Freedom lovers on the left reach out to RP supporters

[Tangoland]

Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com has gone on the attack of the status quo Republicans and their close partners the sellouts of the Democratic Party the status quo Dem leaders.

What does this mean well the people who care about civil liberties and individual rights are tired of being lied to by their respective 2 party quasi-leaders.

Read this article to find out what is about to hit the fan in Washington:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/14/accountability/index.html

[constituent]

a full-page ad in the "A" section of The Washington Post, the day before the Senate's approval of the new FISA bill, demonstrating what a profound assault on the rule of law the Congress was waging, and how it further cements the two-tiered system of justice the political establishment enjoys;

:rolleyes:

that's right... the accountability bomb.

[Jeremy]

Not to be a party pooper... but do any of the "freedom" dems know of the 10th Amendment?

[revolutionary8]

Take it easy stormy.


In the 2006 mid-term elections, Americans handed The Democratic Party a sweeping, staggering, and historic victory -- as the GOP was removed from power and Democrats given control over both the House and Senate. It marked only the third time in the last 60 years that there was a change in control of the Congress. The Democrats defeated six GOP Senators, and picked up 31 House seats. Six Governorships switched from the GOP to the Democrats. Not one single Democratic incumbent in Congress and not one Democratic Governor lost -- only the second time in U.S. history in which one of the major parties failed to defeat even a single Congressional incumbent from the other party.

Since that overwhelming Democratic victory, this is what the Democratic-led Congress has done:

* Repeatedly funded -- at the White House's insistence -- the Iraq War without conditions;

* Defeated -- at the White House's insistence -- Jim Webb's bill to increase the intervals between deployments for U.S. troops;

* Defeated -- at the White House's insistence -- a bill to restore habeas corpus, which had been abolished by the Military Commissions Act, enacted before the 2006 election with substantial Democratic and virtually unanimous GOP support;

* Enacted -- at the White House's insistence and with substantial Democratic and virtually unanimous Republican support
-- the so-called Protect America Act, vesting the President with extreme new warrantless eavesdropping powers;

* Overwhelmingly approved the Senate's Kyl-Lieberman Resolution, to declare parts of the Iranian Government a "terrorist organization," an extremely belligerent resolution modeled after those which made "regime change" the official U.S. Government position towards Iraq;

* Deleted from a pending bill -- at the direction of the House Democratic leadership and at the insistence of the White House -- a provision merely to require Congressional approval before the Bush administration can attack Iran;

* Overwhelmingly enacted -- at the White House's insistence, and with substantial Democratic and virtually unanimous GOP support -- the "FISA Amendments Act of 2008," to vest the President with broad new warrantless eavesdropping powers and to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, all but putting an end to any chance for a real investigation and judicial adjudication of the Bush administration's illegal NSA spying program;

* Confirmed, with the indispensable support of two key Democratic Senators, Bush's nominee for Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, despite his support for radical Bush theories of executive power and his refusal to oppose torture;

* Stood by passively and impotently while Bush officials flagrantly ignored their Subpoenas and refused to comply with their investigations.

Yep.
Now, ask yourselves if you would listen if Rush Limbaugh was saying this, then muliply that by fourty for the "liberals", and you will begin to understand how important it is for those on "the left" to speak out. Now torque that a bit more, read the comments above, and you might begin to see my point.
Once again- The "left/right" paradigm is just that.
Keep saying to yourselves- there is no difference between the "left" and the "right", other than rhetoric and propaganda.
I understand we need to see the actors as such, but I think it is necessary to see that those watching "the show" will need certain indicators in order for them to see the crappy acting.
constituent,
it is interesting that you picked out the crappy part of the article. Keep your mind open, and consider not pulling out the holy water and wooden stakes before you see the fangs. "Don't shoot till you see the whites of their eyes." :D

[itshappening]

well, they have over 2,000 pledges, that is quite impressive

http://www.accountabilitynowpac.com/
http://www.accountabilitynowpac.com/
http://www.accountabilitynowpac.com/

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Lefties are not "freedom lovers." They're just irritated.

[revolutionary8]

Lefties are not "freedom lovers." They're just irritated.
I beg to differ and call on Kade and other lefties to expound. :D We ALL love freedom, we are Americans as well as HUMAN.

What is in contrast is the COST of Freedom. The RepublicaNeoCONS have defined, shaped, molded and TOLD US, over and over, that "Freedom is not Free"

:rolleyes:
Yeah,
peace is war,
freedom is not free and
love is blind.
Thanks George.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I beg to differ and call on Kade and other lefties to expound. :D We ALL love freedom, we are Americans as well as HUMAN.

What is in contrast is the COST of Freedom. The RepublicNeoCONS have defined, shaped, molded and TOLD US, over and over, that "Freedom is not Free"

:rolleyes:
Yeah,
peace is war,
freedom is not free and
love is blind.

Raising taxes on everyone to 100% is ok...as long as you don't oppose gay marriage, right? ha :rolleyes:

[revolutionary8]

Raising taxes on everyone to 100% is ok...as long as you don't oppose gay marriage, right? ha :rolleyes:
Oh please. If you think ALL liberals put gay marriage at the top of their agenda, then you need to look further, then farther. And GASP ALERT- some "liberals" feel that marriage licenses are a load of utter crap that isn't biodegradable.

It would be like me saying "All Libertarians smoke weed, gamble, and rip off porn"

OR it would be like you saying "All Republicans want to take over the world, give supreme power to the central banks, and kill as many people as possible in the process"

OR...

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Oh please. If you think ALL liberals put gay marriage at the top of their agenda, then you need to look further, then farther.

It would be like me saying "All Libertarians smoke weed, gamble, and rip off porn"

OR it would be like you saying "All Republicans want to take over the world, give supreme power to the central banks, and kill as many people in the process"

OR...

