Libertarians

[Gunny]

Kentucky Sued In Federal Court Over Drug Treatment Practices



Kentucky is right. You messed up. You deal with the consequences.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/10/kentucky-sued_n_6842772.html


But she is dealing with the consequences... or at least trying to. Most who are against the war on drugs would suggest putting that money into treatment.




https://www.lpmn.org/libertarians_assert_powerful_case_ending_war_drugs/

That's a yes and a no, and there's no right answer. I'm a recovering alcoholic (addict). I got plenty of legit reasons why too. But the fact is, no one held me down and forced me to drink. And it was the one time in my life I actually needed someone else's help. Dealing with THAT -- that I couldn't just kick the shit out of it and make it go away -- was the hardest part. I'm just always angry. Sun comes up? Pissed off. I've also got some serious physical injuries. Earned every one. That doesn't make them okay now. But because the government's war on drugs includes not giving people what they need -- pain killers are self explanatory -- I can't get crap.

Yes, it's about choices. But I was glad the help I needed was there. I didn't and don't expect anyone else to pay for it. I paid for my own. BUT I will say this: I'm willing to have my tax dollars used for the treatment of an addict THAT TRULY WANTS OUT. Not the ones that every time they get hungry they go turn themselves in to a rehab. Being an addict, anyone that wants out of that world, I'm willing to pay for it.

[Drummond]

I bet it's galling you how you can't call Gunny and Kathianne lefties without completely exposing your weak argument. And I don't expect Mags to be a Libertarian, she was too busy deregulating towards the end-goal of a Libertarian society.

.. DID I call them Lefties ? That's your assertion. Not mine.

Margaret Thatcher was no Libertarian, nor was she a friend to any Lefties. And she deregulated in a manner consistent with her goals. When it came to tackling Union wreckers, she REGULATED in order to clip their wings. To deny them freedoms they used against the greater good.


Did you notice the irony that you support the same thing?

And did YOU notice how implacably you attack British Conservative policy ?

It's the Conservative instinct to keep taxes down. To reduce them where possible. But .. ONLY if it IS possible, or does more good to do so than not. When dealing with a weak economy that cannot afford to be lax on taxation, so they'll do what they must, consistent with WHAT CAN BE AFFORDED.

Here's what helps give the game away, where your Leftieness is concerned. Lefties see things in terms of always following their dogma. Conservatives, however, deal with the REAL world. And if the REAL world says that low taxation is unaffordable, then they'll do what is necessary rather than what's preferred.


I have no opinion on the House of Lords.

... eh ? You claimed to be the 'Ultimate Thatcherite', yet you're indifferent to a cornerstone of British politics ??????

Just one MORE proof that you are not what you claim to be.

Our Left wing want the House of Lords abolished. Conservatives do NOT. However ... our Libertarians side WITH THE LEFT on this matter.


OMG, "unless elected" :eek: Run for the hills. A republican form of government is leftie. :eek:

Since when was Margaret Thatcher a 'republican' politician ?? She was as loyal to our Monarchy, and our peerage system as anyone. Again, though .. you, the supposed 'Ultimate Thatcherite', don't identify with any of that.

In British terms, THIS ALIGNS YOU WITH LONG-STANDING LEFT WING AMBITION. You are a far cry from thinking as Margaret did on these matters.


I seriously can't make up stuff like you believe. It's rather comical.

You really don't have a clue, do you, Leftie ?


I suppose you'll defend how the Iraq War was in the national interest. All war is not conservative, it may be necessary but it's not a left/right thing though you attempt to make it so.

Our harder-line Left wingers were very firmly against the Iraq War, and to this day they call it an 'illegal' war, and Bush and Blair 'war criminals'.

Our Right wing don't adopt anything like this same line. A few were critical of Blair being in lockstep with Bush. Nonetheless, if you want strident language opposing the Iraq War, the Left supplies it.

I take it from your opinion that you agree with them.

I don't so much say that the Iraq War was in the national interest, as the INTERnational interest. It was highly necessary, and totally justified.

Now, Mr Leftie, do the Leftie thing and oppose that viewpoint ....


There's always a "but" with you. That's where your imagination lives. You make silly arguments.

You think like a Leftie. You keep proving it. The only thing 'silly' here are your pathetic attempts to insist you're something you really are NOT.


Not really, it's about freedom of movement.

... in line with Left wing policy ...


This is pointless, you see "lefties" everywhere. Even where they are not.

???? You're now claiming that you do not exist ?????!??


What is the state's compelling interest in regulating the sexual activity of consenting adults? An answer this time. Not mindless links to speeches made by Mags.

You're now attributing MINDLESSNESS to Margaret Thatcher's thinking ?? Because to want to reproduce it is to respect it.

But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you ?

Explain to me why Margaret Thatcher had the smallest interest in creating, much less endorsing, Section 28 legislation !!

You really haven't got a clue, have you ? Far better to support your Libertarian Lefties than to remain credible as a pro-Thatcher supporter, evidently !


I prefer Thatcher-esque and Reagan-esque. It galls you that they were against torture.

Both predated 9/11, and the realities it taught the world. No doubt neither leader had any proper understanding or concept of today's terrorist scum. If they had, I'm confident that they'd have rethought things.


:laugh: You're already left. How many times have you argued for big government? It's countless, I know. ;)

I argue for ITS NECESSITY, when IT IS PROVED NECESSARY. Our Leftie Unions couldn't have been defeated if the Big Government's Big Stick (in the form of swingeing legislation) hadn't been wielded.

If you're the Thatcherite you pathetically pretend to be, you'll concede that point. But then ... YOU'RE NO THATCHERITE -- YOU'RE A FRAUD -- SO YOU IN FACT WILL NOT DO SO.

[DragonStryk72]

I agree that we had no business being in Iraq. It was a complete distraction from the hunt for Bin Laden, and really, it was just more of Saddam's asinine punk game he was using to keep people in-line thru fear of him.

Most libertarians here are fine with the senate, but do we seriously need almost 600 representatives in the House?

Here, libertarians are constitutional conservatives, essentially. So we tend toward being both pro-2nd Amendment, as well as in favor of gay marriage. Anti-Patriot Act, but pro government Downsizing.

As to torture, beyond the moral impetus not to engage in it, along with the double - standard it displays, is the simple, "it doesn't really work, since they'll say anything to just make the pain stop" point. Even the CIA has turned away from it, having less onerous methods that produce far better, more reliable results.

[Gunny]

Here's how I see this. When I was a teenager I was labeled a liberal. As a young to middle aged adult I was labeled a moderate to conservative. When I ran a message board I was called everything in the book depending on who I was enforcing rules on.:laugh:

I'm STILL an old-school, classic liberal. I never changed the definitions. Stay out of my space and rule your own f-ing life and quit trying to rule mine. We'll get along just fine. Invade my space with your overly-moralistic and or socialist crap and it's on.

You can stick whatever label on "asshole" you want to, but the end result will be the same. Leave me the f- alone. Nobody wins when I get angry. Trust me.

[Gunny]

Here's how I see this. When I was a teenager I was labeled a liberal. As a young to middle aged adult I was labeled a moderate to conservative. When I ran a message board I was called everything in the book depending on who I was enforcing rules on.:laugh:

I'm STILL an old-school, classic liberal. I never changed the definitions. Stay out of my space and rule your own f-ing life and quit trying to rule mine. We'll get along just fine. Invade my space with your overly-moralistic and or socialist crap and it's on.

You can stick whatever label on "asshole" you want to, but the end result will be the same. Leave me the f- alone. Nobody wins when I get angry. Trust me.

AND, FYI, I've gpt ona 4 color tie-dye tee, 501's and sandals. :)

[Drummond]

I agree that we had no business being in Iraq. It was a complete distraction from the hunt for Bin Laden, and really, it was just more of Saddam's asinine punk game he was using to keep people in-line thru fear of him.

Most libertarians here are fine with the senate, but do we seriously need almost 600 representatives in the House?

Here, libertarians are constitutional conservatives, essentially. So we tend toward being both pro-2nd Amendment, as well as in favor of gay marriage. Anti-Patriot Act, but pro government Downsizing.

As to torture, beyond the moral impetus not to engage in it, along with the double - standard it displays, is the simple, "it doesn't really work, since they'll say anything to just make the pain stop" point. Even the CIA has turned away from it, having less onerous methods that produce far better, more reliable results.

Our Lefties would agree that there should've been no Iraq war. That Saddam's regime should've been left alone. They call it an 'illegal' war, and label Bush and Blair as 'war criminals'. And of course, the Left organised marches just before that war, to try and protect Saddam's regime from harm.

In the meantime, of course, Saddam was busily brutalising his people. Remember the mass graves discovered ? The rape rooms, and other establishments run by him for the purpose of torture ? His gassing of the Kurds. His maverick invasion of Kuwait. His shielding Zarqawi, Al Qaeda's 'man in Iraq'. His bankrolling of Hamas .. and let's not forget the concerns the world had about WMD stocks (one such used on the Kurds, of course). 'No' ... he was 'not' a 'legitimate target for the War on Terror', because, from my list, he'd .. ahem .. 'done far too little to qualify' ... eh ?

Anyone recall his firing of Scud missiles at Israel ?

And yes. The Left definitely did NOT want Saddam's regime taken on .. NOT in the face of ALL of THAT .....

I don't agree that torture is useless. And even if its use saves ONE life that wouldn't otherwise have been saved, its use is justified.

Besides which, how do terrorist scum deserve any better ?

So tell me, to what extent do your Libertarians adopt Left wing positions on all I've listed ?

[indago]

The problem with big government is that it has its fingers in everything, so much that you can't do anything without it affecting something the government has its fingers in.

Gunny's resolution to this problem would be for you to move out of the country. Now, how dumb is that?

[DragonStryk72]

Our Lefties would agree that there should've been no Iraq war. That Saddam's regime should've been left alone. They call it an 'illegal' war, and label Bush and Blair as 'war criminals'. And of course, the Left organised marches just before that war, to try and protect Saddam's regime from harm.

In the meantime, of course, Saddam was busily brutalising his people. Remember the mass graves discovered ? The rape rooms, and other establishments run by him for the purpose of torture ? His gassing of the Kurds. His maverick invasion of Kuwait. His shielding Zarqawi, Al Qaeda's 'man in Iraq'. His bankrolling of Hamas .. and let's not forget the concerns the world had about WMD stocks (one such used on the Kurds, of course). 'No' ... he was 'not' a 'legitimate target for the War on Terror', because, from my list, he'd .. ahem .. 'done far too little to qualify' ... eh ?

But that's not what we went in for is it? I've said before on here, that, as a soldier, I'd have preferred if we'd just said, "Saddam is a sadistic murdering bastard, and we're responsible for him being in power for the last several decades since we put him there." That, however, is not the reality of why we went in, instead scaring up WMD fears to go for it, even after we got intelligence that went against it. As well, I'd have far rather simply stuck with the hunt for Bin Laden, instead of the necessary diversion of our attention to Iraq for almost 10 years. Instead, we decided to fight a two-front war in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Anyone recall his firing of Scud missiles at Israel ?

And yes. The Left definitely did NOT want Saddam's regime taken on .. NOT in the face of ALL of THAT .....

I don't agree that torture is useless. And even if its use saves ONE life that wouldn't otherwise have been saved, its use is justified.

Besides which, how do terrorist scum deserve any better ?

So tell me, to what extent do your Libertarians adopt Left wing positions on all I've listed ?

If we were going to take Saddam out for any of the other things you've mentioned, it should've been done back in the 90s, but we let him off the hook. That doesn't give us back up for rolling in again over a decade later.

As to torture, there is no life that couldn't be saved another way, period. Sorry, but it's the time-wasting, ineffectual tool of weaklings, and I refuse to reduce myself to go after the least effective, least well-armed, least well-trained, and least numerous threat our country has ever faced. They manage what, one successful attack every 5-10 years, and its generally a fluke at that? You couldn't even get by in a bar league with those kinds of stats.

