Dick Armey and FreedomWorks

[The Dude]

Friend or foe?

[MRoCkEd]

I'd say friend.

[low preference guy]

more friend than foe.

[Kludge]

Depends on the issue. They're separate from the liberty movement, though, for sure.

[The Dude]

It doesn't look like on their website they take a stance on foreign policy, I could have missed it though.

[Anti Federalist]

Friend, cautiously approached.

YouTube - Family guy Dick army & the skin bar (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMXxMV67Ov4)

Bhahawhahahah...Hey Hey Armey, what's your wife's name, Vagina Coast Guard???!!!

[MRoCkEd]

It doesn't look like on their website they take a stance on foreign policy, I could have missed it though.
They don't take a stance. They are concerned solely with fiscal policy (Opposing taxes, regulation, bailouts, stimulus, etc). The founder and president, Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe, are fans of Austrian economics.

[Anti Federalist]

It took a while to load on the bad connection I'm using...

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/1151/aquabuddhao.gif

Now I'm LoLing

[FrankRep]

One Negative about Dick Armey:

Dick Armey of Freedomworks Supports AMNESTY for Illegal Immigrants
http://www.alipac.us/article4976.html

Michelle Malkin: In response to amnesty stooge Dick Armey
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/03/17/in-response-to-amnesty-stooge-dick-armey/

[The Dude]

Well, that could be a plus for some of the members here.

[MRoCkEd]

One Negative about Dick Armey:

Dick Armey of Freedomworks Supports AMNESTY for Illegal Immigrants
http://www.alipac.us/article4976.html

Michelle Malkin: In response to amnesty stooge Dick Armey
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/03/17/in-response-to-amnesty-stooge-dick-armey/
Honestly, I watched the video linked, and it raises my opinion of Armey.
YouTube - Dick Armey of Freedomworks Wants Liberty for Illegal Aliens 'Bless Their Hearts' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaqd1qY1KsM)

[FrankRep]

Honestly, I watched the video linked, and it raises my opinion of Armey.

I prefer Ron Paul's stance against Amnesty (http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-05-07/ron-paul-no-amnesty/) and Illegal Immigration (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html).

[MRoCkEd]

I prefer Ron Paul's stance against Amnesty (http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-05-07/ron-paul-no-amnesty/) and Illegal Immigration (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html).
I don't see him calling for amnesty or even open borders... just an easier immigration process.

But yes, I have come to disagree with sealed borders. (Though let's not have that debate again here :p)

[FrankRep]

I don't see him calling for amnesty or even open borders... just an easier immigration process.

I do agree, however, the immigration process needs to be easier and more efficient.

[IPSecure]

He helped create the department of homeland security...
Did not freedom works also pay Palin a huge sum of fiat currency to give a speech at a 'tea party'?

Here is his voting record: Link (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/a000217/votes/)

[erowe1]

It doesn't look like on their website they take a stance on foreign policy, I could have missed it though.

Here's Armey's review of Hostettler's book, Nothing for the Nation.
http://nothingforthenation.com/recommendation_dickarmey.htm

He's come out pretty strongly against the Iraq War since leaving office.

[legion]

Research Koch Industries, the Cato Institute, and when they withdrew support the early libertarians to decide if you want to support these people.

It's important to understand this history to understand all the motivations.

[angelatc]

Here's Armey's review of Hostettler's book, Nothing for the Nation.
http://nothingforthenation.com/recommendation_dickarmey.htm

He's come out pretty strongly against the Iraq War since leaving office.

He left his office over the Iraq war.

[RPgrassrootsactivist]

He used to be among the highest-ranking Republicans in the House. Friend? Not likely. Maybe he's had a change of heart, but I would suggest caution before embracing him as liberty-friendly.

[Stary Hickory]

I prefer Ron Paul's stance against Amnesty (http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-05-07/ron-paul-no-amnesty/) and Illegal Immigration (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html).

Same here I want every person here who is for letting the borders open wide pay the social cost that Americans are FORCED to bear via the government.

If you want to make such a decision without ensuring the property rights of others are protected then you must bear the burden. Get rid of the social state FIRST. Borders are erected to protect the property rights and freedoms of those within. By allowing unlimited immigration, especially with a corrupt government and mob rule we are merely preying on the already exploited American producer.