Let me say it in another way, you seem to have a few comprehension issues: Raising taxes to 100% is ok. regulation is ok. requiring a license for every gawd damn thing is ok, right? As long as women have their right to choose! :D ahhh but that might just be an opportunity for you to force tax payers to fund abortions.

[revolutionary8]

Let me say it in another way, you seem to have a few comprehension issues: Raising taxes to 100% is ok. regulation is ok. requiring a license for every gawd damn thing is ok, right? As long as women have their right to choose! :D ahhh but that might just be an opportunity for you to force tax payers to fund abortions.
I am a Republican. I am Pro Life. I am not a Pro-Choice Libertarian.

Comprende?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I am a Republican. I am Pro Life. I am not a Pro-Choice Libertarian.
Comprende?

You said you're a lefty. How's the chicken hawk party doing for ya?

[revolutionary8]

You said you're a lefty. How's the chicken hawk party doing for ya?
No, I said no such thing. In fact I called on Kade for confirmation in regards to my statement on "liberals".

[JosephTheLibertarian]

No, I said no such thing. In fact I called on Kade for confirmation.

You're in the neocon party. I am in the LP; the party that truly opposes the war. :D

[bucfish]

This is great getting organizations to hold Politicians Accountable and letting the public realize what they really do not just what they say when campaigning.

I just wish they would also advertise Pelosi's record as she is up for election!

[revolutionary8]

You're in the neocon party. I am in the LP; the party that truly opposes the war. :D

As in the W.A.R. party? ;) Join the club buddy. It isn't the PARTY, it is the drinks they are trying to serve.

[revolutionary8]

This is great getting organizations to hold Politicians Accountable and letting the public realize what they really do not just what they say when campaigning.

I just wish they would also advertise Pelosi's record as she is up for election!
I actually think it is quite a brilliant idea.
You know what "they" say- "Money talks, bullshit walks"

[JosephTheLibertarian]

As in the W.A.R. party? ;) Join the club buddy. It isn't the PARTY, it is the drinks they are trying to serve.

I guess you prefer the GOP's drink. eh. cock stirred, lightly salty

[revolutionary8]

I guess you prefer the GOP's drink. eh. cock stirred, lightly salty

All I can say, is that I have always been a "Republican" as far as I can remember. My party left ME, not the other way around. Ron Paul is a Republican, and so am I. I don't see how I, in my lifetime, can advance working with a party I don't necessarily agree with, or get amped about.
FTW.

[Danke]

Oh please. If you think ALL liberals put gay marriage at the top of their agenda, then you need to look further, then farther. And GASP ALERT- some "liberals" feel that marriage licenses are a load of utter crap that isn't biodegradable.

It would be like me saying "All Libertarians smoke weed, gamble, and rip off porn"


No, Libertarians supports your right to to do so. Big difference.

Not sure what you mean by rip off porn?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

All I can say, is that I have always been a "Republican" as far as I can remember. My party left ME, not the other way around. Ron Paul is a Republican, and so am I. I don't see how I, in my lifetime, can advance working with a party I don't necessarily agree with, or get amped about.
FTW.

That's fine. I plan on paying for lifetime membership in the LP. I will, however, switch around to any party I feel like being apart of. I have no real loyalties, but I do favor the LP very much. I'm not a social con, so no thanks, GOP.

[revolutionary8]

No, Libertarians supports your right to to do so. Big deference.

Not sure what you mean by rip off porn?
I meant nothing besides that is what people accuse the Libertarians of doing- In fact, I saw a thread here the other day... JTL posted some Ayn Rand recordings and people signed up just to say, he stold them, and it was "The Libertarian Way". Ayn Rand is DEAD. I am on JTL's side- just trying to make a point about stereo-typing.
Libertarians are pro choice. Say "supports your right to do so", all you want, that is another way of saying, pro-choice.

[Danke]

No, I said no such thing. In fact I called on Kade for confirmation in regards to my statement on "liberals".

We need Kade to come up with his own definition now? The modern accepted definition will do. Not, "I'm a Classical Liberal." If that is the case, then say it.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I meant nothing besides that is what people accuse the Libertarians of doing- In fact, I saw a thread here the other day... JTL posted some Ayn Rand recordings and people signed up just to say, he stold them, and it was "The Libertarian Way".
Libertarians are pro choice. Say "supports your right to do so", all you want, that is another way of saying, pro-choice.

I did so because I don't believe in Intellectual Property rights.

[revolutionary8]

I did so because I don't believe in Intellectual Property rights.
I understand, and AGREE, and, on top of all that, Ayn is dead.
RIP Ayn. Thank you.

[Danke]

Libertarians are pro choice. Say "supports your right to do so", all you want, that is another way of saying, pro-choice.

I agree with that. Didn't address your previous statement that we are pot smokers.

[revolutionary8]

We need Kade to come up with his own definition now? The modern accepted definition will do. Not, "I'm a Classical Liberal." If that is the case, then say it.
Oh please.
:rolleyes:
Here we go,
are you asking me if I am a liberal in sheeps clothing?
If that is the case, then say/ask it. ;)

PS- just remembered that Danke has a bead on Kade. ;)
Get a room?
lol

[Danke]

Oh please.
:rolleyes:
Here we go,
are you asking me if I am a liberal in sheeps clothing?
If that is the case, then say/ask it. ;)

PS- just remembered that Danke has a bead on Kade. ;)
Get a room?
lol

Not sure what that has anything to do with what you brought up and my response to it. Not trying to be an asshole, but what are you saying WRT the conversation?

[revolutionary8]

Not sure what that has anything to do with what you brought up and my response to it. Not trying to be an asshole, but what are you saying WRT the conversation?

WRT? You lost me. just ask whatever it is you want to know.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I understand, and AGREE, and, on top of all that, Ayn is dead.
RIP Ayn. Thank you.

