I think I'm going to make a strong play to make use of my slight Native American bloodline to join up with them and give up my citizenship.  That might be a slightly better option, right?

In some ways, perhaps... but overall... no. haha.

How about building a raft and searching the Pacific for a new island to claim as my own?  Sure, the life expectancy will be rather low.  I better bring a hot nurse along if not to keep me alive to procreate and have a few of the last remaining free people on earth.  It's probably the best mark I can leave on this world.

You could get a neighboring new island and we could go to pretend war and write up treaties to keep up appearances of civilization!  But get your own nurse.

Actually, I'll take it one step further: John McCain can only get elected if Hillary is the Dem nominee.  If Obama wins the primary, I predict that he will win the general election precisely because McCain would be so weak against him.

I almost hope the latter scenario is what happens.  As conservative/libertarian as I am, my visceral dislike for Dishonest John could make me vote libertarian or I could write in Ron Paul. 

McCain is a weak candidate overall because he represents more of the same, while Obama, and to a lesser extent Hilary, represents change. I think Obama has the upperhand because he can inspire people to vote for him that wouldn't necessarily do so. I don't think that either John McCain or Hilary Clinton can make the same statement.

I have no love for conservatism, though. It is faulty by nature.  its tendency to conserve what is broken, and to resist change (until it is desperately and obviously needed -- in others words... way late) , and to stifle opportunities for positive change... all of this goes against adaptability, the one thing that survival-- of anything-- requires.

In our own country, the right-wing/conservative agenda has purposefully sabotaged attempts that, over the long run, could have produced positive effects and reduced costs of health care, education, social security, welfare, etc. Things that are, sadly, needed when money = power/influence, and a large percentage of the population is without.

I don't know how someone can look at the past 25 -30 years and choose to support a party that spouts a conservative ideology and constantly edges the country towards ruin. A wasted vote is a sad thing to see, especially when it is a vote that takes us down old roads that led to nowhere good and never will. 

With all due respect, we'll have to agree to disagree on the policy allegations you make.  Conservatism is merely a bastardized variant of libertarian thought, which itself sprung from enlightenment thought.  I'm not quite ready to discard that.

What you call "progress" is progress, but no one ever seems to reveal in what direction that progress is taking us.  It is leading us down the garden path to socialist totalitarianism in a largely bipartisan manner.  For instance, you allege that the GOP is "a party that spouts a conservative ideology and constantly edges the country towards ruin," and you are correct in this, but not for the reasons you advance.

In fact, the GOP had led the country down the path to destruction, but it has done so be haltingly following the Democratic Party's footsteps down the same path.  Conservatism is not the problem.  Liberalism Socialism Progressivism is the problem.  Looking back at Bush's 8 years, it's hard to make the case that he is a conservative.

Conservatism, as ideology, is by nature what I've stated. The very idea of practically "worshiping" tradition and the status quo is harmful, and is practically the definition of conservatism. To preserve what is "best" while resisting change. The ability to adapt is necessary, and in conservative ideologies it is hindered.

What I call progress is progress. Progress is advancing. It is forward. You don't progress backwards or progress in place. If I personally meant something else, I'd probably say regress or.. retrogress... or even digress if I had to. haha. Progress, then, is taking us into the future instead of making us live in worship of the past and present. I'm for always working for something better. Being content for too long is asking for trouble.

What do you think American would ACTUALLY be like had the policies of "libertarians" been in place since the beginning of our country... you play it out. I'm probably unfair in my treatment of the subject, but...

I imagine a severely hindered, unjust society that allows a large portion of their society to suffer while a significantly smaller portion exploits them for their gain. Social problems would be extremely prevalent. No protection against the abuses of corporations...no regulations at all, really... health, safety, labor laws... none to speak of. Discrimination would be commonplace and slavery might still exist, drugs may or may not be a problem, depending on whether or not the abuse of drugs like heroin, cocaine, morphine, opium, etc... was thought of as a societal, rather than personal problem.... education would be unlikely or difficult to obtain...