This is immoral and if you really gave a damn about those who are being exploited you would not worsen their condition with such nonsense. Get rid of the social state and then we can talk about open borders. Or otherwise American producers and property rights will become the currency for demogauges in our corrupt mob rule system.

[Anti Federalist]

Same here I want every person here who is for letting the borders open wide pay the social cost that Americans are FORCED to bear via the government.

If you want to make such a decision without ensuring the property rights of others are protected then you must bear the burden. Get rid of the social state FIRST. Borders are erected to protect the property rights and freedoms of those within. By allowing unlimited immigration, especially with a corrupt government and mob rule we are merely preying on the already exploited American producer.

This is immoral and if you really gave a damn about those who are being exploited you would not worsen their condition with such nonsense. Get rid of the social state and then we can talk about open borders. Or otherwise American producers and property rights will become the currency for demogauges in our corrupt mob rule system.

That ^^^

[Deborah K]

Friend

[ClayTrainor]

Borders are erected to protect the property rights and freedoms of those within.

This is pretty much where the core of the disagreement on immigration is on this board, I think.

I would humbly suggest that state/public borders are actually erected in order to tax and rule the property rights and freedoms of those within, not protect them. :o

[Agorism]

Friend but he was pushing Paul Ryan as an ideal a few days ago...

[ClayTrainor]

Friend or foe?

I don't really know enough about Dick Army to say friend or foe, but I definitely like some of the stuff that I've heard recently from him. If he's really an advocate of the Austrian school than that's huge bonus points for him! The optimist in me wants to say friend, and the paranoid skeptic in me wants to say he's another crafty political snake.

[JVParkour]

Would you vote for him in 2012?

[ARealConservative]

Friend or foe?

yes

[Daamien]

I'd work with him and his group, but he isn't close enough to be considered a friend just because he isn't an adversary.

[pacelli]

Major FOE:


(CBS) It's been a mystery in Washington for weeks. Just before President Bush signed the homeland security bill into law an unknown member of Congress inserted a provision into the legislation that blocks lawsuits against the maker of a controversial vaccine preservative called "thimerosal," used in vaccines that are given to children.

Drug giant Eli Lilly and Company makes thimerosal. It's the mercury in the preservative that many parents say causes autism in thousands of children – like Mary Kate Kilpatrick.

Asked if she thinks her daughter is a victim of thimerosal, Mary Kate's mother, Kathy Kilpatrick, says, "I think autism is mercury poisoning."

But nobody in Congress would admit to adding the provision, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Acosta – until now.

House Majority Leader Dick Armey tells CBS News he did it to keep vaccine-makers from going out of business under the weight of mounting lawsuits.

"I did it and I'm proud of it," says Armey, R-Texas.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/12/eveningnews/main532886.shtml

[AlexMerced]

I don't really think freedom works as a friend cause them and many of these groups use a lot of divisive rhetoric, or don't explain their position very well and that sometimes turns people who were possible converts away completly

Although, I don't think freedomworks and dick armey are enemies either, cause I agree with what they're doing, I just have my doubts about the intentions

When freedomworks first appeared it reminded me of when Richard Viguirie made UltimateRonPaul.com to get build his email list and never did anything with the site... I fell for that... Freedomworks always seemed as a moderate conservative attempt at co-opting the chaotic tea party movement.

Again, I hold judgement for the time being.

[RonPaulGetsIt]

Foe....

http://www.thedailybell.com/1301/Dick-Armeys-Tea-Party-Coup.html (http://www.thedailybell.com/1301/Dick-Armeys-Tea-Party-Coup.html)

[georgiaboy]

"trade with all, entangling alliances with none"

[Anti Federalist]

This is pretty much where the core of the disagreement on immigration is on this board, I think.

I would humbly suggest that state/public borders are actually erected in order to tax and rule the property rights and freedoms of those within, not protect them. :o

Yup, which way is the razor wire angled?

In or out?

[RokiLothbard]

enemy of our enemy, but unfortunatlely, not really our friend, at least not at this point in time.

[ClayTrainor]

Yup, which way is the razor wire angled?

In or out?

You tell me, what way is the razor wire angled on this section of US-Mexico border fence?

http://washingtonindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/border__fence-51625.jpg

The fact is, there are plenty of historical examples of state fences using razor wire to keep people in and/or out. Here's the kind of fence that many people think is a good idea for the US Mexico Border.

http://vivirlatino.com/i/2008/09/border-fence.jpg

There's an obvious reality here that I think many people are far too willing to ignore. State borders are always erected in such a way that you need permission from violent bureaucrats to cross or trade across them from either direction.