Yup. It's one of my big issues with ancaps. They always make issues like that a big deal and end up looking like assholes. What is it his business, he (john donahue) doesn't hold any "rights" to Aynd Rand's audiobook. He is the reason why I would never call myself an ancap or an objectivist. That *** talk just doesn't jive well with me.

[revolutionary8]

Yup. It's one of my big issues with ancaps. They always make issues like that a big deal and end up looking like assholes. What is it his business, he (john donahue) doesn't hold any "rights" to Aynd Rand's audiobook. He is the reason why I would never call myself an ancap or an objectivist. That *** talk just doesn't jive well with me.

Who the hell is J.D. and who cares? :D Thanks for that btw. :) ps...
a *** is a cigarette. Can I suggest the adjective/noun/verb "Psycho" in it's place????
please?

[Tangoland]

This is great getting organizations to hold Politicians Accountable and letting the public realize what they really do not just what they say when campaigning.

I just wish they would also advertise Pelosi's record as she is up for election!

Nancy Pelosi is definately on the list in the other articles they have written about the accountabilityactnow.com project efforts.

Another interesting things about this is Steny Hoyer's opponent is a Ron Paul endorsed Republican Collins Bailey.

www.baileyforuscongress.com

:)

[nobody's_hero]

I might just have to sign that petititon. :)

[constituent]

constituent,
it is interesting that you picked out the crappy part of the article. Keep your mind open, and consider not pulling out the holy water and wooden stakes before you see the fangs. "Don't shoot till you see the whites of their eyes." :D

actually, i'm being nice b/c tangoland posted the thread.

i could do any of the following...

1) shred the linked article thoroughly

2) point out many of the other EPIC failures in the project/situation
(not just that in the article, if you will note, they promise to use
some of the money ALREADY raised to run a full-page ad the
day before the senate votes on FISA.... how'd that work out?
you do realize the senate ALREADY voted on FISA, don't you? see: BTM covers revolution march "services offered, promises broken")

3) expound on the presumptious nature of an organization that
claims to represent the "ron paul revolution" here, there and everywhere
when thus far all they've shown themselves to represent is a never ending
thirst for cash, and quite the imagination when it comes to dreaming up new
schemes when the old ones fail.

4) i've got more, but i'll keep them to myself for now.

if you would like me to elaborate on any of the points listed, let me know.



ALSO


This constant posting of requests for donations is becoming spam.

I'd ask if we should make a BTM forum for this crap, but i thought they had one of their own already (you know, breakthematrix.com)?

i guess this spamming campaign is part (my guess, the central part) of the "revolutionary marketing strategy."

i'd ask, but i'm sure that's "proprietary information."

[Kade]

I beg to differ and call on Kade and other lefties to expound. :D We ALL love freedom, we are Americans as well as HUMAN.

What is in contrast is the COST of Freedom. The RepublicaNeoCONS have defined, shaped, molded and TOLD US, over and over, that "Freedom is not Free"

:rolleyes:
Yeah,
peace is war,
freedom is not free and
love is blind.
Thanks George.

Many here will find that where they differ the most is on the concept of "economic freedom".

In regards to individual rights and civil liberties, there is nothing more important to us. In fact, our passion is defined by our love of liberty.

[acptulsa]

In regards to individual rights and civil liberties, there is nothing more important to us.

In my lifetime, Republican administrations have been a greater threat to our privacy than Democratic administrations. And I have seen signs that this is because their base is less tolerant of privacy intrusions. Just sayin'...

[Kade]

In my lifetime, Republican administrations have been a greater threat to our privacy than Democratic administrations. And I have seen signs that this is because their base is less tolerant of privacy intrusions. Just sayin'...

When a third party eventually gains voting power in this country, the liberals are either part of it, are it will be another trade-off of evils.

You are correct. Specifically the liberals, we despise violations of privacy, and defend vigorously the idea that the Constitution protects privacy.

[constituent]

In my lifetime, Republican administrations have been a greater threat to our privacy than Democratic administrations. And I have seen signs that this is because their base is less tolerant of privacy intrusions. Just sayin'...

frankly, during my lifetime the democrats have been the federal police-states' BFF in terms of people locked-up, use of the IRS as a political weapon and the criminalization of gun ownership.

even dub, for all his talk has shown us the least amount of enforcement in terms of cash handed over to those tasked w/ cracking down on people.

the coast guard in texas had to practically stop drug patrols on the coastline b/c they didn't have the money (as just one example).

the republicans are just more bombastic in terms of their rhetoric when they say they're going to screw you... dems actually keep their word.

[acptulsa]

the republicans are just more bombastic in terms of their rhetoric when they say they're going to screw you... dems actually keep their word.

LOL You do indeed have a point there!

[Jaykzo]

When I see that a good portion of our group of liberty-minded individuals is 100% unwilling to compromise in any way, shape, or form, to accomplish a common goal, I begin to think more and more that this movement is screwed.


If anyone thinks we can do this alone, they're mistaken. We're going to need every American's help to change this country, no matter their party. Small steps together will lead to bigger steps together. All this trash talking on Democrats is completely useless and will not help one bit towards restoring any sense of accountability in Washington.

[CUnknown]

I am (mostly) a liberal, I think I can speak for them about some things. The Kucinich/Nader-type Liberals love freedom as much as Ron Paul Republicans do. It's true. They are natural allies for the Ron Paul movement on questions of civil liberties, peace, and in reality I think over half the entire Ron Paul platform.

However, the common perception on this board is that liberals and socialists are our enemies, not our allies, in the fight for freedom. This perception really is as false as it is true.

Socialists and Kucinich-type Social Democrats, again, believe in freedom and strive towards it as much as Ron Paul Republicans. Where we come into conflict, is in our attitude towards State authority and towards the public economic sector. Liberals generally view the State as benevolent, and look positively on State-funded social programs that give assistance to the poor and to minorities. However, when our leaders in Washington (BUSH) are proven to be corrupt and working against the interests of the people, liberals are absolutely outraged because their "sacred trust" that the government is working for the people has been violated.