That's just me, though. I can see how these theories would be great if nothing ever changed, no obstacle ever presented itself, or if tradition was the best thing to hold on to... it would be reasonable in an agrarian society, but not in a successful, modern society, which outgrows simplicity rather quickly.

I'm not saying that, in the bigger picture, that there is no place for conservatism, because everything needs balance. Someone has to say that this is good enough, or that was better... but it is just as important for someone to say that it isn't good enough, and that we can do better.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument for the sustainability of a libertarian based society, mostly because people are obsessed with how things should be, rather than how they are.

A response is long over due, so I apologize. 

I have yet to hear a convincing argument for the sustainability of a libertarian based society, mostly because people are obsessed with how things should be, rather than how they are.

First, we need to understand the principles we are discussing.  Libertarianism is a reformation or reaction, if you will, to the ever-encroaching socialism that has spread virulently since the Civil War, and since 1913 particularly.  Socialism, which goes by the misnomer "progressivism," is nothing but a watered-down application of Marxist principles under a totalitarian framework, some of which we have discussed previously.

Libertarian thought took form during the era of Socialist dominance.  It was this era that saw Libertarian thought consolidating in Ayn Rand's "objectivism," a misnomer and misguided philosophy that would lead Libertarian thought to social irrelevance for decades.  Fortunately, although this philosophy was misguided, it provided a jumping-off point for the movement.

Today's Libertarian movement is moving away from the anarchistic "objectivism" to a philosophy based in American traditions, the Constitution, Federalist Papers, anti-Federalism, and the Declaration of Independence.  It is a well-rounded appreciation of the causes and forces that shaped this nation prior to 1861, and it pushes for a re-dedication of our nation to the original ideals of the "Great Experiment." 

We accept the need for the state at some level, but we do not accept the social programs, the social engineering, and all the ancillary programs that go with our socialist state.  I think a nation that didn't place such burdens on citizens, states, and companies could survive quite well.  It would abolish corporate fascism because it would remove the subsidization by eliminating mega-contracts and corporate welfare.  The transition would be difficult, but we would be better off.

You claim that socialism, or progressivism is the same as communism.

So how do you explain all the non-communist nations in Europe that employ socialist programs like national health care?  France is a good example of a nation exactly the opposite of totalitarian.  Yet, they have one of the best health care systems in the world, while spending far less money than Americans do.

I'm not saying the U.S. government should be in the health care business, but my problem with libertarian thought is that it puts too much faith in the "invisible hand of the market."  They seem to say "don't worry about corporate greed and corruption, don't worry about monopolies, don't worry about health and safety standards, the invisible hand will make sure it's all okay!"  It's all based on the flawed assumption that companies will always "do the right thing," that they'll always do what's best for the market because they'll always see that what's good for the market is indirectly but ultimately good for them.  I'm sorry, but that just isn't going to happen in an environment where the only job a CEO has is to increase profits for next quarter.

What needs to be focused on is undo-ing the post-civil war ruling that corporations operate as legal persons.  Under the current laws, we give corporations all the rights and privileges of a legal person, but none of the responsibilities.  In fact, corporations have *more* rights than citizens do.  As a person I can't buy another person, that would be slavery.  However, if I represented a corporatation, it would be perfectly okay for me to buy another corporation (another "legal person") because that corporation would be viewed as property.  Before the late 1800's, corporations were temporary bodies of investors focused on single projects.  They got limited funds and couldn't own property.  That changed with the "legal person" argument.

You're misunderstanding me.  Socialism is a transitional phase to communism.  This isn't such a foreign concept: U.S.S.R. stood for "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."

It's all based on the flawed assumption that companies will always "do the right thing," that they'll always do what's best for the market because they'll always see that what's good for the market is indirectly but ultimately good for them.