I never argued about what they deserve, because what they deserve is irrelevant to how we choose to comport ourselves. There will always be an excuse to weaken our own integrity by justifying with vengeance, but it still weakens our character. Character only exists when it is tested, and to submit to torture is to fail that test. I just refuse to suffer weakness, period.

There are plenty of conservative reasons not to go into Iraq (fiscal, strategic, ethical), and there are liberal reasons to go to war. (Women's rights, ending rape rooms, etc.). War is neither conservative nor liberal, it's just war.

[fj1200]

I argue for ITS NECESSITY...

This is the relevant argument you need to make that you're deflecting away from.



That's why you need links because your statements border on the asinine. Links to what the trade unionists wanted would help prove your case. Links to them demanding fewer government regulations and the ability to make fewer demands on the property of others. It shouldn't be hard since it doesn't get "any more libertarian than that."

Nevertheless, Libertarians are "leftie," i.e. big government when they argue for smaller government but you're not a big government advocate while you're arguing for big government powers. That is truly mind boggling.

[Drummond]

But that's not what we went in for is it?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the invasion part of the War on Terror ? How did Saddam fail to qualify on those grounds ?

And the WMD issue HAD to be checked and neutralised. How couldn't it be ???


If we were going to take Saddam out for any of the other things you've mentioned, it should've been done back in the 90s, but we let him off the hook. That doesn't give us back up for rolling in again over a decade later.

I don't see the problem. Saddam was a problem requiring a solution. Simply that.

[Gunny]

Our Lefties would agree that there should've been no Iraq war. That Saddam's regime should've been left alone. They call it an 'illegal' war, and label Bush and Blair as 'war criminals'. And of course, the Left organised marches just before that war, to try and protect Saddam's regime from harm.

In the meantime, of course, Saddam was busily brutalising his people. Remember the mass graves discovered ? The rape rooms, and other establishments run by him for the purpose of torture ? His gassing of the Kurds. His maverick invasion of Kuwait. His shielding Zarqawi, Al Qaeda's 'man in Iraq'. His bankrolling of Hamas .. and let's not forget the concerns the world had about WMD stocks (one such used on the Kurds, of course). 'No' ... he was 'not' a 'legitimate target for the War on Terror', because, from my list, he'd .. ahem .. 'done far too little to qualify' ... eh ?

Anyone recall his firing of Scud missiles at Israel ?

And yes. The Left definitely did NOT want Saddam's regime taken on .. NOT in the face of ALL of THAT .....

I don't agree that torture is useless. And even if its use saves ONE life that wouldn't otherwise have been saved, its use is justified.

Besides which, how do terrorist scum deserve any better ?

So tell me, to what extent do your Libertarians adopt Left wing positions on all I've listed ?

There shouldn't have been an Iraq War. Saddam was an ass, no argument there. But he was also the joker in the deck. The secular balance that stood between the Sunni and the Shia.

When we choose to play geopolitcal God, we need to accept the responsibility that goes with it. To the end.

[DragonStryk72]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the invasion part of the War on Terror ? How did Saddam fail to qualify on those grounds ?

And the WMD issue HAD to be checked and neutralised. How couldn't it be ???



I don't see the problem. Saddam was a problem requiring a solution. Simply that.

Because he wasn't using terror tactics as we had defined them for the War on Terror (Oh yes, a war on an emotion. That's totally not going to be an unwinnable war costing us trillions of dollars to no real end, just like how the War on Drugs totally worked and eradicated drug culture.). The only thing he did do was his standard run of stopping the UN Inspectors from coming in until we made a thing of it, then backed down in order to later be able to call "victory over America" like he had all the other times he did the exact same thing. There was nothing else he was doing during that entire run we hadn't already been signing off on for the previous 12 years, both conservative and liberal. We don't get to then fake outrage at it.

Yeah, and how many WMDs did we turn up? Some old dead ones buried out in the desert from when he stood down from the Gulf War that we already knew about.

The war in Iraq was fiscally, strategically, and ethically inviable, and all we did was make it worse for years. We decided we just knew better by default, and it dragged away from the hunt for Bin Laden, so our actual priority target, being the man who was actually doing something to us, with plans to do more, became a sideshow to a man who was just trying to punk us so he could look cool, just as he had in every previous engagement.

Ironically, we also did exactly what Bin Laden wanted us to do, starting up more wars that would tax us horribly, while he basically just had to keep doing small jump scares every so often to keep it going. So yeah, doing as your enemy expressly wants you to do with no deviation from their plan, not a good battle tactic.

[fj1200]

War is neither conservative nor liberal, it's just war.

Truth.

[fj1200]

.. DID I call them Lefties ? That's your assertion. Not mine.

Margaret Thatcher was no Libertarian, nor was she a friend to any Lefties. And she deregulated in a manner consistent with her goals. When it came to tackling Union wreckers, she REGULATED in order to clip their wings. To deny them freedoms they used against the greater good

Your logic requires them to be left as we agree in so many ways; It makes you spitting mad I know. Nevertheless I never called her a Libertarian, her efforts were in line with Libertarian goals though; deregulation. I already showed you the links proving my point; did you read them?


And did YOU notice how implacably you attack British Conservative policy ?

I've never attacked conservative policy.


... eh ? You claimed to be the 'Ultimate Thatcherite', yet you're indifferent to a cornerstone of British politics ??????

You might have noticed; I'm not British.


Since when was Margaret Thatcher a 'republican' politician ??

Probably when she was elected to represent others in government.


You really don't have a clue, do you, Leftie ?

I have a clue you're a fool who can't admit when he's wrong.


It was highly necessary, and totally justified.

That's an opinion. As DS plainly put it for you; war is neither left nor right.


You think like a Leftie. You keep proving it. The only thing 'silly' here are your pathetic attempts to insist you're something you really are NOT.

You think like a child. I advocate for less government and you advocate for more and you sit in your corner pouting.


... in line with Left wing policy ...

Wrong. Freedom is not left wing. Your desires for government stricture is left wing.


???? You're now claiming that you do not exist ?????!??

I've proven that your imaginary musings don't exist.


... Section 28 legislation !!

I knew you couldn't do it.


Both predated 9/11, and the realities it taught the world. No doubt neither leader had any proper understanding or concept of today's terrorist scum. If they had, I'm confident that they'd have rethought things.

So you're not a Thatcherite. OK. Pick and choose what you like.


I argue for ITS NECESSITY...

You argue for its necessity quite often. Curious how you think you're a conservative.

[Gunny]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the invasion part of the War on Terror ? How did Saddam fail to qualify on those grounds ?

And the WMD issue HAD to be checked and neutralised. How couldn't it be ???



I don't see the problem. Saddam was a problem requiring a solution. Simply that.

How does our own government not qualify? Saddam could have been Adolph's twin. From a geopolitical POV, we needed to leave him alone for more than one reason.

One, if we ain't taking out North Korea, who cares about Saddam? Kim il Doodlebug is more of a megalomaniac than Saddam was.

Two. None of our business. The US was paid in GOLD by the Government of Kuwait. Which, btw, is as backwards-assed as an ME country. We got solid gold Kuwait Liberation Medals and the US gov't took them away and gave us some alloy replacements.

Three. WMDs aren't a question no matter what leftwing goofs say. We sold them to Saddam and the CIA taught him to refine them.

[Drummond]

There shouldn't have been an Iraq War. Saddam was an ass, no argument there. But he was also the joker in the deck. The secular balance that stood between the Sunni and the Shia.

When we choose to play geopolitcal God, we need to accept the responsibility that goes with it. To the end.

The Left wing in the UK would be delighted with your answer !! They, too, hated the Iraq War, and they, too, want US involvement in the world in general drastically reduced ...

Let's say, OK, that America had never invaded Iraq. This would've sent a message to Saddam that he could face down the UN, build whatever WMD stockpile he wanted, WHENEVER he wanted, and incur no consequences AT ALL.

Do you think the US should've accepted whatever transpired from THAT .... when the world would've known that Saddam could've been defeated once and for all ???

And it's worse than even that scenario, Gunny. Proof that the UN was toothless and the US uninterested in acting ... the same 'WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT' message would've gone out to every tinpot, crackpot dictator &/or regime in existence. The world, today, would've been just waiting for the first maverick, or even terrorist, to deploy a WMD. Quite possibly against America ...

No, Gunny, DragonStryk ... accept that the US just HAD to act. The world, today, is safer because of it.

Of course, it could've been safer still ... had Obama not declared, then acted upon, his intention to withdraw troops from Iraq.

Hello, ISIS .....

[Drummond]

How does our own government not qualify? Saddam could have been Adolph's twin.

AS good a reason for acting, as any, surely ??


From a geopolitical POV, we needed to leave him alone for more than one reason.

One, if we ain't taking out North Korea, who cares about Saddam? Kim il Doodlebug is more of a megalomaniac than Saddam was.

Possibly so. But then, the current N Korean mess is an example of what NOT acting leads to. Now, it may very well be too late (.. though that problem will get even worse as time passes).

That said .. a feature of N Korea is just how insulated it is. Is the current leader at all likely to do a dodgy deal with terrorists ? Because SADDAM WAS.


Two. None of our business. The US was paid in GOLD by the Government of Kuwait. Which, btw, is as backwards-assed as an ME country. We got solid gold Kuwait Liberation Medals and the US gov't took them away and gave us some alloy replacements.

Largely immaterial ? World security is all our businesses. Certainly yours. Certainly also that of the British, or any nation represented on the UN Security Council. And a little more indirectly - though not much more so !! - everyone else's, too, since anyone can be attacked.


Three. WMDs aren't a question no matter what leftwing goofs say. We sold them to Saddam and the CIA taught him to refine them.

Which, if entirely true, gave him any and all right to do whatever he chose with them ?

Would you say that, because the US sold him such weaponry, he had a right to ever do a dodgy deal with a terrorist faction for ownership of one or more of them ?

Why are your suggestions consistent with a MORE dangerous world resulting, if YOU are right in this ?

[Drummond]

FJ, most of your stuff isn't worth replying to (.. so I haven't). I note you ducked the Section 28 point, by the way.


I've never attacked conservative policy.

LIAR.

This, FJ, is why you're ultimately not worth debating with -- you just refuse outright to debate HONESTLY. You and I are very aware that you attacked the British Conservatives, again and again, on this forum, because of their Austerity programme. It gave birth to your 'Austerity sucks' mantra.

Since that very programme has been at the heart of all that the Conservatives need to achieve in the UK ... you didn't just attack them, but you did so on a fundamental level.

Besides which, every time you bill yourself as 'The One True Thatcherite', or 'The Ultimate Thatcherite', you denigrate all the other Thatcherites out their .. in their millions. No doubt you enjoy every minute of it.

I'm sick of your dishonesty. You're a Leftie. We both know it, and your 'Libertarian' leanings help to finally confirm it.

And not just dishonest, but abusive with it, every time you feel like letting rip ...

Enough. You are a waste of my time. Find some more Conservatives to abuse ....

[Gunny]

The Left wing in the UK would be delighted with your answer !! They, too, hated the Iraq War, and they, too, want US involvement in the world in general drastically reduced ...

Let's say, OK, that America had never invaded Iraq. This would've sent a message to Saddam that he could face down the UN, build whatever WMD stockpile he wanted, WHENEVER he wanted, and incur no consequences AT ALL.

Do you think the US should've accepted whatever transpired from THAT .... when the world would've known that Saddam could've been defeated once and for all ???

And it's worse than even that scenario, Gunny. Proof that the UN was toothless and the US uninterested in acting ... the same 'WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT' message would've gone out to every tinpot, crackpot dictator &/or regime in existence. The world, today, would've been just waiting for the first maverick, or even terrorist, to deploy a WMD. Quite possibly against America ...

No, Gunny, DragonStryk ... accept that the US just HAD to act. The world, today, is safer because of it.

Of course, it could've been safer still ... had Obama not declared, then acted upon, his intention to withdraw troops from Iraq.

Hello, ISIS .....