Where we differ, is that liberals will seek to replace those in power when abuses are evident, and will perhaps also add some structural changes as well (Kucinich's "Department of Peace", getting rid of the Patriot Act, etc), but they won't seek to reduce overall government power, size, or authority. To them, it is the men (women) in charge, not the office or the institution that's the problem. A powerful government, in fact, usually will be of great help in insuring freedom for the people, because of government's innate goodness, or so they think.

Obviously, Liberals and Libertarians disagree strongly on the innate qualities of government (Liberals - "Government is good! A strong government can insure peace and freedom for all!" Libertarian - "Government is bad! A strong government will doom us to slavery and war!"). But to think that Liberals don't love freedom, or that they don't hold freedom as one of their most important ideals, is absolutely wrong.

I think that as long as Liberals and Libertarians have common goals, we need to agree to disagree on our long-term objectives for the size and scope of government, and focus on the immediate, concrete things we can accomplish together, such as ending the war, restoring civil liberties, defending the Constitution, etc.

[Kade]

I am (mostly) a liberal, I think I can speak for them about some things. The Kucinich/Nader-type Liberals love freedom as much as Ron Paul Republicans do. It's true. They are natural allies for the Ron Paul movement on questions of civil liberties, peace, and in reality I think over half the entire Ron Paul platform.

However, the common perception on this board is that liberals and socialists are our enemies, not our allies, in the fight for freedom. This perception really is as false as it is true.

Socialists and Kucinich-type Social Democrats, again, believe in freedom and strive towards it as much as Ron Paul Republicans. Where we come into conflict, is in our attitude towards State authority and towards the public economic sector. Liberals generally view the State as benevolent, and look positively on State-funded social programs that give assistance to the poor and to minorities. However, when our leaders in Washington (BUSH) are proven to be corrupt and working against the interests of the people, liberals are absolutely outraged because their "sacred trust" that the government is working for the people has been violated.

Where we differ, is that liberals will seek to replace those in power when abuses are evident, and will perhaps also add some structural changes as well (Kucinich's "Department of Peace", getting rid of the Patriot Act, etc), but they won't seek to reduce overall government power, size, or authority. To them, it is the men (women) in charge, not the office or the institution that's the problem. A powerful government, in fact, usually will be of great help in insuring freedom for the people, because of government's innate goodness, or so they think.

Obviously, Liberals and Libertarians disagree strongly on the innate qualities of government (Liberals - "Government is good! A strong government can insure peace and freedom for all!" Libertarian - "Government is bad! A strong government will doom us to slavery and war!"). But to think that Liberals don't love freedom, or that they don't hold freedom as one of their most important ideals, is absolutely wrong.

I think that as long as Liberals and Libertarians have common goals, we need to agree to disagree on our long-term objectives for the size and scope of government, and focus on the immediate, concrete things we can accomplish together, such as ending the war, restoring civil liberties, defending the Constitution, etc.


Good post sir.

[acptulsa]

Good post sir.

Understatement.

[revolutionary8]

Great post CU, thank you.
We sure as hell need all the help we can get, and I understand that paleo-liberal hawks are every bit as freedom loving and patriotic as the paleo-conservative hawks. We absolutely need a balance. I see Democrats fighting Republicans, when ALL freedom loving Ds and Rs and Ls and Cs and Gs, and Is etc, should be united in reigning in the globalists. There is only one party in control, and that party is neither Democrat nor Republican- hell the real people in control of our country aren't even American. ;)

The LAST thing "they" want us to do is join forces, drop the labels, put our differences aside, and unite for the cause of Liberty. I say we piss them off. :D

[acptulsa]

The LAST thing "they" want us to do is join forces, drop the labels, put our differences aside, and unite for the cause of Liberty. I say we piss them off. :D

:D:D

[Truth Warrior]

Left freedom lovers, hmmm, thanks for the new oxymoron. ;)

Ask for their thoughts on economics. :D

[amy31416]

I am (mostly) a liberal, I think I can speak for them about some things. The Kucinich/Nader-type Liberals love freedom as much as Ron Paul Republicans do. It's true. They are natural allies for the Ron Paul movement on questions of civil liberties, peace, and in reality I think over half the entire Ron Paul platform.

However, the common perception on this board is that liberals and socialists are our enemies, not our allies, in the fight for freedom. This perception really is as false as it is true.

Socialists and Kucinich-type Social Democrats, again, believe in freedom and strive towards it as much as Ron Paul Republicans. Where we come into conflict, is in our attitude towards State authority and towards the public economic sector. Liberals generally view the State as benevolent, and look positively on State-funded social programs that give assistance to the poor and to minorities. However, when our leaders in Washington (BUSH) are proven to be corrupt and working against the interests of the people, liberals are absolutely outraged because their "sacred trust" that the government is working for the people has been violated.

Where we differ, is that liberals will seek to replace those in power when abuses are evident, and will perhaps also add some structural changes as well (Kucinich's "Department of Peace", getting rid of the Patriot Act, etc), but they won't seek to reduce overall government power, size, or authority. To them, it is the men (women) in charge, not the office or the institution that's the problem. A powerful government, in fact, usually will be of great help in insuring freedom for the people, because of government's innate goodness, or so they think.

Obviously, Liberals and Libertarians disagree strongly on the innate qualities of government (Liberals - "Government is good! A strong government can insure peace and freedom for all!" Libertarian - "Government is bad! A strong government will doom us to slavery and war!"). But to think that Liberals don't love freedom, or that they don't hold freedom as one of their most important ideals, is absolutely wrong.

I think that as long as Liberals and Libertarians have common goals, we need to agree to disagree on our long-term objectives for the size and scope of government, and focus on the immediate, concrete things we can accomplish together, such as ending the war, restoring civil liberties, defending the Constitution, etc.