There is truth in what you say, but we do not have a free market system.  I would love to have such an open system, but that is precisely what the corporations use government regulation to avoid.  We have a corporatist command economy, a government/company alliance which is often described as "Fascism."

What needs to be focused on is undo-ing the post-civil war ruling that corporations operate as legal persons.  Under the current laws, we give corporations all the rights and privileges of a legal person, but none of the responsibilities.  In fact, corporations have *more* rights than citizens do.

Amen!  I couldn't have put it any better myself, and I agree 100%.  Roll back the corporatist state now.

This isn't such a foreign concept: U.S.S.R. stood for "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."

And China's official name is "Peoples REPUBLIC of China."  North Korea's official name is the "DEMOCRATIC people's REPUBLIC of North Korea."  I would hardly call China a republic or North Korea a democracy just because they identify themselves with those terms.  Also, Nazi was an anagram for "National Socialist German Worker's Party" yet the Nazi's were vehemently anti-communist.  Just because the USSR called themselves socialist does not mean that all socialist governments become communist.  Communism is an extreme of socialism, not an inevitability.

That is because there are two branches of applied socialism...Communism and fascism.  However, the end result is failure in both cases, be it from war, economic collapse, or revolt.  You are correct that Communism isn't the inevitable end, as the other option, Fascism, is also a possibility, but collapse and chaos are inevitable.

You bring up a great point about the Nazi's.  The word is used far too lightly today, and far too few people realize the truth as you do.  Hitler came to power on a socialist platform.  He used the same kind of promises that FDR used to come to power: food, housing, economic recovery, and jobs for everyone.

Unfortunately, while we got rid of fascist socialism in Germany in World War 2, our own fascist socialism was never fixed.  We are paying the price for that now.

I disagree.  Again, the nations of Europe have practiced socialist policies for decades without reverting to fascism or communism.  Socialism is an economic theory while fascism is a social theory.  Fascism is literally the worship of the secular state, the belief that the interests of the state overrule individual liberty.

It is entirely possible to have a socialist democracy, as we've seen with France and the U.K.  While those nations, as well as the U.S. may have their problems with individual liberty, I think you have to agree that it is nothing compared to the situation in Hitler's Germany or Mussolini's Italy. 

I don't believe you can just label something "socialist" and then equate it with the Nazis or the Communists.  There are obviously different levels of practice with socialist or populist theory.  It's simply not so black-and-white.

I don't believe you can just label something "socialist" and then equate it with the Nazis or the Communists. 

I'm not equating it.  It is the same.  The Nazis and Communists were proud of their socialist roots, so it is far from an irrelevant point.  The fact that you discard it because you dislike the fact does not impact the veracity  of the premise.

As to splitting hairs over fascism (economic) and socialism (economic), the fact is that these are two sides of the same coin.  Fascism is the belief that the individual's needs must absolutely give way to those of the state, so it can be argued that the two are exactly equivalent.

Again, the nations of Europe have practiced socialist policies for decades without reverting to fascism or communism.

You may wish and hope, but this is ignoring the basic facts of the case.  Across Europe, people are losing freedom and fundamental human rights.  In our own nation, we are losing the right to free speech, self-protection, and peaceful assembly, just to name a few.  We are living under a progressive income tax, compulsory state retirement planning, and compulsory state schooling. 

You are living in a fascist state galloping toward a command economy and socialism.  This is all in accordance with socialism, communism, and fascism.

" In our own nation, we are losing the right to free speech, self-protection, and peaceful assembly, just to name a few.  We are living under a progressive income tax, compulsory state retirement planning, and compulsory state schooling."

We're also in a nation of extreme polarizing and sensationalizing due to changes in dissemination (information) and solidification of the political system. We certainly aren't galloping, except maybe back and forth... and perhaps in place. In all real world examples, the political system allowed for the hijacking of the entire system. The real world potential of this in the United States is ultimately slim to none. The UK is more likely to lend itself to a fascist takeover, and I seriously doubt that.