Countries are human farms. You are Tax Livestock. Borders are fences meant to help farm owners manage their livestock. :)

[sailingaway]

I think we are generally traveling in the same direction right now. I don't know if that will always be the case, however.

[Brian Defferding]

He used to be among the highest-ranking Republicans in the House. Friend? Not likely. Maybe he's had a change of heart, but I would suggest caution before embracing him as liberty-friendly.

That's my opinion. I am very wary of him and I feel he is not the libertarian he sometimes portrays himself to be.

[klamath]

I consider him more politically aligned with RP than many of the "us" on these forums.

[Anti Federalist]

Countries are your home, set up to your liking, and borders are the lock on the front door.

Especially helpful if your neighbors are running a crack house. ;)


You tell me, what way is the razor wire angled on this section of US-Mexico border fence?

http://washingtonindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/border__fence-51625.jpg

The fact is, there are plenty of historical examples of state fences using razor wire to keep people in and/or out. Here's the kind of fence that many people think is a good idea for the US Mexico Border.

http://vivirlatino.com/i/2008/09/border-fence.jpg

There's an obvious reality here that I think many people are far too willing to ignore. State borders are always erected in such a way that you need permission from violent bureaucrats to cross or trade across them from either direction.

Countries are human farms. You are Tax Livestock. Borders are fences meant to help farm owners manage their livestock. :)

[tjeffersonsghost]

You tell me, what way is the razor wire angled on this section of US-Mexico border fence?

http://washingtonindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/border__fence-51625.jpg

The fact is, there are plenty of historical examples of state fences using razor wire to keep people in and/or out. Here's the kind of fence that many people think is a good idea for the US Mexico Border.

http://vivirlatino.com/i/2008/09/border-fence.jpg

There's an obvious reality here that I think many people are far too willing to ignore. State borders are always erected in such a way that you need permission from violent bureaucrats to cross or trade across them from either direction.

Countries are human farms. You are Tax Livestock. Borders are fences meant to help farm owners manage their livestock. :)


Which is why it's hard for me to agree with RP on "physically securing the border". To me it almost sounds like East Germany all over again. I understand the social costs and the criminal costs which is why this subject is so hard to really be consistent on.

[ClayTrainor]

Countries are your home, set up to your liking, and borders are the lock on the front door.


This comes down to the age-old debate of private property vs public property. Which do you favor?

Your house, your door and your land is your property. Your house and land is not the property of others. No other American can legitimately call your house and land, their "home". I don't believe your neighbors should be allowed to decide who you're allowed to invite onto your property or trade with, do you?

A lock on your own door, in your own home is perfectly legitimate. However, to erect and lock doors in front of someone else's house and have violent men in uniforms decide who they can invite inside and trade with is NOT ok, nor is it even remotely liberty oriented!

[ClayTrainor]

Which is why it's hard for me to agree with RP on "physically securing the border". To me it almost sounds like East Germany all over again. I understand the social costs and the criminal costs which is why this subject is so hard to really be consistent on.

Yea, the idea of using the government to solve complex social problems is counter-intuitive on its face. I think Dr. Paul does realize this to a large degree, though I may not agree with everything he's said on the immigration issue.

I like the way some-person put it in another thread...




Appeals to authority are never convincing arguments; however, if one chooses to make such a fallacious argument, it would be prudent to at least make sure the authority is arguing for one's position lol. That's not the case here, as Dr. Paul's true stance is, and I quote, "The free market is exactly opposite of isolationism... open borders, free trade, let the people come and go, let the goods flow over the borders..." This quote was from his 1988 Libertarian Party run. It's important to note that, even then, he referred to the concept of borders, just as he does today. However, he obviously doesn't equate borders with walls, as some individuals believe. Rather, the borders are conceptual.

In an interview with Mr. Stossel in 2008, he was asked, "You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?" He responded, "Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive."

From a very recent speech (Feb. 2009), he stated, "Inflationism and corporatism engenders protectionism and trade wars. It prompts scapegoating: blaming foreigners, illegal immigrants, ethnic minorities, and too often freedom itself for the predictable events and suffering that result."