Excellent post. Wouldn't it be fantastic if we had a true liberal running against a true conservative? I'd likely still back the conservative, because of the notion of stealing from one to take care of another (though I do think that local programs are fine, they dont' get out of hand as easily -- or so I'd guess.)

[constituent]

Excellent post. Wouldn't it be fantastic if we had a true liberal running against a true conservative? I'd likely still back the conservative, because of the notion of stealing from one to take care of another (though I do think that local programs are fine, they dont' get out of hand as easily -- or so I'd guess.)

yea, shame Mike Gravel got run-off so quickly. I'm a big fan.

[Kade]

Excellent post. Wouldn't it be fantastic if we had a true liberal running against a true conservative? I'd likely still back the conservative, because of the notion of stealing from one to take care of another (though I do think that local programs are fine, they dont' get out of hand as easily -- or so I'd guess.)

I would like to see that myself. I would be on the other side.. but it would be a worthy election...

[amy31416]

I would like to see that myself. I would be on the other side.. but it would be a worthy election...

It really would be very interesting, and even though I'd be on the other side, I wouldn't have this impending sense of doom no matter who won. If Obama were a classic Liberal, I'd be throwing my support behind him. No evidence of that, unfortunately.

[Kade]

It really would be very interesting, and even though I'd be on the other side, I wouldn't have this impending sense of doom no matter who won. If Obama were a classic Liberal, I'd be throwing my support behind him. No evidence of that, unfortunately.

No, you're right. With his vote on FISA and his expansion of the Faith Based and Community Initiatives, I now believe that there is not much a liberal can support of Obama, except that he is not McCain...

There is now evidence that he is, in fact, just a dirty politician.

[weslinder]

I don't know much about this campaign, although a Democratic friend told me about it earlier. I do know that Glenn Greenwald embodies everything that is wrong with Progressives. He claims to be a civil libertarian, used to be libertarian, and arrogantly calls all libertarians naive. He demands huge expansions of the regulatory and welfare powers of government, but then is appalled when government uses some of its newfound powers for some kind of individual oppression. He attacks big corporations regularly, while demanding more of the same anti-competitive controls that enabled the big businesses.

Glenn Greenwald props himself up as an intellectual, but his arrogant, unwavering naivete is the worst kind of anti-intellectualism.

That being said, good luck to the program. If there were some Democrats who cared about civil liberties, it would make our job easier.

[Kade]

I don't know much about this campaign, although a Democratic friend told me about it earlier. I do know that Glenn Greenwald embodies everything that is wrong with Progressives. He claims to be a civil libertarian, used to be libertarian, and arrogantly calls all libertarians naive. He demands huge expansions of the regulatory and welfare powers of government, but then is appalled when government uses some of its newfound powers for some kind of individual oppression. He attacks big corporations regularly, while demanding more of the same anti-competitive controls that enabled the big businesses.

Glenn Greenwald props himself up as an intellectual, but his arrogant, unwavering naivete is the worst kind of anti-intellectualism.

That being said, good luck to the program. If there were some Democrats who cared about civil liberties, it would make our job easier.

You tried to come out as insulting, but I can't really get mad at what you claim he has done...

I believe that there is a base in the Democratic party who believes strongly in liberty, just as I now believe that not all Republicans are fascists.

[constituent]

You tried to come out as insulting, but I can't really get mad at what you claim he has done...

I believe that there is a base in the Democratic party who believes strongly in liberty, just as I now believe that not all Republicans are fascists.

i considered myself "democratic" for the better part of my younger years (which are not that far behind me).

[purplechoe]

You're in the neocon party. I am in the LP; the party that truly opposes the war. :D

.....

[constituent]

"you don't say much, but when you do it's short and to the point, and i salute you for it."

[revolutionary8]

I don't know much about this campaign, although a Democratic friend told me about it earlier. I do know that Glenn Greenwald embodies everything that is wrong with Progressives. He claims to be a civil libertarian, used to be libertarian, and arrogantly calls all libertarians naive. He demands huge expansions of the regulatory and welfare powers of government, but then is appalled when government uses some of its newfound powers for some kind of individual oppression. He attacks big corporations regularly, while demanding more of the same anti-competitive controls that enabled the big businesses.

Glenn Greenwald props himself up as an intellectual, but his arrogant, unwavering naivete is the worst kind of anti-intellectualism.

That being said, good luck to the program. If there were some Democrats who cared about civil liberties, it would make our job easier.

Thank you weslinder, good to know. I know nothing about the dude.
I see a lot of hypocracy in establishment Ds and establishment Rs and establishment Ls and so on with all the establishment people. I do know that Salon carries some pretty rough stories. I have also read some information at firedoglake, and they seem to be a good source of info. as well. Yeah, they are a bit slanty to the left, but again, Paleo-Liberal hawks will the ones bringing down the Pelosis, Reids and Rockefellers. It will be the liberals who run candidates to challenge them. They need our help, just like we need their help in running Ron Paul Republicans in our elections.

Hopefully, the FISA issue is the straw for Grenwald. Lets hope that working with BTM, he will begin to open his mind to the problems with a rogue Gov't. My "leftie" friends are compassionate people, who love to help others (maybe a bit too much) and they genuinely believe that Big Govy is good, and the problem is who is in control. I always ask them to name one government in all of history that has been governed "by the people and for the people". I have not gotten one answer as of today. Oh- someone said the Aboriginals. lol.

[CUnknown]

Yeah, Revolutionary8, it really is the establishment lovers against the anti-establishment, the globalist/imperialists against the anti-globalist, anti-imperialists. Left v Right is really the least important of these dividing lines, to me.

I heard Ann Coulter once say that her goal was to have the right be represented by people like Bush and have him be running against a 'leftist' like Joe Lieberman. The Freedom movement's true enemies have this as their goal, let's not doubt it. And of course they've basically succeeded. Both the Neo-Cons and the Neo-Liberals are establishment, globalist imperialists.