In the end, capitalism the way you think it should be existed right here in this country and passed on to something new, just like feudalism did. It is inevitable, and can be fought... but ultimately the fight will be unsuccessful....

Our current economic system is Welfare/State Capitalism. Not welfare designating social programs like TANF, SSI, etc, but as in... the welfare of the population is protected from the pitfalls/dangers of pure capitalism to the general population, which was seen during the period most like that libertarians most likely adore, the mid to late 1800s.

In it's purity, both capitalism and socialism have serious problems. Theoretical perfection  is in synthesis, not in purity of form. Capitalism is a great foundation, with private ownership of the means of production, market competition, and the pursuit of profit. However, in practice it results in extreme social inequality of a relative few who are wealthy using their power and influence against the general welfare of the poorly paid population.

I'd also like to point out that there were times in our history when we had fewer freedoms than we do now.  People call Bush the "worst president ever" but have only lived through 3 or 4 of them.  What about Roosevelt when he threw all Japanese-Americans into internment camps?  What about when Lincoln revoked the freedom of the press, openly defied congress, and directly ordered the arrest of journalists that criticized him?  What about when John Adams (?) passed the Alien and Sedition Acts and used them to imprison journalists?  Would any of these things fly today?

The point is, our government is set up so that we have a revolution every 4 years.  We all have the opportunity to change our leaders.  The fact remains though, most people just don't give a shit about politics and vote along the party line.  Heck, that's what I'll be doing this November.  I'd even vote for Hillary if it will keep John McCain's grubby paws off the White House.

I'm guessing that corneliusdurden is a Ron Paul supporter embittered by the fact that (surprise!) his anti-war platform wasn't too popular with a pro-war constituency.

I'm not equating it.  It is the same.

Apparently you don't know what "equating" means.  I'm not discarding the fact that the Nazis and Communists were proud of their socialist roots.  I'm merely pointing out real-life examples that contradict your assertion that Socialism always leads to Communism/Fascism.  You are the one discounting facts because you dislike them, not me.

Fascism is the belief that the individual's needs must absolutely give way to those of the state, so it can be argued that the two are exactly equivalent.

Your definition of Fascism is correct, but the following argument is a non sequitir.  You seem to believe that the only possible options are extreme, absolute socialism, or no socialism whatsoever.  The problem with that assertion is that a society focusing solely on individual rights and not on the common good is an anarchy.  You also seem to be using the "slippery slope" argument that if someone takes a position, they are automatically taking the most extreme view of that position.

You may wish and hope, but this is ignoring the basic facts of the case.  Across Europe, people are losing freedom and fundamental human rights. 

Cite examples.  How are people losing freedom and fundamental human rights?  I'm not saying that they're not, but I'm not going to believe something simply because you say it is so.  If some of this loss of rights is happening due to socialist policies, perhaps the problem is too much socialism, not socialism itself.

In our own nation, we are losing the right to free speech, self-protection, and peaceful assembly, just to name a few.  We are living under a progressive income tax, compulsory state retirement planning, and compulsory state schooling.

Those things are definitely a concern, but socialism isn't to blame, authoritarianism is, and no, it is not the same thing.  The reason we have a progressive income tax, compulsory state retirement planning, and compulsory state schooling is because most people think those things are a good idea.  That's what a living in a Republic is all about.  Just because the majority of people want programs that you feel are socialist doesn't make this nation fascist.

Hill Ray just evoked the "Obama as Vice" this morning..
I think she's gonna need him to cinch this race

I think she'd be a good number 2. Ha... just a little bit of toilet humor.

Anyway, the "dream ticket" idea is a definite possibility in the future... but not before a lengthy battle about who's name comes first on the ticket.

the lights have dimmed and the previews played..
time for the show

I'm ready for the last act, myself.

Fast forward?

same here
"..git er done!!"

FF can have consequences, did you see "Click" ??

Haha, good point...

