotmail.com> wrote:
>Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>
>
>>> So, Libertarians (YOU) prefer Bigger Government,
>>
>> I try to figure out which bunch would make the government
>> even bigger and more powerful. So far, that's still the
>> Democrats -- but not by much.
>
>You're kidding, right?
>
>> Anti-smoking,
>
>Protecting me from you. The job of government.
Anti-smoking laws only "protect" you from smokers when they
ban smoking in places you are forced to be. This does not
include other people's private property, such as bars and
stores. Ban smoking in government buildings -- no problem.
Ban smoking in Joe's Bar & Grill -- big problem.
>> anti-guns,
>
>Cetainly not the Democrats.
Every year, especially in California, the Democrats in the
state legislature fill the hopper with new anti-gun bills.
The Republicans don't. The Democrats do the same at the
Federal level. The Republicans don't. Sure, there are the
RARE Democrats who don't join in the parade. Gov.
Richardson comes to mind. I seriously recommend you
nominate him for President. I might even vote for him. Of
course, given his gun control (non-)record, he doesn't have
a chance. But really -- he's my favorite Democrat nowadays.
Seems to be one of the Good Guys.
>> anti-building (remember Adrianna Gianturco and her "plan" to
>> not build any more freeways?),
>
>Nope. Restrictions, limits, governance, yes.
So you DON'T remember Ms. Gianturco.
>Or do you consider the folks who believe you have the right to own and
>use a nuke to be mainstream Republicans?
Huh?
>> anti-business,
>
>You're kidding, right?
Nope.
>> anti-cars,
>
>Nope (unfortunately).
>
>> anti-just about everything I favor
>
>So, name some things you favor that Democrats are against.
Guns. The following rights: the right of a business
operator to decide to allow (or not) smoking on his premises
(you are, of course, free to give your custom to the ones
who don't); the right to wear a helmut or not while riding a
motorcycle, bicycle, or horse (yes, some damned Democrat or
another is always proposing a law to require helmets for
horseback riders); the right to have business relationships
with people of my choice, instead of being forced to
associate with people I don't wish to, for whatever reasons
I might have; the right to use the light bulbs of my choice
(the current Democrat wacky idea is to ban incandescent
light bulbs); the right to select and participate (or not)
the retirement plan of my own choice; and so on...
Really, the project list of the control freaks is waaaaay
too long to bother with a complete compilation.
>> -- v. anti-abortion and
>> the inability to control special interest spending -- even
>> less so than the Democrats, which is really hard to believe,
>
>Why?
Because they used to be at least slightly less the
spendthrifts the Democrats have been since 1933.
>> but true. Nope, sorry, the Democrats are still worse. It
>> IS getting hard to vote for either.
>
>Well, you do need to get out more.
I get out plenty.
>>> nonsensical foreign wars,
>>
>> They're all nonsensical. Democrats and Republicans seem to
>> be about equally likely to engage in them.
>
>Really? Recently?
Depends on your definition of "recently." Since 2001? No,
but they have been in The Opposition, and have opposed just
about everything Bush II has done. Before then? You bet:
WWI, WWII, Korea; Vietnam; Somalia; Bosnia.
>>> poor treatment of our troops (during and after service),
>>
>> I feel sorry for the troops, and the fact that they have
>> been lured into the Imperial Expeditionary Forces. Perhaps
>> their lousy treatment will deter more of them from
>> enlisting. But, overall, you accept the King's shilling,
>> and you get the treatment the King's men dish out. Don't
>> like it? Don't take the deal. It's a lousy deal, but at
>> least we libertarians know that it is -- that it always is.
>
>So, Libertarians hate the troops? ;o)
No, they oppose Pax Americana, and so feel sorry for the
people caught up in it. The difference is that they
understand what happens to the troops, and understand that,
given Pax Americana, it is inevitable.
>>> patronage on a scale not seen since the 20s,
>>
>> You're kidding, right? Did you just SLEEP through the
>> entire Clinton Administration?
>
>No, and no. I'm not talking modest favors for political support,
Why not? Is corruption on a smaller scale acceptable to
you? (Not that it WAS on a smaller scale, but that seems to
be your defense.)
> I'm
>talking about a true patronage system where all well-paid positions in
>the government are for sale. Decision-making positions; responsible
>positions, not just sinecures.
You mean like cabinet positions for members of politically
correct groups (like Janet Reno) or politically "connected"
groups, or ambassadorships (which both parties routinely
award to political contributors)? There is no difference
between the two parties in this respect. They both do it,
to about the extent.
>Don't get me wrong, I do not like the Democrats on this and many, many
>issues, but at least the Democrats are not as bad as the Republicans on
>virtually any of the important issues.
They are worse on just about all of them.
> Would that there were actual
>progressive and conservative parties, so we could argue about more
>important things, but we are stuck with a middle-of-the-road party and a
>fascist party these days. No, there is no argument.
Well, I think calling the Democrats "fascist" is a little
strong, but given how FDR ran the New Deal... well, OK.
>The problem is you get tangles up in the sales pitch, and do not look
>under the hood.
I look under the hood a heck of a lot more often than you
do.
>>> corruption on a scale not seen since the '90s (1890s),
>>
>> No, 1990s is right.
>
>This administration is so far beyond anything the Clintons even thought
>of they are not even comparable. No, I meant the 1890s.
>>
>>> abrogation of treaties, mindless spending on a scale
>>> not seen since the 80s (1980s), rescission of civil rights, etc.
>>>
>>> Well, Bob, guess I'm just not Libertarian material.
>>
>> No, I'm sure you're not. You'd have to take off your
>> blinders and see the world as it really is, and not as you
>> devotees of Saint Franklin imagine it to be.
>
>You want to discuss FDR, let's do it. We can have honest disagreements
>about what government is for.
>
>Your blind support for this administration and recent Republican
>administrations and Congresses is just totally bizarre.
Blind support for Bush II and the Republicans? This
statement, all by itself, demonstrates just how out of touch
with reality you are.