Hate to point this out, but ISIS is a DIRECT result of taking Saddam out. I never said he was good guy.

You need to think about what you're saying. The world IS looking at the "first maverick, or even terrorist" and our President's paving the way for their WMDs while turning his back on our allies.

We did NOT have to act. Folly is a good word. We completely destabilized the ME. There ARE necessary evils. A secular dictator sitting between the Sunni and Shia was one. If you can't see that taking out Saddam has resulted in the current mess, not sure what to tell you.

But let's get this straight: Saddam was a POS. He cost me personally about 8 months time in grade during the First Gulf War. He cost me my best friend from boot camp. He was STILL better left alone.

[Drummond]

Hate to point this out, but ISIS is a DIRECT result of taking Saddam out. I never said he was good guy.

I see. So, then, ISIS realised all its successes while you DID have military forces in Iraq, following Saddam's defeat ??

Or, could it be that ISIS only knew success as a direct result of Obama giving them the right conditions to flourish ??

It was Bush who defeated Saddam. But it was Obama who created the present threat to Iraq, through his Left-wing traitorous irresponsibility.


You need to think about what you're saying. The world IS looking at the "first maverick, or even terrorist" and our President's paving the way for their WMDs while turning his back on our allies.

Obama's decisions are disgusting. Of course.

But nonetheless, you cannot fault my conclusions. Proving to Saddam that he had nothing to fear from remaining unaccountable to the UN for WMD stocks would have provided that same lesson to ALL regimes, EVERYWHERE. Anyone and everyone leading a Nation State would've built up whatever such stocks they wanted .. Saddam included, of course. And can you guarantee that nobody possessing a WMD capability would've ever handed any over to terrorists ?

SO THE LESSON OF CONSEQUENCES HAD TO BE METED OUT. No choice. It HAD to be.


We did NOT have to act.

Yes you did. See above.


We completely destabilized the ME.

Indeed ? Was it 'stable', in Afghanistan, on 11th September 2001, OR, was Afghanistan a Failed State, empowering terrorists to kill thousands of Westerners on a whim ??


There ARE necessary evils. A secular dictator sitting between the Sunni and Shia was one. If you can't see that taking out Saddam has resulted in the current mess, not sure what to tell you.

So tell me. Should the War on Terror never have been launched ? Was the correct response to 9/11 to sit back and do nothing, and wait for more of the same ?

Saddam WAS a legitimate target for the War on Terror. He was a maverick aggressor, who did his own 'destabilising' of the Middle East. He was a known friend and even a bankroller of terrorists. He sheltered Zarqawi.

You're judging Saddam on what was known of his actions. If left alone, would he never have ever done anything more that was contentious ? Gunny, you cannot say with any accuracy what an unmolested future Saddam would have caused to happen. But you CAN know that he was a maverick, a brutal dictator, perfectly capable - provably so !! - of murdering people with a WMD deployment.


But let's get this straight: Saddam was a POS. He cost me personally about 8 months time in grade during the First Gulf War. He cost me my best friend from boot camp. He was STILL better left alone.

You've no way of concluding what you do, as I've explained.

We only know one thing for certain. Withdrawing troops from Iraq has given ISIS all the opportunity it needed to invade Iraq and do what they're now doing. I say that Obama needs to be made fully accountable for giving ISIS that opening.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Because he wasn't using terror tactics as we had defined them for the War on Terror (Oh yes, a war on an emotion. That's totally not going to be an unwinnable war costing us trillions of dollars to no real end, just like how the War on Drugs totally worked and eradicated drug culture.). The only thing he did do was his standard run of stopping the UN Inspectors from coming in until we made a thing of it, then backed down in order to later be able to call "victory over America" like he had all the other times he did the exact same thing. There was nothing else he was doing during that entire run we hadn't already been signing off on for the previous 12 years, both conservative and liberal. We don't get to then fake outrage at it.

Yeah, and how many WMDs did we turn up? Some old dead ones buried out in the desert from when he stood down from the Gulf War that we already knew about.

The war in Iraq was fiscally, strategically, and ethically inviable, and all we did was make it worse for years. We decided we just knew better by default, and it dragged away from the hunt for Bin Laden, so our actual priority target, being the man who was actually doing something to us, with plans to do more, became a sideshow to a man who was just trying to punk us so he could look cool, just as he had in every previous engagement.

Ironically, we also did exactly what Bin Laden wanted us to do, starting up more wars that would tax us horribly, while he basically just had to keep doing small jump scares every so often to keep it going. So yeah, doing as your enemy expressly wants you to do with no deviation from their plan, not a good battle tactic.


Ironically, we also did exactly what Bin Laden wanted us to do, starting up more wars that would tax us horribly, while he basically just had to keep doing small jump scares every so often to keep it going.
^^^ EEEEEXACTLY what the globalists wanted too!! Funny how that worked out , eh??
Damn sure ties in with my contention that the globalist , muslims and leftists all are often allies ..
Allies against a common enemy--USA!!
"THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY FRIEND(ALLY)"-Tyr

[Gunny]

I see. So, then, ISIS realised all its successes while you DID have military forces in Iraq, following Saddam's defeat ??

Or, could it be that ISIS only knew success as a direct result of Obama giving them the right conditions to flourish ??

It was Bush who defeated Saddam. But it was Obama who created the present threat to Iraq, through his Left-wing traitorous irresponsibility.



Obama's decisions are disgusting. Of course.

But nonetheless, you cannot fault my conclusions. Proving to Saddam that he had nothing to fear from remaining unaccountable to the UN for WMD stocks would have provided that same lesson to ALL regimes, EVERYWHERE. Anyone and everyone leading a Nation State would've built up whatever such stocks they wanted .. Saddam included, of course. And can you guarantee that nobody possessing a WMD capability would've ever handed any over to terrorists ?

SO THE LESSON OF CONSEQUENCES HAD TO BE METED OUT. No choice. It HAD to be.



Yes you did. See above.



Indeed ? Was it 'stable', in Afghanistan, on 11th September 2001, OR, was Afghanistan a Failed State, empowering terrorists to kill thousands of Westerners on a whim ??



So tell me. Should the War on Terror never have been launched ? Was the correct response to 9/11 to sit back and do nothing, and wait for more of the same ?

Saddam WAS a legitimate target for the War on Terror. He was a maverick aggressor, who did his own 'destabilising' of the Middle East. He was a known friend and even a bankroller of terrorists. He sheltered Zarqawi.

You're judging Saddam on what was known of his actions. If left alone, would he never have ever done anything more that was contentious ? Gunny, you cannot say with any accuracy what an unmolested future Saddam would have caused to happen. But you CAN know that he was a maverick, a brutal dictator, perfectly capable - provably so !! - of murdering people with a WMD deployment.



You've no way of concluding what you do, as I've explained.

We only know one thing for certain. Withdrawing troops from Iraq has given ISIS all the opportunity it needed to invade Iraq and do what they're now doing. I say that Obama needs to be made fully accountable for giving ISIS that opening.

You seem to want to go all over the page with your responses. ISIS read Ho Chi Minh's book. We have to follow the rules because of the left. They don't. The Iraq War could have ended in Fallujah. But those Marines were killing people. Let's compare then to now ... collateral damage vs genocide.

You want to argue semantics. Put me in combat with an M-40A1. I'll make you all kinds of friends.

If you aren't willing to wage war at the enemy's level, you're going to lose. SO either kick ass and take names, or leave.

[Drummond]

You seem to want to go all over the page with your responses. ISIS read Ho Chi Minh's book. We have to follow the rules because of the left. They don't. The Iraq War could have ended in Fallujah. But those Marines were killing people. Let's compare then to now ... collateral damage vs genocide.

You want to argue semantics. Put me in combat with an M-40A1. I'll make you all kinds of friends.

If you aren't willing to wage war at the enemy's level, you're going to lose. SO either kick ass and take names, or leave.

It's the Left who are the keenest advocates, by far, of saying that the war against Saddam was an illegal one. They've gone to enormous lengths to push any case they can to rubbish the idea that it ever should have happened.

As I've said, the Left would've been delighted with your postings. They dovetail well with Left-wing wishes on the matter.

I reject your suggestion that I've been engaged in an argument of semantics. What I've done is to project consequences following from a lack of any Iraq invasion, to show what your alternative to an Iraq War threatened us all with. You, for your part, have offered me no counter-argument proving that my prognostications would be wrong.

You just can't have a world where any and every power-crazed nutter knows that WMD stockpiles can be amassed WITHOUT consequences resulting. The Iraq War necessarily taught a vital lesson to everyone. That's surely incontrovertible fact.

But tell me. What do you mean by 'If you aren't willing to wage war at the enemy's level, you're going to lose' .. ? I don't understand that at all.

The enemy's level is invariably one of terrorist actions ! Are you suggesting that Americans should become terrorists ??

[fj1200]

FJ, most of your stuff isn't worth replying to (.. so I haven't). I note you ducked the Section 28 point, by the way.

You don't because you can't. You dodge, you weave, you avoid the relevant issues and you make yourself a mockery. This, btw, is what you've been avoiding:


That's why you need links because your statements border on the asinine. Links to what the trade unionists wanted would help prove your case. Links to them demanding fewer government regulations and the ability to make fewer demands on the property of others. It shouldn't be hard since it doesn't get "any more libertarian than that."

Also, the cost-push argument of inflation is not really credible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost-push_inflation

Shall I debunk you stating that Milton Friedman is a leftie now or shall I wait?


LIAR.

This, FJ, is why you're ultimately not worth debating with -- you just refuse outright to debate HONESTLY. You and I are very aware that you attacked the British Conservatives, again and again, on this forum, because of their Austerity programme. It gave birth to your 'Austerity sucks' mantra.

Since that very programme has been at the heart of all that the Conservatives need to achieve in the UK ... you didn't just attack them, but you did so on a fundamental level.

Besides which, every time you bill yourself as 'The One True Thatcherite', or 'The Ultimate Thatcherite', you denigrate all the other Thatcherites out their .. in their millions. No doubt you enjoy every minute of it.

I'm sick of your dishonesty. You're a Leftie. We both know it, and your 'Libertarian' leanings help to finally confirm it.

And not just dishonest, but abusive with it, every time you feel like letting rip ...

Enough. You are a waste of my time. Find some more Conservatives to abuse ....

And you're an incompetent fool. My "austerity sucks" mantra is because austerity sucks and by a wide margin predates the unwise option of attempting to cut spending and raise taxes. What doesn't suck is spending restraint and tax cuts; thank God Osborne decided to go with that policy. So no, I've never attacked conservative policy; Austerity is not a conservative policy. A conservative might propose it on occasion but that doesn't make it conservative policy. It's pretty sad that you can't see the difference. Of course if you did you might have to own up to not actually being a conservative and having no idea what conservatism is.

Now if you weren't such a lying sack you would be able to prove what you believe but when your belief is based on your ignorant imagination then you will always be at a disadvantage.

[Gunny]

It's the Left who are the keenest advocates, by far, of saying that the war against Saddam was an illegal one. They've gone to enormous lengths to push any case they can to rubbish the idea that it ever should have happened.

As I've said, the Left would've been delighted with your postings. They dovetail well with Left-wing wishes on the matter.

I reject your suggestion that I've been engaged in an argument of semantics. What I've done is to project consequences following from a lack of any Iraq invasion, to show what your alternative to an Iraq War threatened us all with. You, for your part, have offered me no counter-argument proving that my prognostications would be wrong.

You just can't have a world where any and every power-crazed nutter knows that WMD stockpiles can be amassed WITHOUT consequences resulting. The Iraq War necessarily taught a vital lesson to everyone. That's surely incontrovertible fact.

But tell me. What do you mean by 'If you aren't willing to wage war at the enemy's level, you're going to lose' .. ? I don't understand that at all.

The enemy's level is invariably one of terrorist actions ! Are you suggesting that Americans should become terrorists ??