I'm obsessed with fast forwarding, though. I watched Solaris in an hour once. It is much better that way.

that was a trippy movie, even for a scifi buff 

Hillary finally wins a primary after losing a massive string of 'em and now she thinks she's back in command? Somebody sounds delusional.

I don't agree with Michigan being a "strong democrat" state.  I live here and the state is VERY right-wing almost everywhere.  The democratic candidate has gotten this state in the last two elections because Southeast Michigan has the highest population center and is very different socially and politically than the rest of the state.  In the 2004 election, Kerry got our electoral votes, but only on an extremely narrow margin.  Basically, Detroit is who voted for Kerry, not Michigan.

If Romney was running as the nominee in the general election, he would carry Michigan easily.

It might be a mistake, actually... as in, it seems that I remember that I accidently labeled a state wrong, but thought I changed it....

No... it was one of the closer choices I made. I placed it under "strong democrat" because democrats won the state for the last 4 elections. Most people, however, would probably list it as a swing state. Even in 2004 it was close.

 and as you know, for a long time, Michigan voted Republican. But they voted Clinton... twice, Gore, and Kerry. The significant votes being in 1992 and 2004, in which Michigan could have went for a Republican. In the end... I just looked at the results, not the details. Michigan is one of the states that could easily go republican... but I don't think it'll happen if Obama is running. Clinton will have a harder time in Michigan based on recent polls.

I'm predicting that not many of the states that I listed as strong one way or the other will deviate from the last 4 elections.

I see what you mean.  I guess I'm just looking at the fact that the democratic voting block in Detroit and Ann Arbor tends to speak for the rest of the state in the elections.  It's also noteworthy that in 2000 and 2004, the Democratic nominee won by a very close margin.  Gore won by 5.13% and Kerry only 3.42%.  Also, in the five elections before 1992, Michigan went to the Republicans.

I'm inviting you to be more specific about this line: "...who will just continue the current failed policies of Bush."

Failed policies being Iraq? Where the surge that many fought against tooth-and-nail is working so well that even Hollywood celebs are thinking twice about it?

I know you're an intelligent person and have some reasoning behind your statement. I guess I've seen people mention "failed policies of the Bush administration" one too many times so I'm requesting specificity. I figure you're just the guy that can give it to me.

Also, I am not suggesting Bush has been doing a flawless job. I think we all know better than that.

Iraq is certainly a large part of that statement which, by the way, needs no explanation.

His biggest potential success is Iraq... nothing else comes to mind. Even this great surge that, even if it is working (because, let's face it, everything is initially wonderful according to the Bush admin), is irrelevant because 1) we went to war unconstitutionally, for bogus reasons, when it wasn't necessary, and could have been avoided, 2) because we didn't send enough troops and resources to begin with, and 3) because all of this caused the reason why we are still there (terrorism). The cost of the war is financially outrageous, considering that no funds/resources were raised specifically for the war.

If you debate any of that, we must be talking about a different president.

On the home front, the only thing he seems to be proud of are his tax cuts which, during a time of war seems to be a little irresponsible. I don't need to mention the other potentially illegal, unethical, and immoral practices that he have taken place. He is a bad person, and his policies reflect it.

With regards to your numbers...

1. If so, shame on Congress for their role in this unconstitutional war. Shame on prominent Democrats and Republicans for misleading us about Iraq. I'm willing to admit that the intelligence on Iraq is not what it was made out to be but I am not willing to leave Democrats (who are documented in their remarks about the threat Saddam Hussein and his Iraq were) blameless in this mix.

2. We certainly had sufficient troops for the invasion and major combat operations at the outset. But yes, there have been blunders in the "Install Democracy" phase. I believe a lot of the good in Iraq has gone unreported for the same reason a lot of the good in America goes unreported (it doesn't equal ratings).

3. In a perfect world when the enemy is defeated it doesn't anger anybody who was sympathetic with the loser's cause. The terrorists are getting beat in Iraq by Americans and it's trendy to hate America like it's trendy to hate the New York Yankees.