One half of these 'establishment, globalist imperialists' want to bomb Iran while running up huge deficits, and they convince their conservative base that they are actually conservative. What a joke!

The other half of these 'establishment, globalist imperialists' want to continue the occupation of Iraq & Afghanistan, continue spying on American citizens without a warrent, giving out corporate welfare and subsidizing corn ethanol, and, okay, maybe they'll do something about healthcare while racking up huge deficits, and for this they are able to convince their liberal base that they are true liberals. And some people take this seriously??

The only true enemies we have are the establishment, globalist-imperialist powers that be. These forces disguise themselves as both liberals and conservatives in order to get votes, and the establishment, globalist media never tell us who they really are and what they really stand for.

Kucinich and Nader and their supporters honest to god are not part of the establishment, and they are as anti-imperialist as you can get. They are globalist in terms of the UN, but anti-globalist in terms of NAFTA, the WTO, IMF, etc. If they are the Ron Paul movement's long-term potential enemies, they are certainly not the short term enemies we should be concerned with. They are our short-term allies. Until we have had major, major successes, they will remain our allies.

amy31416 - it would be wonderful, beyond belief almost, if we had Kucinich v Ron Paul in this election. They would have real debates, they'd discuss the most important issues facing our country in an intellegent way! :eek: They'd disagree on a lot, but importantly, the stuff they'd agree on is the stuff they both disagree with Obama and McCain on.. that is the stuff that most of the country agrees on that is not even on the table to vote for -- not on either main party's platform.

[constituent]

Yeah, Revolutionary8, it really is the establishment lovers against the anti-establishment

indeed. so why are we trying to align ourselves w/ devout statists?

[Kade]

indeed. so why are we trying to align ourselves w/ devout statists?

Who are the statists that you refer?

[constituent]

we can start with Glen Grenwald.

[baby's up from nap, i'll check later for response]

[Kade]

we can start with Glen Grenwald.

[baby's up from nap, i'll check later for response]

I don't find anything nominally upsetting about Greenwald, he is a strong critic of things that I also hate...

His support for certain things is worthy of debate, but I don't think he ought to be summarily dismissed because of it...

[CUnknown]

constituent - some leftists are Statists, true, they believe that the State will and should take care of them, and of other people, and so on. I think this is what you mean by the term? But just becase you are a Statist, doesn't mean that you're part of the establishment.

The only Statists that we can work with are the anti-establishment statists. Those who hate the status quo two-party duopoly globalist imperialist agenda.

Lol, that was a mouthful. :)

[Kade]

constituent - some leftists are Statists, true, they believe that the State will and should take care of them, and of other people, and so on. I think this is what you mean by the term? But just becase you are a Statist, doesn't mean that you're part of the establishment.

The only Statists that we can work with are the anti-establishment statists. Those who hate the status quo two-party duopoly globalist imperialist agenda.

Lol, that was a mouthful. :)

I also don't see tremendous proof that Greenwald is a statist..

Also, there is a great degree of difference between a solid statist and person who simply wants to see people get proper health care. This line is blurred here, to the point of crippling of any real intellectual discourse.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I also don't see tremendous proof that Greenwald is a statist..

Also, there is a great degree of difference between a solid statist and person who simply wants to see people get proper health care. This line is blurred here, to the point of crippling of any real intellectual discourse.

You should only care about if you have access to some healthcare. No reason to dwell on how others are faring.

[Kade]

You should only care about if you have access to some healthcare. No reason to dwell on how others are faring.

I didn't say I don't agree.... I'm pointing out the flaw of the absolutism, and how it truly pisses off people who are willing to listen.

Look, I take a shitload of flak for my stances on these things from my own circles, and I take flak here for other stances... I can almost feel what it is like to be a politician, it is unnerving and disheartening... people are sick twisted animals..

I'm trying to end the absolutism. I hate it. More than I hate anything, I hate absolutism. This board is frothing with it.

Starting with that feces eating krazy kaju.

[CUnknown]

Kade, yeah, we really should define Statism. I'm not sure what it means, myself. Is it just, "Someone who approves of strong, centralized authority, all other things being equal?"

If this is the definition we are using, then it's hard to say that just any advocate of universal healthcare would be a statist. Because it's quite possible that centralized, single-payer healthcare is superior to decentralized, free-market healthcare. It certainly hasn't been proven one way or the other, people are free to have different opinions about it.

A statist would be someone who prefered the centralized system, even if the decentralized system was shown to be just as good.

Edit: In this case, yeah, there would have to be some proof that Greenwald is a statist. Perhaps he just has a different opinion on the effectiveness of the various healthcare options than most people on this board.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I didn't say I don't agree.... I'm pointing out the flaw of the absolutism, and how it truly pisses off people who are willing to listen.

Look, I take a shitload of flak for my stances on these things from my own circles, and I take flak here for other stances... I can almost feel what it is like to be a politician, it is unnerving and disheartening... people are sick twisted animals..

I'm trying to end the absolutism. I hate it. More than I hate anything, I hate absolutism. This board is frothing with it.

Starting with that feces eating krazy kaju.

I'm not an absolutist. I don't even have health insurance, but I'm not going to fight or socialized healthcare. If it happens, it happens.

I actually support a dual healthcare system with a mixture of paid and voluntary workers/doctors, one offered by gov funded through voluntary contributions and user fees, preferrably, but we should never restrict free market healthcare.

We should transform government into a charity.

[Kade]

Kade, yeah, we really should define Statism. I'm not sure what it means, myself. Is it just, "Someone who approves of strong, centralized authority, all other things being equal?"

If this is the definition we are using, then it's hard to say that just any advocate of universal healthcare would be a statist. Because it's quite possible that centralized, single-payer healthcare is superior to decentralized, free-market healthcare. It certainly hasn't been proven one way or the other, people are free to have different opinions about it.