As we all know, he is opposed to Real-Id and other such measures, which some misinformed individuals believe would help in ensuring the border is sealed. I think his stance is quite clear, when you put it all together: it's the same as it's always been, which I quoted above. Once again, he was against the "welfare state" for all individuals as the Libertarian Party candidate back in 1988, and he's still against the "welfare state," today. It isn't like he was in support of the coercive redistribution of wealth when he proposed that, in a transition, medicare could continue to be made available for those dependent on the system by funding it with the savings from cutting military waste.

His transitional plans do not represent his true goals; if they did, well, let's start a money bomb to promote the glory of Social Security and healthcare "for the children." No. Stop being emotionally attached to personalities; stop appealing to authorities; stop latching onto parties and labels; start focusing on ideas.

Edit: I just realized how off topic this discussion is from the OP. This is my last post in this thread on immigration. My bad. :o

[Deborah K]

This comes down to the age-old debate of private property vs public property. Which do you favor?

Your house, your door and your land is your property. Your house and land is not the property of others. No other American can legitimately call your house and land, their "home". I don't believe your neighbors should be allowed to decide who you're allowed to invite onto your property or trade with, do you?

A lock on your own door, in your own home is perfectly legitimate. However, to erect and lock doors in front of someone else's house and have violent men in uniforms decide who they can invite inside and trade with is NOT ok, nor is it even remotely liberty oriented!

Clay, a majority of Americans want borders and public property while at the same time enjoying the right to have private property. That objective has become corrupted, no doubt. But if it is the will of the people to set up their country in this manner, (which all countries do, since they all have borders and immigration laws), then your argument is a moot point. Unless you are arguing the fact that the objective has become corrupted.

[Anti Federalist]

Your house, your door and your land is your property. Your house and land is not the property of others. No other American can legitimately call your house and land, their "home". I don't believe your neighbors should be allowed to decide who you're allowed to invite onto your property or trade with, do you?

And if my neighbor is engaging in behavior that is having a direct negative impact on my property...?

[AGRP]

Both.

Hes simply not to be trusted.

[ClayTrainor]

k, this is my last post on immigration in this thread, since it's pretty off topic from the OP


Clay, a majority of Americans want borders and public property while at the same time enjoying the right to have private property.

Well... should majorities get to decide how your property is used?



That objective has become corrupted, no doubt. But if it is the will of the people to set up their country in this manner, (which all countries do, since they all have borders and immigration laws), then your argument is a moot point.

The corruption ultimately stems from the coercive power that bureaucrats have to tax and regulate private property. I guess the question is... where does that power come from?



Unless you are arguing the fact that the objective has become corrupted.

Not sure what the difference is, i guess, I just see the corruption and look to the source.

[ClayTrainor]

And if my neighbor is engaging in behavior that is having a direct negative impact on my property...?

private property rights. ;)

i.e. If your neighbor pollutes your land, you are entitled to seek restitution.

[ClayTrainor]

Alright, I know we're not going to agree on this issue since we've all been over it dozens of times before.

Like i said in 2 other posts. I'm going to seriously try not to continue this, since it's a pretty big derail from the OP. My apologies. Have a good day everyone. :)

[Anti Federalist]

Alright, I know we're not going to agree on this issue since we've all been over it dozens of times before.

Like i said in 2 other posts. I'm going to seriously try not to continue this, since it's a pretty big derail from the OP. My apologies. Have a good day everyone. :)

S'cool as far as I'm concerned, and not too big of a derail.

The topic was brought up as a result of Armey's position, so that makes it legit, as far as I'm concerned.

[ClayTrainor]

S'cool as far as I'm concerned, and not too big of a derail.

The topic was brought up as a result of Armey's position, so that makes it legit, as far as I'm concerned.

Fair enough, I guess it might not be as big of a de-rail as I thought. Either way, I got shit to do today, so let's agree to disagree so I can get to work. :p

[Deborah K]

Well... should majorities get to decide how your property is used?

Are you suggesting minorities should? I'm suggesting that it be done through the representative process that is the foundation of our gov't.


The corruption ultimately stems from the coercive power that bureaucrats have to tax and regulate private property. I guess the question is... where does that power come from?

One of my biggest issues, if not the biggest, is taxation of wages. I'll be fighting that one for the rest my life I expect.

[The Dude]

It's cool guys, discuss away. I started this as a general discussion of Armey and Freedomworks.

[Deborah K]

It's cool guys, discuss away. I started this as a general discussion of Armey and Freedomworks.

Right on Dude! I like you! You're kick-back.