The left goes to any lengths to destroy the right PERIOD. "Collusion" is the definition of letting it happen; which, the right does. Off the top of my head, the left got the GOP to destroy the careers of Tom Delay and Trent. Why? Any old excuse will do. Neither were guilty of anything. Lott gave thanks to a man for his service. Delay was the target of leftwing idiot DA in Texas. The GOP dumped them both the second the accusations came out.

Then there's the dumb broad CIA woman who blamed the right for "outing" her when her own damned husband did. Or the fact that if youo drive across the Chain Bridge in Langley VA to get to work every morning no one's going to figure out who you work for since it leads only to CIA HQ.

The moral of the story here is this .... the left systematically targets anyone with balls in the GOP and takes them out with smear and the media piles on. The GOP reacts to every BS accusation and lets them.

[Drummond]

The left goes to any lengths to destroy the right PERIOD. "Collusion" is the definition of letting it happen; which, the right does. Off the top of my head, the left got the GOP to destroy the careers of Tom Delay and Trent. Why? Any old excuse will do. Neither were guilty of anything. Lott gave thanks to a man for his service. Delay was the target of leftwing idiot DA in Texas. The GOP dumped them both the second the accusations came out.

Then there's the dumb broad CIA woman who blamed the right for "outing" her when her own damned husband did. Or the fact that if youo drive across the Chain Bridge in Langley VA to get to work every morning no one's going to figure out who you work for since it leads only to CIA HQ.

The moral of the story here is this .... the left systematically targets anyone with balls in the GOP and takes them out with smear and the media piles on. The GOP reacts to every BS accusation and lets them.

Thanks for the reply (and clarification).

I don't know any of the examples you've cited, but then again, as I'm from my side of the Pond rather than yours, that's not surprising. But I do agree: your description of the way the Left behaves is a very familiar one.

I wonder how many Americans know about this .. the disgrace Piers Morgan earned, before he fled the UK and tried to carve an American media career for himself ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1461904/Mirror-editor-sacked-over-fake-photos-of-torture.html


Piers Morgan was sacked as the editor of the Daily Mirror last night as the newspaper's board made an unreserved apology for publishing fake pictures of British troops torturing Iraqi prisoners.

Morgan, 39, one of the most controversial tabloid editors of recent times, was dismissed after an afternoon-long board meeting at the Mirror's tower-block headquarters in Canary Wharf, east London.

He was immediately escorted from the building by security staff.

Morgan's departure came only hours after a devastating rebuttal of his defence of the pictures by Brig Geoff Sheldon, colonel of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, whose soldiers were accused of torture and abuse in the Mirror under the headline "Vile".

The pictures provoked fears that they would endanger the lives of British troops in Basra. After a fortnight of recriminations, demands for an apology reached a climax once the Ministry of Defence declared that they could not have been taken in Iraq.

Col David Black, a former commanding officer of the regiment, said: "It is time the ego of an editor is measured against the life of a soldier."

A statement from Mirror publishers Trinity Mirror said last night: "The board of Trinity Mirror has decided that it would be inappropriate for Piers Morgan to continue in his role as editor of the Daily Mirror and he will therefore be stepping down with immediate effect.

"The Daily Mirror published in good faith photographs which it absolutely believed were genuine images... However there is now sufficient evidence to suggest that these pictures are fakes and that the Daily Mirror has been the subject of a calculated and malicious hoax.

"The Daily Mirror therefore apologises unreservedly."

The paper carried a front-page apology with a black border this morning, headlined: "Sorry... we were hoaxed."

For most of yesterday Morgan was his customary bullish self, "laughing and joking" with colleagues as they prepared the paper. He told a television interviewer yesterday morning: "All I want to say is we published the truth."

But the end of his eight-year editorship came suddenly. At 6.30pm he was called to the executive floor to be told by Sly Bailey, the chief executive, that the board had "lost confidence in him". Morgan, who had made it clear that he would not resign, was not given the option of apologising and keeping his job. According to staff, he was not allowed to bid farewell to his newsroom before being ushered out of the building. His personal assistant was said to be in tears.

Morgan's jacket was still on the chair where he had been sitting before being summoned by Miss Bailey.

There was a general sense of dismay at his leaving. Despite his sometimes mercurial editorship, he engendered much loyalty for his commitment to campaigning journalism.

But the Mirror board is understood to have been swayed by suggestions from institutional shareholders that Morgan's continuing aggressive insistence that the photographs were genuine would have a disastrous effect on circulation and revenue.

Directors were swayed by the rising tide of public opinion against the newspaper and a damning press conference yesterday at the headquarters of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment.

Col Black told the press conference: "These photographs are a recruiting poster for al-Qa'eda and every other terrorist organisation. They have made the lives of our Armed Forces in Iraq that much more difficult and dangerous."

[DLT]

Are there any Libertarians here willing to discuss your beliefs?

Nope. Not here. I'm so far right....

I make Libertarians look like lefties.

I knew one who called himself a libertarian back at Slate (years ago). Turned out....

he was just a pot-smoking commie....lol.

[Drummond]

Nope. Not here. I'm so far right....

I make Libertarians look like lefties.

I knew one who called himself a libertarian back at Slate (years ago). Turned out....

he was just a pot-smoking commie....lol.

Well, over here in the UK, we know they're creatures of the Left !

Examining their Libertarian Party Manifesto reveals Leftie leanings, as I've posted. I'm assured that 'your' Libertarians are different, that Libertarianism is Right wing. But I just wonder if it's the case that ours represent themselves with a little more honesty ...

Our Libertarians, for example, see no conflict between their 'Movement' and organising on the 'strength in numbers' principle. Also, if enough people voted for them in elections (why else would they form a political Party, here in the UK ??) they're content to wield Governmental power.

It makes a change from being the spirit behind their Leftie Trade Unionism ...

[Gunny]

Nope. Not here. I'm so far right....

I make Libertarians look like lefties.

I knew one who called himself a libertarian back at Slate (years ago). Turned out....

he was just a pot-smoking commie....lol.

Ignorance.

[fj1200]

Well, over here in the UK, we know they're creatures of the Left !

:facepalm99: No, what you do is find something you don't understand and are scared of, look for a hint of "the left," and then proceed to attempt to paint the entirety as "creatures of the left."

[Gunny]

Nope. Not here. I'm so far right....

I make Libertarians look like lefties.

I knew one who called himself a libertarian back at Slate (years ago). Turned out....

he was just a pot-smoking commie....lol.

Y'all need to invest n some dictionaries. NAZi Germany, the USSR and the People's Republic of China are leftist. The Democratic Party is leftist. NONE of them are liberal.

[Drummond]

:facepalm99: No, what you do is find something you don't understand and are scared of, look for a hint of "the left," and then proceed to attempt to paint the entirety as "creatures of the left."

More lies, FJ. Do they ever stop ?

You are well aware that I posted a link to the Libertarian Party's manifesto. You are also aware that I was able to cite from it several manifesto pledges contained within it that couldn't have been anything else than a product of Left wing thinking.

I've not only presented my case, I've proved it correct. The issue, in reality, is already 'done & dusted'. But then, you reject anything not consistent with 'FJWorld', don't you ?

Tell me again how you 'don't attack Conservatives' .....:rolleyes:

[Drummond]

Y'all need to invest n some dictionaries. NAZi Germany, the USSR and the People's Republic of China are leftist. The Democratic Party is leftist. NONE of them are liberal.

It's all down to geographical perception (as well as the precise definition of the word, of course). In America, from what I've seen, 'liberal' and 'leftist' are broadly interchangeable. It seems to be an acceptable standard, so for that reason I defer to this on DP.

In the UK, though, the Left is different from 'liberal', even down to the nature of their respective Parties. Our LibDems are seen to occupy the centre ground in politics. Indeed, they've just come out of a five year coalition with our Conservatives.

A Scottish voter, in fact, regards a liberal as RIGHT wing (.. then again, though, anti-Conservative sentiment is very strong in Scotland .. they've just handed a landslide victory to the SNP, who are to the LEFT of our Labour Party. Perspectives are very Left-skewed in that country).

[fj1200]

Y'all need to invest n some dictionaries. NAZi Germany, the USSR and the People's Republic of China are leftist. The Democratic Party is leftist. NONE of them are liberal.

True, unfortunately liberal needs to be modified as "classical liberal" nowadays.

[fj1200]

If only you would spend less time whining and more time debating.


More lies, FJ. Do they ever stop ?

You are well aware that I posted a link to the Libertarian Party's manifesto. You are also aware that I was able to cite from it several manifesto pledges contained within it that couldn't have been anything else than a product of Left wing thinking.

I've not only presented my case, I've proved it correct. The issue, in reality, is already 'done & dusted'. But then, you reject anything not consistent with 'FJWorld', don't you ?

Tell me again how you 'don't attack Conservatives' .....:rolleyes:

I haven't lied about a thing, this entire thread is proof of my posit. That and your complete inability to tie Libertarians and libertarian ideals to the actual trade unionists in the 1970's UK. I've asked for specific links and so far you've completely ignored that because I'm guessing you can't find them.

Regarding the LP Manifesto; you haven't found a thing in there that is the product of "left-wing thinking;" You've found things that you think have commonality with some lefties but that doesn't make them "left-wing thinking." The heart of libertarian thinking is economic freedom and personal liberty; there's nothing lefty about that. You may not agree with it but it isn't lefty.

I don't attack conservatives; you aren't one. BTW, FJworld = small government conservatism. :slap:

[Drummond]

If only you would spend less time whining and more time debating.



I haven't lied about a thing, this entire thread is proof of my posit. That and your complete inability to tie Libertarians and libertarian ideals to the actual trade unionists in the 1970's UK. I've asked for specific links and so far you've completely ignored that because I'm guessing you can't find them.

Regarding the LP Manifesto; you haven't found a thing in there that is the product of "left-wing thinking;" You've found things that you think have commonality with some lefties but that doesn't make them "left-wing thinking." The heart of libertarian thinking is economic freedom and personal liberty; there's nothing lefty about that. You may not agree with it but it isn't lefty.

I don't attack conservatives; you aren't one. BTW, FJworld = small government conservatism. :slap:

I will thank you for that last sentence, since in it, you've outed yourself as a fraud.

You say this is what you believe in .. 'small government conservatism' ? THEN HOW ON EARTH CAN YOU POSSIBLY BE ANY SORT OF 'THATCHERITE' .. ????

Margaret Thatcher's brand of politics may have been Conservative, and an aspect of it may have involved empowering the ordinary citizen. Nonetheless, her many actions as Conservative PM proved, time and again, that she believed in a Government being as 'big' as the issues it faced required it to be.

Restrictive legislation against Trade Unions ? Mrs Thatcher didn't hesitate to apply it. In fact, she planned to, from the beginning.

Restricting the freedom of Sinn Fein to broadcast on British airwaves ? Mrs Thatcher instituted that ban.

Section 28 legislation, billed as the first anti-gay legislation passed in a century ? Mrs Thatcher saw to it that it was introduced.

The Community Charge, aka 'The Poll Tax'. Requiring EVERY citizen to pay a tax to pay for public services.

Did she loosen up our gun laws, or, did she tighten them ? H'mm ?

Did she perhaps disband our NHS, loosening up healthcare so that the State didn't completely dominate it ? If not, why not ? With her successive landslide victories, she had ample time to arrange it.

So, FJ. You're the 'One True Thatcherite', who on principle is AGAINST Mrs Thatcher's style of Premiership ???

QED - YOU ARE A FRAUD.

According to you, 'commonality' is essentially .. what ? Accidental ? You see evidence of Left wing thinking, yet .. it fails to be .. ?

NUTS.

In that case, Left wing Parties all have 'commonality' across the world, which therefore proves that they share 'nothing' in terms of actual values. They all happen to APPEAR Left wing, purely by coincidence.

Why do I argue with you ? You're obviously fraudulent ... you refuse to admit the truth about yourself, even though it's totally obvious.