A statist would be someone who prefered the centralized system, even if the decentralized system was shown to be just as good.

It benefits conservative agenda to label all people who want some regulation as statists. This is the essence of propaganda, the greatest scourge we have to fight in this country, and it resides strongest in the MSM.

I lean towards balance, with a slight favoring of deregulation. I am somehow still a statist to most here... but I am nowhere near the level of statism of Bernie Sanders, or for that matter, Hugo Chavez. It is relative, but the distinction is not being used to bring people together as much as the blurred line is used to divide. Liberals care about personal freedoms, and many are willing to listen to the ideas of economic liberalism and the merits of self-reliance.

I have been preaching this since day one on these boards. It is why I am public enemy #1. The message has not changed.

[Kade]

I'm not an absolutist. I don't even have health insurance, but I'm not going to fight or socialized healthcare. If it happens, it happens.

I actually support a dual healthcare system with a mixture of paid and voluntary workers/doctors, one offered by gov funded through voluntary contributions and user fees, preferrably, but we should never restrict free market healthcare.

I am in total agreement with you. I favor a dual system myself, one that does not restrict competition... I have struck this balance with my circles, who care about getting people affordable health care, and most of my more reasonable libertarian friends, who care about the free market.

This is also my answer to some other government programs... a chance for us to put them "in competition" with the free market.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I am in total agreement with you. I favor a dual system myself, one that does not restrict competition... I have struck this balance with my circles, who care about getting people affordable health care, and most of my more reasonable libertarian friends, who care about the free market.

This is also my answer to some other government programs... a chance for us to put them "in competition" with the free market.

YES! I do believe however, that it should be funded via voluntary contributions and possibly, user fees. Do you prefer gov healthcare funded through taxation and inflation? Or what? As long as the gov isn't interfering with the economy, I can't see how it is so bad. There will always be that alternative for people. If by any chance free market healthcare becomes so utopian that it makes gov healthcare irrelevent then, of course, I'd propose we shut it down. That's just the kind of thing I favor.

but.....taxation and inflation rights for the gov might create an opening for the gov to purge the economy. I think it should work, more or less like a charity, you know, people can contribute and help keep the system in tact. It would be a great alternative to free market. Don't have money? No private charities around you? Go to the gov hospital. We can also apply the same concept to transportation :) make it universally available, but don't restrict the free market

[constituent]

lol. i don't really care, i was just hoping to start this debate. glen greenwald is ok (but just ok) in my book... keep going though, i'll be checking back later to join in the frey.


[that's what i get for checking in... spilt apple juice and a mess of refried beans, lol., see y'all in a little while]

[acptulsa]

I'm trying to end the absolutism. I hate it. More than I hate anything, I hate absolutism. This board is frothing with it.

Never say never. Never say always. Good ways to get into trouble. Yeah, I hear you. Ideals, however, can be very useful things. Often, ideals could help us avoid the path full of pitfalls and take the higher road, if only we could stick to them. If nothing else, examining how to achieve the benefits of a proposed solution without compromising them can be just the ticket to find a more ideal solution to the problem at hand.

And while never say never (or always) is generally a good policy, it seems to me that governmental intrusion very, very nearly always leads to corruption...

[Kade]

Never say never. Never say always. Good ways to get into trouble. Yeah, I hear you. Ideals, however, can be very useful things. Often, ideals could help us avoid the path full of pitfalls and take the higher road, if only we could stick to them. If nothing else, examining how to achieve the benefits of a proposed solution without compromising them can be just the ticket to find a more ideal solution to the problem at hand.

And while never say never (or always) is generally a good policy, it seems to me that governmental intrusion very, very nearly always leads to corruption...

Always?

I think that government projects like DARPAnet and NASA have had ultimately positive outcomes... not to mention being catalyst for entirely new markets... America is still barely limping today because of our most cherished invention... tax payer and university sponsored, the one and only Internet.

and there is also this:

http://www.historyteacher.net/AHAP/WebQuests/WQ-ConstitutionalConvention/ConstituitonalConventionPtg.jpg

[Kade]

Btw, when I get in the Senate... (which will happen), you will know me because I promise everyone here that I will wear a wig...

http://images.buycostumes.com/mgen/merchandiser/12442.jpg?is=350,350,0xffffff

[acptulsa]

Btw, when I get in the Senate... (which will happen), you will know me because I promise everyone here that I will wear a wig...

That settles it! I will definitely vote for you! "My friends, I appear before you today in a wig. I figure that makes me better than John McCain, who used to come here and wig out!"

[constituent]

Btw, when I get in the Senate... (which will happen), you will know me because I promise everyone here that I will wear a wig...



you've got my vote.

[Verad]

I like the idea of working with other groups to remove from congress some of our mutual enemies.

However, things like the following tend to make me wary of such alliances.


[b]In a comment to Greenwald:/b] ... But you are going to have to get your libertarian "free-market utopia" buddies to wise up. In the "mother-of-all" Katrina-style situations, the financial meltdown is going to give Naomi Klein a lifetime series of books to write about "disaster capitalism." ...

[see the last entry on this page (http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/14/accountability/view/index2.html?show=all) for the full post.

Many of these people obviously don't know that when we talk about free market capitalism, it is nothing like the neocon "Republican" "free market capitalism." Namely, they seem to mistake bailouts, corporate welfare, and supporting big business over the interests of small business as "capitalism." Monopolies (and oligopolies) are formed because of government intervention, whereas these people honestly believe that government regulation and intervention is required to prevent their existence or to restrain their power in the market. It is precisely these government regulations which create barriers to entry and prevent competition in markets.

We must be careful to highlight these and other fallacies while working with these people, otherwise when all is said and done, the enemy of our enemy may not necessarily turn out to be our friend.