I'm not here to play Dubya's defender. I'm tired of a lot of what I'm seeing in government on both sides of the aisle. I do not think he's been flawless in his leadership but I don't think he's rotten to the core.

Thanks for humoring my request.

The intelligence isn't even to blame. Did you ever stop to ask why it ever came up? There were no threats coming from Iraq. The story plays out pretty neatly over the internet news archives. You should check it out some time.

Certain true intelligence that stated the lack of WMDs wasn't shared with congress, while the false information that supported Bush's desire to punish Iraq was shared. To me, this selective sharing of relevant information, coupled with the constitutional duty of the president as commander-in-chief, places the blame on the President.

If memory serves me correctly, pro-wipe out Saddam statements date back into the 90s when a certain Clinton was president. Was certain information being withheld from the Democrats then, too?

There was also talk of removing sanctions in the 90s under a certain same president. Regardless, "talk" is just talk, and this type of talk has been done since Bush's father didn't wipe out Saddam. Of course, Bush Sr. was infinitely smarter in his dealings with Iraq. He knew what would happen after taking out Saddam.

 Depending on the year you mean, Saddam hadn't yet destroyed his weapons. I'm guessing this talk was around 1995, during and after the "Republican Revolution".

Clinton wisely didn't act on the talk.

Anyway, I don't know about then. I know about now, which is more relevant than what happen over a decade ago under another president who didn't start a huge war.

Bush ignored information that said there were NO WEAPONS in order to stir up war, at a time when it was easy to sway people towards it. He had people claiming that the war would cost less than it would. While others are saying it would cost $200 - 300 billion, his guys were saying,,, ehh, maybe $40 - 90 billion. They chose to say that we'd be in and out of Iraq quickly, even though others were saying that it couldn't be quick.

  He rushed into Iraq under no threat from them. He didn't have to run, he could have walked...strolled, even. If they had weapons that they were going to sell, they'd have sold them already, probably before 9/11 if they were selling them to terrorist groups. But he rushed before too much information hindered his momentum, like the UN inspections that were increasingly providing evidence that was contrary to the information spouted by Bush.

Do you see a pattern here? All Bush can do is deny the overwhelming evidence against him. And it was mainly supported by Republicans. The whole process was hijacked, once Bush started it, it is hard to stop. It has nothing to do with other people. In the end, Bush chose to believe Iraq had weapons in the face of other information. He chose to exaggerate the threat of Iraq and play down the cost and time we'd spend in Iraq in order to make the war appealing. No one could disagree that Saddam wasn't worth de-clawing for $40 billion dollars and a few months. But Saddam isn't worth $1 + trillion dollars that we'll end up spending there, nor the five years that we are approaching this month.

The only thing that makes Bush seem honest if his gradual approach to the truth. As the distance between his Alternate Reality and Actual Reality grows, the words that he says gradually approaches the truth.

Bush's failures are not just Iraq.  What about the illegal wiretaps, a flagrant violation of the 4th amendment?  What about waterboarding at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, activities that have been clearly defined as torture not only by the Geneva Convention but by our own legal precedent?  What about the economy that it suffering from this unncessary war?  The falling US dollar? 

The Federal government has the luxury to overspend because it can just order more money to be printed.  This can be a good thing in times of crisis like Katrina for example.  It makes the government able to respond to national emergencies without going bankrupt.  But, Bush's policy in Iraq is unsustainable for our economy, no matter what system we have in place.  As an American, I'm sick of a government that feels it needs to push it's agenda all over the world.  I'm sick of a CIA that sets up not democracies, but dictatorships in 3rd world nations, only to have them collapse and inflict suffering on their populations.  We need to stop getting muddled in the affairs of other nations.

I might surprise you with this response: but in general I agree with you.

I still remember back in the 90s a debate about whether the U.S. should be World Police and I remember even with my middle school intellect thinking "No way."