[fj1200]

You say this is what you believe in .. 'small government conservatism' ? THEN HOW ON EARTH CAN YOU POSSIBLY BE ANY SORT OF 'THATCHERITE' .. ????

Easily.

Thatcherism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism)

Thatcherism has been described by Nigel Lawson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Lawson), Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_of_the_Exchequer) from 1983 to 1989, as a political platform emphasizing free markets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_markets) with restrained government spending (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending) and tax cuts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_cuts) coupled with British nationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationalism) both at home and abroad.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-Lawson-1) The Daily Telegraph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Telegraph) stated in April 2008 that the programme of the next non-conservative British government, Tony Blair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Blair)'s administration with an emphasis on 'New Labour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Labour)', basically accepted the central reform measures of Thatcherism such as deregulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation), privatisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation) of key national industries, maintaining a flexible labour market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_market), marginalising the trade unions, and devolving government decision-making to local authorities.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-inspire-2)
...
Thatcherism claims to promote low inflation, the small state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_government), and free markets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market) through tight control of the money supply (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism), privatisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization) and constraints on the labour movement. It is often compared with Reaganomics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics) in the United States, Economic Rationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Rationalism) in Australia andRogernomics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogernomics) in New Zealand and as a key part of the worldwide economic liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism) movement. Nigel Lawson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Lawson), Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_of_the_Exchequer) from 1983 to 1989, listed the Thatcherite ideals as:

Free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_cut), nationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism), 'Victorian values' (of the Samuel Smiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Smiles)self-help variety), privatisation and a dash of populism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-Lawson-1)
Thatcherism is thus often compared to neoliberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism). Milton Friedman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman) claimed that "the thing that people do not recognise is that Margaret Thatcher is not in terms of belief a Tory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tory). She is a nineteenth-century Liberal."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-3)
...
Thinkers closely associated with Thatcherism include Keith Joseph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Joseph), Enoch Powell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Powell), Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman). In an interview with Simon Heffer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Heffer) in 1996 Thatcher stated that the two greatest influences on her as Conservative leader had been Joseph and Powell, who were both "very great men".[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-10)
...
While Margaret Thatcher was prime minister, she greatly embraced transatlantic relations with the U.S. President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._President) Ronald Reagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan). She often publicly supported Reagan's policies even when other Western allies were not as vocal. For example, she granted permission for American planes to use British bases for raids on Libya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya) and allowed American cruise missiles and Pershing missiles to be housed on British soil in response to Soviet deployment of SS-20 nuclear missiles targeting Britain and other Western European nations.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-11)
...
Thatcherism is often described as a libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) ideology. Thatcher saw herself as creating a libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) movement,[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-15)[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-16) rejecting traditional Toryism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toryism).[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-17) Thatcherism is associated with libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) within the Conservative Party,[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-18) albeit one of libertarian ends achieved by using strong and sometimes authoritarian leadership.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-19) British political commentator Andrew Marr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Marr) has called libertarianism the "dominant, if unofficial, characteristic of Thatcherism".[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-20) However, whereas some of her heirs, notably Michael Portillo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Portillo)and Alan Duncan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Duncan), embraced this libertarianism, others in the Thatcherite movement, such as John Redwood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Redwood), sought to become more populist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism).[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-21)[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#cite_note-22)
...
Thatcherism is also associated with supply-side economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics). Whereas Keynesian economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics) holds that the government should stimulate economic growth by increasing demand through increased credit and public spending, supply-side economists argue that the government should instead intervene only to create a free market by lowering taxes, privatizing state industries and increasing restraints on trade unionism.
...
Reduction in the power of the trades unions...
...
In May 1988 Thatcher gave an address to the General Assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Assembly_of_the_Church_of_Scotland) of the Church of Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scotland). In the address, Thatcher offered a theological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology) justification for her ideas on capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) and the market economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy).
...

Let the blustery sputtering begin. :) The real question is how can you claim to be any sort of Thatcherite? You really have no clue of the underlying ideology of the great lady you claim to admire so. Do I support unequivocally everything that she did or believed? Of course not, I'm not a parrot, but neither do you.

[Gunny]

It's all down to geographical perception (as well as the precise definition of the word, of course). In America, from what I've seen, 'liberal' and 'leftist' are broadly interchangeable. It seems to be an acceptable standard, so for that reason I defer to this on DP.

In the UK, though, the Left is different from 'liberal', even down to the nature of their respective Parties. Our LibDems are seen to occupy the centre ground in politics. Indeed, they've just come out of a five year coalition with our Conservatives.

A Scottish voter, in fact, regards a liberal as RIGHT wing (.. then again, though, anti-Conservative sentiment is very strong in Scotland .. they've just handed a landslide victory to the SNP, who are to the LEFT of our Labour Party. Perspectives are very Left-skewed in that country).

The definition was once the same here. As an "old school" or "classical liberal", I resent the Hell out the word being misused to describe the progressive lefties that are nothing more than NAZIs and commies. There's NOTHING liberal about them. Just as these lefties try to say NAZI's were right wing. BS. They were about as far left as it gets. National SOCIALISM doesn't sound very conservative to me.

Words mean things. Slapping a label on something doesn't change the meaning of the word. The people that don't read the words and misuse them DO.

[Gunny]

I'll try this one even though it's kind of hard to explain. Don't tell me what to do and leave me alone. You don't step on my toes and I'll stay off yours. The Democrats AND Republicans in the country are all about telling others what to do. Everything here has been legislated to death and if the minorities don't get their way, they go to the ACLU which will pick a court of their liking to get legislation from the bench.

There are lots of factors and no solution. You got blacks and gays controlling the population and combined they are less than 20% of the population. A black president kissing criminal ass (that would be illegal aliens) and siding with our traditional enemies while snubbing our allies. You got whackadoodles on the beach that aren't even smart enough to control their own behaviour and idiots likes Hannity sensationalizing it. You got blacks that will burn down their own neighborhood if anyone dares rule against them.

I STILL wear tie-dyed tee shirts, 501's and teva sandals and if I still had hair it would probably be as long as it was in the 70s. If I wasn't allergic to pot, I'd probably still smoke it.

The left combined with the media has created this. Oh, and a bunch of altruistic lefties with a lot of ideals and no brains. But calling them liberal is a misnomer.

[Max R.]

I wish to discuss the very situation you quoted from me. If we legalize all drugs, who has to pay for the eventual fallout from those drugs? I have worked ER and seen the consequences of drug abuse. I work now in a unit that specializes in the care of drug addicts' wounds and illnesses. These are vital answers I am seeking.
The costs go down as addicts weed themselves out of the gene pool.

[Max R.]

First name your poison. Right or left libertarian?

Thinking you're smarter than the US government which requires about a 4th grade education is NOT thinking highly of oneself. It's thinking you made it past 4th grade.

You get called a liertarian when you think for yourself and don't fall into party lockstep. I believe in the Constitution and no one man, nor party bureaucrats are above that. I believe in the ideals that created this nation. I also believe there is little difference between our current police state and Nazi Germany.

Feel free to discuss.Right-leaning Moderate and supporter of much of the Libertarian platform. The place I part ways with many Liberatarians is foreign affairs and our military. I'm not fond of isolationism nor do I think we should develop a bunker mentality and wait for them to come to us.


Agreed on supporting the Constitution, but I think we're still a long ways from a police state. If Germans had the Internet in the 1930s, they would have men in long dark coats knocking on their doors to take them away for saying much of what is posted on this and other forums.

[Max R.]

The definition was once the same here. As an "old school" or "classical liberal", I resent the Hell out the word being misused to describe the progressive lefties that are nothing more than NAZIs and commies. There's NOTHING liberal about them. Just as these lefties try to say NAZI's were right wing. BS. They were about as far left as it gets. National SOCIALISM doesn't sound very conservative to me.

Words mean things. Slapping a label on something doesn't change the meaning of the word. The people that don't read the words and misuse them DO.
Most Democrats and Republicans, who love to call themselves Liberals and Conservatives, respectively, are really just authoritarian asshats who seek to tell others what to think, what to believe and how they should be spending their money.

These links offer evidence of this idea:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usstates

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

[Gunny]

Right-leaning Moderate and supporter of much of the Libertarian platform. The place I part ways with many Liberatarians is foreign affairs and our military. I'm not fond of isolationism nor do I think we should develop a bunker mentality and wait for them to come to us.


Agreed on supporting the Constitution, but I think we're still a long ways from a police state. If Germans had the Internet in the 1930s, they would have men in long dark coats knocking on their doors to take them away for saying much of what is posted on this and other forums.

Why do they need to knock on your door nowadays when they can tap your cell? You're touting one right they either ignore or cast off as insignificant. We can say what we want. And we can go where THEY want. After we get done paying taxes to them, of course. We can do what THEY want. SO long as we just stay in our little grid square and don't make too much noise, we don't matter. We're a source of income.

And we have cops up the butt from the top down. The worst people are the media because people who can't or don't think for themselves believe what they're told.

What's the difference between the IRS, NSA, CIA and FBI and the Gestapo? What's the difference between our media and Lennie Riefenstahl?

[Drummond]

Easily.

Thatcherism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism)


Let the blustery sputtering begin. :) The real question is how can you claim to be any sort of Thatcherite? You really have no clue of the underlying ideology of the great lady you claim to admire so. Do I support unequivocally everything that she did or believed? Of course not, I'm not a parrot, but neither do you.

Like I've said, you're a fraud.

You bill yourself as 'The One True Thatcherite'. Previously, you supposedly were 'The Ultimate Thatcherite'.

HOW YOU COULD POSSIBLY HAVE THE SMALLEST LATITUDE TO PART COMPANY WITH HER ON ANYTHING SHE SAID, DID, OR BELIEVED IN ... WHEN YOU CLAIM TO BE THE ULTIMATE SUPPORTER OF HER ON THE PLANET !!! ... IS BEYOND ALL COMPREHENSION OR CREDIBILITY.

QED - YOU ARE A FRAUD.

Keep adding to the evidence, FJ. It's getting to be rather funny ...:laugh::laugh:

As to the rest of your post, I've already given you a list of her 'big Government' positions. And regardless of your latest offering, within it is yet further evidence.

I cite:


marginalising the trade unions

... which confirms what I said before. She wielded Governmental powers like a big stick to get that done, passing laws restricting their freedoms to be antisocial.


claims to promote low inflation, the small state, and free markets through tight control of the money supply,

An obvious example of tight Governmental control. Yes ?


Thatcherism is associated with libertarianism within the Conservative Party, albeit one of libertarian ends achieved by using strong and sometimes authoritarian leadership

You see, Margaret Thatcher wanted to see self-reliance flourish, be it in her Party, or the wider world. EVEN SO, she frequently saw authoritarian leadership as the means to attain goals. Hardly evidence of her 'small Government' thinking ...

You should take another look at your offering. Controls exercised against Trade Unions gets repeated mentions. And what could those controls be, if not the manifestation of big Government interventions ?

Perhaps, FJ, your problem is one of confusing APPLIED Libertarianism with small Government methodology ? I don't know how the American version works .. but here, Libertarians see a place for Governmental controls. The very fact of their having a political Party here, with clearly defined mandate commitments which cannot help but try to define the direction exercising of Government must take !! .. shows that realism wins the day.

Mrs Thatcher was a firm believer in Government interventions when goals she had in mind called for it. So it is with that political entity called the UK Libertarian Party. And, so it is in real life.

But anyway, you keep proving your so-called 'bona fides' to be false. 'The One True Thatcherite', FJ, would obviously be the one supporter on the planet MOST aligned with her thinking !! IT CAN'T BE OTHERWISE.

YOU ARE A PROVEN FRAUD.

[Max R.]

Why do they need to knock on your door nowadays when they can tap your cell? You're touting one right they either ignore or cast off as insignificant. We can say what we want. And we can go where THEY want. After we get done paying taxes to them, of course. We can do what THEY want. SO long as we just stay in our little grid square and don't make too much noise, we don't matter. We're a source of income.