[CUnknown]

I agree Verad, they are confused about the free market ... as in, they buy the propaganda that we actually have one right now, and so any problems with our current system they attribute to free markets.

They are not necessarily friends of the Ron Paul movement over the long-term, that is definitely important to remember. We shouldn't ever get so comfortable with them that we let our guard down. But, I don't think that is likely to happen, mostly, it's the reverse -- that we are so uncomfortable with them that we refuse to let them help us.

[constituent]

I agree Verad, they are confused about the free market ... as in, they buy the propaganda that we actually have one right now, and so any problems with our current system they attribute to free markets.

They are not necessarily friends of the Ron Paul movement over the long-term, that is definitely important to remember. We shouldn't ever get so comfortable with them that we let our guard down. But, I don't think that is likely to happen, mostly, it's the reverse -- that we are so uncomfortable with them that we refuse to let them help us.

As far as i can tell their only connection to the "RP movement" is that BTM is planning on doing a fundraiser (i use quotes around RP movement, b/c afaik no one elected BTM to speak on our behalf, nor as "our" representatives to "the left"). It appears as though the connection pretty much stops there, and is based more on a sort of parasitic fundraising symbiosis than actual shared ideological ground.

[CUnknown]

There is a connection, constituent. Kucinich said once that he'd want Ron Paul as his running mate if he happened to win the Dem nomination (heh, pretty funny I know, but he did say that). Naomi Wolf was at the DC march. Many left-leaning people voted for Ron Paul and worked in the movement (and still do).

However, it's true the connection is not very strong. Not nearly as strong as it should be, given the large amount of shared ideological ground we do have. I'm arguing that we should be seeking out these people and trying to bring them into the movement, rather than slamming them on these boards for being socialists, and trying mostly to push them away.

And even if they're not 100% a part of the Ron Paul movement, we should recognize that they are completely a part of the broader freedom movement, and that they have been for a long time (leftists have been fighting for freedom since the 60s). We should try to integrate our efforts with theirs (go to anti-war rallies together and so forth).

[constituent]

However, it's true the connection is not very strong. Not nearly as strong as it should be, given the large amount of shared ideological ground we do have. I'm arguing that we should be seeking out these people and trying to bring them into the movement, rather than slamming them on these boards for being socialists, and trying mostly to push them away.

And even if they're not 100% a part of the Ron Paul movement, we should recognize that they are completely a part of the broader freedom movement, and that they have been for a long time (leftists have been fighting for freedom since the 60s). We should try to integrate our efforts with theirs (go to anti-war rallies together and so forth).

funny, many of us (myself included) have been saying this for a long time (since the start). what you think everyone spent all their other time trolling the fred thompson forum?

for years i considered myself ideologically on the extreme left.... so left as to be right, so right as to be left (the radical center, as someone so eloquently put it).

i'm still not certain how this connection carries over into "us" playing the role of the ACLU and Democratic Party's useful idiots (unless it's exclusively about the money, and BTM self-promotion)... again, this PAC we're supposed to be helping out was setup to try to defeat the FISA bill (not FISA, btw, check Glen Grenwald's blog on the issue. It was his opinion that by the time it came up for a vote it was... well, peachy keen.... the left wants to scream about civil liberties--it's just an act btw--and then applaud anything short of disassembling a secret court w/ little to no oversight).

i'll edit in the link to it here in a minute.



edit:


My Last Word on ANPAC (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=146983)

[CUnknown]

Who is talking about anyone playing the role of useful idiots? What are you talking about?

[constituent]

Who is talking about anyone playing the role of useful idiots? What are you talking about?

Useful Idiot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot)

[CUnknown]

No one is saying that anyone is a 'useful idiot' in this situation. Except maybe you. What exactly are you saying? Your posts are confusing to me.

[constituent]

No one is saying that anyone is a 'useful idiot' in this situation

no one usually does.

sorry, all done going round and round.

if you're interested, click the link that says "My Last Word on ANPAC"

[CUnknown]

I think you pretty much have to admit that the ACLU is on our side. We should be supporting them 100%. Where does the ACLU get its bad reputation from on these boards?

You say the left is just acting when it screams about civil liberties? Haven't you been taking part in this discussion? Where exactly do you disagree with what has been said? If you're talking about the left being the Dems, then of course they don't care. But, I don't hear them screaming very much about it, either.

Those people who care about freedom need to unite with like-minded people, no matter what their political philosophy is. To stay isolated is to set ourselves up for defeat.

If the concept 'useful idiot' has any relevance to what we've been discussing, you should explain it. There's no reason to be cryptic and rambling.

[AggieforPaul]

I wouldnt get too friendly with these guys. They only hate FISA because it's george Bush's idea. If Clinton had asked for immunity they'd think it was a great idea and call us all tinfoil hat wearing loonies for distrusting the government.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I wouldnt get too friendly with these guys. They only hate FISA because it's george Bush's idea. If Clinton had asked for immunity they'd think it was a great idea and call us all tinfoil hat wearing loonies for distrusting the government.

lol. Yeah. It's really stupid. Why do we need any of this? FISA is the beginning of one big mistake.

[constituent]

I think you pretty much have to admit that the ACLU is on our side. We should be supporting them 100%. Where does the ACLU get its bad reputation from on these boards?

You say the left is just acting when it screams about civil liberties? Haven't you been taking part in this discussion? Where exactly do you disagree with what has been said? If you're talking about the left being the Dems, then of course they don't care. But, I don't hear them screaming very much about it, either.

Those people who care about freedom need to unite with like-minded people, no matter what their political philosophy is. To stay isolated is to set ourselves up for defeat.

If the concept 'useful idiot' has any relevance to what we've been discussing, you should explain it. There's no reason to be cryptic and rambling.



if you're interested, click the link that says "My Last Word on ANPAC"

cryptic? c'mon now.

[ItsTime]

Dont get fooled out of more of your money

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=146983

[kigol]

ohh cool.