And we have cops up the butt from the top down. The worst people are the media because people who can't or don't think for themselves believe what they're told.

What's the difference between the IRS, NSA, CIA and FBI and the Gestapo? What's the difference between our media and Lennie Riefenstahl?I completely agree all those things you mentioned are not only very disturbing but unAmerican. We've allowed our Constitution to be weakened for the same of sake of feeling secure. Disagreed we're on par with the Nazis or the Gestapo, but it could go that way. I think most people, like you and I, are disturbed enough to force the tide the other way.

Notice that it was the Republicans who put up the biggest fuss when SCOTUS ruled against the NSA telephone metadata collection program: http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/07/politics/nsa-telephone-metadata-illegal-court/

[fj1200]

Like I've said, :blah:

Looks like I called all that blustery sputtering didn't I? All those verifiable links must have confused you; it's how internet works. But given all your prattling on about the necessity of big government; are you still arguing that you're a conservative? Because that would just be weird. You can either be a conservative or you can be a Thatcherite that declares everything Mags did to be inviolable; you can't be both. Maybe another example to help clear your fog. I consider myself a Reaganite, Reagan was a conservative, not everything Reagan did was conservative in nature; therefore to conclude that all Reaganism was conservative would not be acccurate.

Clean off your screen before you give it another go please. It might make it easier for you to see clearly. Nevertheless, to help save you some future embarrassment I'll offer again that if you finally admit that I'm not a leftie and you were utterly wrong all this time then I'll remove my references to Mags. How about it? :thumb:

[Drummond]

Looks like I called all that blustery sputtering didn't I? All those verifiable links must have confused you; it's how internet works. But given all your prattling on about the necessity of big government; are you still arguing that you're a conservative? Because that would just be weird.

So, in FjWorld, Margaret Thatcher was not a Conservative ??

Margaret Thatcher took big Government decisions, and insisted they worked by instituting the introduction of legislation to ensure it. That is simple fact. You cannot refute it without lying.

The obvious example is anti-Trade Union legislation, to limit their powers in society. As I've told you, Lady Thatcher planned upon curbing their freedoms from the beginning. Now, if what you claim about her describes the whole truth about her, what she believed in, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT ?

Lady Thatcher's PREFERENCE was for small Government. That is true. Even so, history records, and amply proves, that she'd intervene in issues with big Government solutions to them whenever she saw doing so to be a practical answer.

The matter of our destructive Unions proved not only her willingness to employ such an approach, but in fact its outright necessity.


You can either be a conservative or you can be a Thatcherite that declares everything Mags did to be inviolable; you can't be both.

I love it ! YOU'VE JUST TOLD US, FROM THAT ARGUMENT, THAT YOU'RE NOT A CONSERVATIVE !!

The more you post, FJ, the more you 'out' yourself ...

You assert that you're the 'One True Thatcherite'. And that you're the 'Ultimate Thatcherite'

Quite apart from the implicit abuse behind that, the message which says to the world that you're a 'better' Thatcherite than ANYBODY ELSE (... and you don't attack Conservatives, eh ??) .. it also asserts that you must be the ultimately loyal Thatcherite. Who could be a more loyal Thatcher supporter than the ONE TRUE, or ULTIMATE, Thatcherite ??

Yet you've said you can disagree with her. Which proves you're a fraud.

I'll quote your words back to you ...


You can either be a conservative or you can be a Thatcherite __ .. you can't be both

Well, as the 'Ultimate' / 'One True' Thatcherite, you're telling us that you're not a Conservative.

But in telling us that you don't automatically agree with Margaret Thatcher, you're telling us that you're not the 'Ultimate' / 'One True' Thatcherite' you claim to be.

SO, EITHER WAY, YOU PRESENT YOURSELF TO US FRAUDULENTLY.


Maybe another example to help clear your fog. I consider myself a Reaganite, Reagan was a conservative, not everything Reagan did was conservative in nature; therefore to conclude that all Reaganism was conservative would not be acccurate.

You consider that Reagan sometimes betrayed Conservatism, then ? Is this your excuse to attack another Conservative ?

Be honest ... just for once. Your real mission here is to find any means you can to attack Conservatives, EVEN if it means taking on utterly ludicrous bona fides for yourself. You attack me, a Conservative, as a matter of course. You claim an absurd level of loyalty to Margaret Thatcher, one crafted to be insulting to every other Thatcherite out there, yet also claim that you can disagree with her as well (.. which logically means that you, as the 'ONE TRUE' Thatcherite, say that every other Thatcherite must disagree with her MORE.)

Find me anyone else on this board who'll tell us that Margaret Thatcher wasn't a Conservative.

Find me anyone else on this board who'll tell us that Ronald Reagan wasn't a Conservative.

And find me anyone to tell us that they weren't splendid examples of Conservative leaders, i.e that they did an excellent job of furthering the cause of Conservatism.

.. OTHER THAN YOURSELF, OF COURSE - OR OTHER LEFTIES.


Clean off your screen before you give it another go please. It might make it easier for you to see clearly. Nevertheless, to help save you some future embarrassment I'll offer again that if you finally admit that I'm not a leftie and you were utterly wrong all this time then I'll remove my references to Mags. How about it? :thumb:

So, you'd find it easy to remove your pro-Thatcherite 'reference', would you ?

... and how could that be true of you, IF YOU ARE WHAT YOU CLAIM TO BE ?

The more you post, FJ, the easier it becomes to quantifiably question what you claim for yourself. Now ... who would be so deceptive about their 'Thatcherite', or 'Conservative' loyalties ... THAN A LEFTIE ?

Stop shooting yourself in the foot, FJ.:rolleyes: Believe me, you'll find it makes life easier.:thumb:

[Gunny]

I completely agree all those things you mentioned are not only very disturbing but unAmerican. We've allowed our Constitution to be weakened for the same of sake of feeling secure. Disagreed we're on par with the Nazis or the Gestapo, but it could go that way. I think most people, like you and I, are disturbed enough to force the tide the other way.

Notice that it was the Republicans who put up the biggest fuss when SCOTUS ruled against the NSA telephone metadata collection program: http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/07/politics/nsa-telephone-metadata-illegal-court/

Don't confuse ME with a Republican't. I still have my balls. :laugh: I vote against the Dems. The last time I voted FOR a Republican it was Ronald Reagan.

What remember about the NSA wiretaps is it was a kneejerk reaction by Republicans to the wailing and gnashing of teeth of a bunch of lefties whining for "Big Brother" to protect them. So, we get the Patriot Act and NSA wiretapping.

Notice that neither seems to be an issue for the left NOW, but they whined like little pissants about it until 2008.

[fj1200]

So, in FjWorld, Margaret Thatcher was not a Conservative ??

...

Find me anyone else on this board who'll tell us that Margaret Thatcher wasn't a Conservative.

Find me anyone else on this board who'll tell us that Ronald Reagan wasn't a Conservative.

And find me anyone to tell us that they weren't splendid examples of Conservative leaders, i.e that they did an excellent job of furthering the cause of Conservatism.

When you back yourself into a corner you revert to your lying sack ways. Point out where I suggested that Thatcher and Reagan were not conservative. You can defend Mags and Ron and be conservative; you can't defend everything that they did and be a conservative.

Besides, you're still falling down on your duties to provide actual links from the Libertarians and the trade unionists.

[Drummond]

When you back yourself into a corner you revert to your lying sack ways. Point out where I suggested that Thatcher and Reagan were not conservative. You can defend Mags and Ron and be conservative; you can't defend everything that they did and be a conservative.

Why would a true Conservative NOT do conservative things ? Do Conservatives sometimes switch sides, then ???

You are the one saying that not everything Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher did was Conservative. That, FJ, is you just finding one more way to attack Conservatives ... and one of them being the person you claim to be the 'ultimate' follower of !!

Perhaps your problem is that you are so far removed from Conservative thinking yourself, that you don't grasp the full spectrum of their capabilities.

But your main problem is that it is YOU who's backed into a corner. You're a fraud.


Besides, you're still falling down on your duties to provide actual links from the Libertarians and the trade unionists.

This is actually more of the same. Trade Unionists think as Libertarians (they claim to have motivations identifiable as Libertarian). Therefore, they are identifiable FOR THAT REASON AS LIBERTARIAN.

But, never mind. In FjWorld, black can be white, allowing anything and everything to be claimed as true, according to preference. And behind it all .. 'coincidentally' ... are excuses to attack Conservatives. Your latest targets have been Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher.

Who's next, FJ ? And will you pledge 'ultimate' loyalty to the person you then attack ?

[aboutime]

Why would a true Conservative NOT do conservative things ? Do Conservatives sometimes switch sides, then ???

You are the one saying that not everything Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher did was Conservative. That, FJ, is you just finding one more way to attack Conservatives ... and one of them being the person you claim to be the 'ultimate' follower of !!

Perhaps your problem is that you are so far removed from Conservative thinking yourself, that you don't grasp the full spectrum of their capabilities.

But your main problem is that it is YOU who's backed into a corner. You're a fraud.



This is actually more of the same. Trade Unionists think as Libertarians (they claim to have motivations identifiable as Libertarian). Therefore, they are identifiable FOR THAT REASON AS LIBERTARIAN.

But, never mind. In FjWorld, black can be white, allowing anything and everything to be claimed as true, according to preference. And behind it all .. 'coincidentally' ... are excuses to attack Conservatives. Your latest targets have been Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher.

Who's next, FJ ? And will you pledge 'ultimate' loyalty to the person you then attack ?



Sir Drummond. Haven't we heard all of this same crap from fj many times before?

This problem fj has with you could be solved instantly if fj just fessed-up, and just told us how much he hated Ron, and Maggie. Rather than clinging to dumb excuses, and hate-filled BS.?

[DragonStryk72]

Why would a true Conservative NOT do conservative things ? Do Conservatives sometimes switch sides, then ???

You are the one saying that not everything Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher did was Conservative. That, FJ, is you just finding one more way to attack Conservatives ... and one of them being the person you claim to be the 'ultimate' follower of !!

Perhaps your problem is that you are so far removed from Conservative thinking yourself, that you don't grasp the full spectrum of their capabilities.

But your main problem is that it is YOU who's backed into a corner. You're a fraud.



This is actually more of the same. Trade Unionists think as Libertarians (they claim to have motivations identifiable as Libertarian). Therefore, they are identifiable FOR THAT REASON AS LIBERTARIAN.

But, never mind. In FjWorld, black can be white, allowing anything and everything to be claimed as true, according to preference. And behind it all .. 'coincidentally' ... are excuses to attack Conservatives. Your latest targets have been Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher.

Who's next, FJ ? And will you pledge 'ultimate' loyalty to the person you then attack ?

...so basically, you've got nothing, and cannot either refute the information that FJ provided, nor prove anything he's said is specifically left.

Sigh, typical leftist argument strategy: yell a bunch of insults, refuse to prove anything cause you have none, and then evade all further questions. Gabs Would be proud.

[fj1200]

Why would a true Conservative NOT do conservative things ? Do Conservatives sometimes switch sides, then ???

You are the one saying that not everything Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher did was Conservative. That, FJ, is you just finding one more way to attack Conservatives ... and one of them being the person you claim to be the 'ultimate' follower of !!

Why would a conservative do something that's not conservative in nature? I suppose there could be many reasons such as making a compromise or wanting to be seen as doing something. Nevertheless I only spoke truth about Ron and Mags; is it your contention that truth is somehow "leftie" and only attacking in nature? That would be a silly thing to say.


This is actually more of the same. Trade Unionists think as Libertarians (they claim to have motivations identifiable as Libertarian). Therefore, they are identifiable FOR THAT REASON AS LIBERTARIAN.

Trade unionists have nothing in common with Libertarians but as I expected you are still utterly devoid of any links to back up your statement. Regurgitating the same nonsense is not proving your posit.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Haven't we heard all of this same crap from fj many times before?

This problem fj has with you could be solved instantly if fj just fessed-up, and just told us how much he hated Ron, and Maggie. Rather than clinging to dumb excuses, and hate-filled BS.?:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Perfectly stated. You're exactly right, of course.

FJ still hopes (stupidly and delusionally, in my view) to get and maintain the extent of influence which convincing people he's a form of 'conservative' could bring. Yet I've comprehensively proven (and repeatedly !!) that the claims he makes for himself are an almighty load of bilge.

Still, like the leftie he is, he prefers to cling to illusory rot than admit to reality.

It's a feature of his delusions that he cannot see that thinking and behaving like a leftie is its own indicator of the truth. He believes, still, that he only has to state what he wants people to believe, for them to believe it.:cuckoo:

[Drummond]

Why would a conservative do something that's not conservative in nature? I suppose there could be many reasons such as making a compromise or wanting to be seen as doing something. Nevertheless I only spoke truth about Ron and Mags; is it your contention that truth is somehow "leftie" and only attacking in nature? That would be a silly thing to say.

Very well, then. I challenge you to show me how Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher had ever acted like Lefties during their terms of office !!!

FJ, for you to submit any suggestion, AS YOU HAVE, that Reagan and Thatcher ever failed to consistently conduct themselves as Conservatives in anything they said and did, is to put yourself in the position of trying to undermine our memories and regard for them ! IT IS AN ACT INTENDED TO DEMEAN THEIR WORTH AS CONSERVATIVE LEADERS .. IT IS THEREFORE AN ATTACK ON THEM.

And yet you say that you do 'not' attack Conservatives !!


Trade unionists have nothing in common with Libertarians but as I expected you are still utterly devoid of any links to back up your statement. Regurgitating the same nonsense is not proving your posit.

Libertarians are supposedly 'anti Establishment', wanting to fight the machinery of Big Government. This also perfectly describes the aspirations of Trade Unions, who'll ride roughshod over anyone getting in their way.

A pencil is a pencil. A slice of cheese is a slice of cheese. A Leftie is a useless idiot. I don't have to post 'links' to representations of pencils, or cheese, or useless idiots, for that obvious truth to be accepted in each case. And since Libertarians and Trade Unionists are describable in the same terms as each other, the same remains true for them, as well.

[Drummond]

...so basically, you've got nothing, and cannot either refute the information that FJ provided, nor prove anything he's said is specifically left.

Sigh, typical leftist argument strategy: yell a bunch of insults, refuse to prove anything cause you have none, and then evade all further questions. Gabs Would be proud.

She'd be proud of FJ, you mean ? Because it seems to me that you've done a splendid job of describing FJ !!

Do a comparison between the levels of abuse discernible between the many, ahem, 'conversations' I've had with FJ. See if I've ever once rewritten ANY post of his, much less done so for abusive effect. Gratuitous insults .. ditto. Evading challenges .. also ditto. Make your comparison.

Rewriting reality is a mark of Left wing behaviour. FJ's many rewrites of my texts speaks for itself. And that's besides his claiming to be 'the One True Thatcherite' (demeaning to every other Thatcher supporter out there !!) whilst claiming he doesn't attack Conservatives !!

The truth of these matters is obvious to anyone caring to see it.

[fj1200]

:cuckoo:

I know you're done in when you have to go running to the banana for validation.


Very well, then. I challenge you to show me how Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher had ever acted like Lefties during their terms of office !!!

... IT IS THEREFORE AN ATTACK ON THEM.

:facepalm99: I didn't say that they acted like lefties, I said not everything they did was conservative. Surely you can't be this naive. Your own arguments about Mags validate my statement.


Libertarians are supposedly 'anti Establishment', wanting to fight the machinery of Big Government. This also perfectly describes the aspirations of Trade Unions, who'll ride roughshod over anyone getting in their way.

:rolleyes: Still no links I see. More regurgitation there is.

[Drummond]

I know you're done in when you have to go running to the banana for validation.

Er'm, no. It was the 'cuckoo' smilie I used, not the 'banana' one. Are you perhaps rebelling against the act of uncharacteristically successfully reproducing any part of one of my posts in a requote ??


I didn't say that they acted like lefties, I said not everything they did was conservative.

Correction acknowledged.


Surely you can't be this naive.

A gratuitous insult ? 'Surely not ...'


Your own arguments about Mags validate my statement.

Nope. That won't do. You are evading my questioning of your assertion. Of course you are. YOU HAVE TO.

The truth is that, as the fine Conservative leaders they both were, YOU find it necessary to undermine our memories of them. If you have any case to make, then MAKE IT, with whatever detail you think you can offer to 'prove' your case.

Or, evade. Again.


:rolleyes: Still no links I see. More regurgitation there is.

Oh, very well (sigh) ... prove to me that a pencil is NOT a pencil. With supporting links, of course.

[Max R.]

Don't confuse ME with a Republican't. I still have my balls. :laugh: I vote against the Dems. The last time I voted FOR a Republican it was Ronald Reagan.

What remember about the NSA wiretaps is it was a kneejerk reaction by Republicans to the wailing and gnashing of teeth of a bunch of lefties whining for "Big Brother" to protect them. So, we get the Patriot Act and NSA wiretapping.

Notice that neither seems to be an issue for the left NOW, but they whined like little pissants about it until 2008.

Yes, the Left is whining, as usual, but the problem I have is the Right is supporting such authoritarianism. I'm not voting for Hillary in 2016, but doesn't this leave right-leaning Independents in a quandary when the Republicans have become RW asshats compared to the LW asshats?

Everyone should vote, that's an American right and, IMO, duty, but who do we vote for when the choice is between two authoritarian assholes?

[LongTermGuy]

Yes, the Left is whining, as usual, but the problem I have is the Right is supporting such authoritarianism. I'm not voting for Hillary in 2016, but doesn't this leave right-leaning Independents in a quandary when the Republicans have become RW asshats compared to the LW asshats?

Everyone should vote, that's an American right and, IMO, duty, but who do we vote for when the choice is between two authoritarian assholes?

There is a lot of cleaning up to do...this guy can do it....hated by the left and Rhinos.


http://c10.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/meme0930_04.jpg
Scott Walker second choice ....

[Gunny]

Yes, the Left is whining, as usual, but the problem I have is the Right is supporting such authoritarianism. I'm not voting for Hillary in 2016, but doesn't this leave right-leaning Independents in a quandary when the Republicans have become RW asshats compared to the LW asshats?

Everyone should vote, that's an American right and, IMO, duty, but who do we vote for when the choice is between two authoritarian assholes?

The lesser of the 2 evils. The GOP will get control of everything and do exactly nothing. Carter, Clinton and Obama are what happens when the left gets control.

I'd put ME in office if it was up to me. And some people better have some go-fasters if it happened. The one time the GOP and DNC become buddies is when any threat from the outside happens against their lock on the bureaucracy. Break THAT and you got the code.

The last outsider to win was Carter, and the partly he allegedly represented turned on him. Point is, even if an outsider wins, how do they get Congress?

You call yourself an independent and I call myself a right-leaning Constitutionalist. THAT is what I swore to uphold and defend.

In the meantime, I'm voting AGAINST the Dems. They are far more dangerous than the do-nothing GOP.

[indago]

a vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote for evil




.

[Gunny]

a vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote for evil




.

And a vote for nothing is nothing.

[DragonStryk72]

She'd be proud of FJ, you mean ? Because it seems to me that you've done a splendid job of describing FJ !!

Do a comparison between the levels of abuse discernible between the many, ahem, 'conversations' I've had with FJ. See if I've ever once rewritten ANY post of his, much less done so for abusive effect. Gratuitous insults .. ditto. Evading challenges .. also ditto. Make your comparison.

Rewriting reality is a mark of Left wing behaviour. FJ's many rewrites of my texts speaks for itself. And that's besides his claiming to be 'the One True Thatcherite' (demeaning to every other Thatcher supporter out there !!) whilst claiming he doesn't attack Conservatives !!

The truth of these matters is obvious to anyone caring to see it.

Nope, you're the leftist, Drummond. Not fj, not fj at all. You still won't answer his provided information, won't rebut any information he has provided, yet squall and whine that he prove Something, and then, you'll just run away again, or if he calls you out, you'll behind your "sso you have no proof" straw man, despite proof having been placed in this very thread.

So, as I said, you drummond, are the one who continues to be labor the lefts "debate" style.Wit this as proof, alongside your own admittance that your prefer the constant liberal expansion of government, that you are a leftist.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The lesser of the 2 evils. The GOP will get control of everything and do exactly nothing. Carter, Clinton and Obama are what happens when the left gets control.

I'd put ME in office if it was up to me. And some people better have some go-fasters if it happened. The one time the GOP and DNC become buddies is when any threat from the outside happens against their lock on the bureaucracy. Break THAT and you got the code.

The last outsider to win was Carter, and the partly he allegedly represented turned on him. Point is, even if an outsider wins, how do they get Congress?

You call yourself an independent and I call myself a right-leaning Constitutionalist. THAT is what I swore to uphold and defend.

In the meantime, I'm voting AGAINST the Dems. They are far more dangerous than the do-nothing GOP.

That is the reality of it all and why one simply has to vote for the lesser of two evils--as the "not voting for the lesser" is same as a vote for the greater.
The system is set up that way and has been for well over 75 years.
The "do nothing but watch" is how the Nazi's got power and we see where that led, millions died as a result and trillions in destruction of property.
Media is a third arm of the lousy Dem party-thus every decent American has to vote to overcome that monopoly and that massive corruption that is the standard operating procedure they use every election, dead people vote, illegals vote, good dem idiots voting multiple times , etc.
Question is--will 2016 election give us the chance to turn much of this around? Or will it be the nail in the coffin of the Republic...(?)
8 more years with dem control and this nation is sunk... if no reversal= this nation is sunk......
China's and Russia's "moves" highlight the tip of the iceberg thats coming.... --Tyr

[fj1200]

blah:

That was a whole lotta no links backing your point and whining when I make factual statements. Pointing out that not everything the Thatcher and Reagan did was conservative just acknowledges truth.

[aboutime]

That was a whole lotta no links backing your point and whining when I make factual statements. Pointing out that not everything the Thatcher and Reagan did was conservative just acknowledges truth.


fj. You just don't get it...do ya? Take note how ONLY YOU are the one constantly insisting such BULLCRAP.
But then again. That helps us recognize your mental, and educational challenges YOU can't admit.

[Max R.]

a vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote for evilAnd not voting is acquiescing to evil. "Silence is consent", yes? Don't like the two major parties? Vote for a third party candidate.



The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

-- Edmund Burke

[Max R.]

The lesser of the 2 evils. The GOP will get control of everything and do exactly nothing. Carter, Clinton and Obama are what happens when the left gets control.

I'd put ME in office if it was up to me. And some people better have some go-fasters if it happened. The one time the GOP and DNC become buddies is when any threat from the outside happens against their lock on the bureaucracy. Break THAT and you got the code.

The last outsider to win was Carter, and the partly he allegedly represented turned on him. Point is, even if an outsider wins, how do they get Congress?

You call yourself an independent and I call myself a right-leaning Constitutionalist. THAT is what I swore to uphold and defend.

In the meantime, I'm voting AGAINST the Dems. They are far more dangerous than the do-nothing GOP.Agreed about the Democrats.

Still, not voting at all is giving up. Better to fight. Don't want to vote Republican? Fine, vote third party. I recommend Libertarian. It's not perfect, but giving it more power may persuade the RNC to pull its head out of its ass and smell fresh air.

[fj1200]

And not voting is acquiescing to evil. "Silence is consent", yes? Don't like the two major parties? Vote for a third party candidate.

I'll add that until the unlikely event that a third party ever becomes a viable option, one has no place to complain if one is also sitting out the primaries.

[Max R.]

I'll add that until the unlikely event that a third party ever becomes a viable option, one has no place to complain if one is also sitting out the primaries.
While I agree, it's not necessary for a third party to be viable. Not voting means one's vote is non-existent. Just another citizen who is a couch-potato.

OTOH, by voting, even for a losing candidate, means one's vote exists. It's a message of existence, a message that citizens aren't happy with the status quo, a message that citizens are willing to act and NOT give up.

[Max R.]

I'll add that until the unlikely event that a third party ever becomes a viable option, one has no place to complain if one is also sitting out the primaries.
Agreed. Sitting on the sidelines and complaining is, IMHO, pussying out.

[indago]

And not voting is acquiescing to evil. "Silence is consent", yes? Don't like the two major parties? Vote for a third party candidate.

Yes, that's the point...

[Gunny]

That is the reality of it all and why one simply has to vote for the lesser of two evils--as the "not voting for the lesser" is same as a vote for the greater.
The system is set up that way and has been for well over 75 years.
The "do nothing but watch" is how the Nazi's got power and we see where that led, millions died as a result and trillions in destruction of property.
Media is a third arm of the lousy Dem party-thus every decent American has to vote to overcome that monopoly and that massive corruption that is the standard operating procedure they use every election, dead people vote, illegals vote, good dem idiots voting multiple times , etc.
Question is--will 2016 election give us the chance to turn much of this around? Or will it be the nail in the coffin of the Republic...(?)
8 more years with dem control and this nation is sunk... if no reversal= this nation is sunk......
China's and Russia's "moves" highlight the tip of the iceberg thats coming.... --Tyr

The answer is no unless the GOP employs new tactics. Sticking 20 people out in the field and them debate each other and tear each other down is doing the Democrats' job for them. Focusing on Hillary and NOT the election is doing her job for her. Having no real plan is doing their job for them.

Those tactics didn't work in 2008 nor 2012. If the GOP/right doesn't switch gears, look for a 3-peat.

[Gunny]

Agreed about the Democrats.

Still, not voting at all is giving up. Better to fight. Don't want to vote Republican? Fine, vote third party. I recommend Libertarian. It's not perfect, but giving it more power may persuade the RNC to pull its head out of its ass and smell fresh air.

Oh I'll vote. To me, if you don't vote, you ain't got the right to bitch. And I'm a freakin' Gunny -- I LOVE to bitch.:laugh:

[DragonStryk72]

fj. You just don't get it...do ya? Take note how ONLY YOU are the one constantly insisting such BULLCRAP.
But then again. That helps us recognize your mental, and educational challenges YOU can't admit.

So, wait... providing linked evidence of your claims, complete with direct quote of the persons involved on a debate site... is wrong? How? How exactly is one person provided documented proof of their assertions, while the other person just whinges on and on without ever addressing any of the points proof against the evidence-providers mental capacities?

The only one here who has shown them inadequate to real debate thus far is, again, Drummond. FJ has engaged him, and engaged him directly, with every bit of evidence to back up his claims. Asking that Drummond back up his own in the same manner, particularly when Drummond is acting in a directly accusatory manner toward FJ, is precisely what a debate site is about.

Drummond can either cede the point, or put his big boy pants on and start debating FJ. School yard whinging however, is, as inferred, childish, and more pointedly, intellectually cowardly.

[DragonStryk72]

While I agree, it's not necessary for a third party to be viable. Not voting means one's vote is non-existent. Just another citizen who is a couch-potato.

OTOH, by voting, even for a losing candidate, means one's vote exists. It's a message of existence, a message that citizens aren't happy with the status quo, a message that citizens are willing to act and NOT give up.

More pointedly, we don't need to win the big chair. All we need for the other two parties to straighten up is the possibility they could lose to us. Think about it, right now, they employ the tactics that they employ precisely because they only have a single opponent or dissenting opinion to get around. A or B mentality keeps candidates from both parties from having to answer more complex questions.

If 3rd parties can get up to at least, say 25% of the vote, then the major parties have a serious issue, because that means they now have to deal with someone who can poke holes in both sides, and have to change the entire manner in which they carry themselves.

[Drummond]

Nope, you're the leftist, Drummond. Not fj, not fj at all.

Thanks for the uncalled-for insult. You haven't the smallest basis for calling me a 'leftist', you well know it, but you do so anyway.

Not FJ, you say ? I've proved he's no 'Thatcherite', not least because a Thatcherite wouldn't seek to insult every other Thatcherite out there, which is what FJ is doing every time he posts (he claims to be the 'One True Thatcherite', which says that nobody else is) !! Explain to me how any Conservative would be motivated to do such a thing.

However ... A LEFTIST WOULD.

That's besides the recent evidence we've had of his willingness to consider expressing any degree of disagreement with Margaret Thatcher (which itself invalidates his self-assumed bona fides, proving him to be A LIAR). Not to mention an affinity he seems to have with Libertarians, ALSO known to be a Left wing movement.


You still won't answer his provided information, won't rebut any information he has provided

Doesn't my statement above consist of rebuttals of his so-called 'information' ?


yet squall and whine that he prove Something, and then, you'll just run away again, or if he calls you out, you'll behind your "sso you have no proof" straw man, despite proof having been placed in this very thread.

A joke ? I've lost count of all the challenges I've issued him, which he's then ducked !!


So, as I said, you drummond, are the one who continues to be labor the lefts "debate" style.

I have a history of making a case, AND backing it with links, wherever appropriate .. the membership here as a whole must know that to be true.


With this as proof, alongside your own admittance that your prefer the constant liberal expansion of government,

You state I supposedly 'ADMIT' to 'prefer the constant liberal expansion of government'. THAT IS A LIE.

SHOW ME WHERE I'VE DONE ANY SUCH THING - PROVE YOUR CASE. Or, APOLOGISE.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU CAN'T DEFEND FJ WITHOUT STOOPING TO UNTRUTHS ...

[Drummond]

The only one here who has shown them inadequate to real debate thus far is, again, Drummond. FJ has engaged him, and engaged him directly, with every bit of evidence to back up his claims.

What a load of rot. What about the claim FJ makes to be 'The One True Thatcherite', which his monicker says on every one of his posts ? It's an insult to every TRUE Thatcherite out there, he well knows it, but persists ... and he's no way at all of backing that insult up.


Asking that Drummond back up his own in the same manner, particularly when Drummond is acting in a directly accusatory manner toward FJ, is precisely what a debate site is about.

So tell me. Is a debate site about littering it with gratuitous insults ? Is it about total rewrites of others' posts, for the sake of abuse and denigration, as an excuse to diminish the need to answer points made in an objective manner ?

FJ only 'debates' when he feels like it (.. or is usefully able to, which isn't as often as it should be). When he doesn't feel like it, the insults and post rewrites turn up here instead.

DragonStryk ... find me ONE post of FJ's (or anyone's) which I've totally rewritten, as FJ does all too often. Come on -- MEET THAT CHALLENGE.

Except, of course ... YOU CANNOT.


Drummond can either cede the point, or put his big boy pants on and start debating FJ. School yard whinging however, is, as inferred, childish, and more pointedly, intellectually cowardly.

You would more usefully make that point to the Leftie you seem intent upon defending.

[Drummond]

That was a whole lotta no links backing your point and whining when I make factual statements. Pointing out that not everything the Thatcher and Reagan did was conservative just acknowledges truth.

A challenge. One where, if you can meet it, you get to suggest to the readers here that your intention(s) don't necessarily come down to an attempt to insult the memories of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

You say that not everything that Reagan and Thatcher did conformed to Conservatism. Yes ? THEN PROVIDE YOUR PROOF.

[Kathianne]

I'm not sure how anyone can 'prove' their intentions-that's nonsense.

Reagan got credit for Immigration Reform 1986, indeed provided 'legalization' of illegals. The law was gutted on employer sanctions for future hiring of illegals, paving the way for where we are today.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672

As for Thatcher, enough of her decisions for increasing government power via the trade unions has already been pointed out as a progressive act. Only Drummond disagrees, but that may seriously be due to differences between 'conservatives' in US and UK. It seems to be, as Drummond has repeatedly made his case of being on the side of increasing government power, as long as he deems it for 'conservative' reasons.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The answer is no unless the GOP employs new tactics. Sticking 20 people out in the field and them debate each other and tear each other down is doing the Democrats' job for them. Focusing on Hillary and NOT the election is doing her job for her. Having no real plan is doing their job for them.

Those tactics didn't work in 2008 nor 2012. If the GOP/right doesn't switch gears, look for a 3-peat.

I think the dem party is behind some of the Republicans that toss their hat in the ring--as its good strategy to weaken all candidates that are cutting each other down.
The huckster is a prime example of one that has no damn business getting in again-yet he has.. At whose urging and maybe even financial backing to some extent.
Obama stole billions and kicked 'em back to the dem party campaign coffers --why not use millions to further divide the opposition?
As you stated in worked last two time around---third time is charm.. -Tyr

[revelarts]

Agreed about the Democrats.

Still, not voting at all is giving up. Better to fight. Don't want to vote Republican? Fine, vote third party. I recommend Libertarian. It's not perfect, but giving it more power may persuade the RNC to pull its head out of its ass and smell fresh air.


While I agree, it's not necessary for a third party to be viable. Not voting means one's vote is non-existent. Just another citizen who is a couch-potato.

OTOH, by voting, even for a losing candidate, means one's vote exists. It's a message of existence, a message that citizens aren't happy with the status quo, a message that citizens are willing to act and NOT give up.

agreed,
I've said similar for some time now.

And i have added, to those on the right who complain bitterly about RINO's and unconstitutional acts, that they should all vote 3rd party just to make the statement that we aren't sticking to any party just "to have a chance" or to "make our vote count" or "not to let the Dem win".

But I get the impression that that's just too radical and outrageous for most. One or 2 election cycles of that will spell DOOM but 30 years of left, big gov't and unconstitutional drift is OK. Have you noticed that the right has drifted with the RINOs on nearly every point?
Reagan could not win on the speeches he gave, Even W couldn't win on his small gov't, "non intervention" "no nation building" speeches of his 1st run. the RINOs big gov't, imperialist, neocon view of "right" politics is the new status quo. Only lip service is due to the constitution and small gov't.. As long as people can hate Ds it doesn't really matter how bad the Rs are, most will vote R no matter what.

[fj1200]

A challenge. One where, if you can meet it, you get to suggest to the readers here that your intention(s) don't necessarily come down to an attempt to insult the memories of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

You say that not everything that Reagan and Thatcher did conformed to Conservatism. Yes ? THEN PROVIDE YOUR PROOF.

A couple of points; First, why are you able to cop out on the many challenges for you to provide actual links to your assertions all the while you ignore the copious links I've provided backing my assertions? Second, how am I supposed to disprove your imagination?

As far as Reagan; amnesty, SS reform, and various "revenue enhancements" don't comport with small government conservatism IMO nor does Thatcher's institution of the "community charge" and increasing the VAT. Those and all your defenses of her instituting big government solutions show not everything was conservative. Nevertheless none of that should discount the great strides that they made in advancing conservatism and changing the course of the West and their own countries. They were great leaders.

[Drummond]

A couple of points; First, why are you able to cop out on the many challenges for you to provide actual links to your assertions all the while you ignore the copious links I've provided backing my assertions?

'Copious' links ... seriously ?

More typically, you spend your time on abusive (and diversionary) rewrites and misrepresentations of my 'quoted' postings ...

If, above, you're referring to my failure to provide a link (a clear statement of evidence) between the Libertarian Movement and Trade Unions, can I point out that you, in turn, have failed to do the same to prove beyond doubt that a pencil is a pencil ?? I actually HAVE asked you to ...

It's highly relevant that you do so. It must be. Because, you see, Libertarians and Trade Unions are THE SAME. Just as a pencil is the same as .. a pencil.

Compare what it is that a Trade Unionist claims he'd be fighting for, with what Libertarians say they want. Consider particularly the record British Trade Unions have in taking on Governments, with a view to defying and diminishing their power (even to outright nonexistence, as happened in February 1974), and their insistence upon shrugging off any and all strictures Governments would seek to apply to them ?

Margaret Thatcher was no Libertarian (... yet, you seem to be ??). She fought the Unions, she did so effectively, and through by far the most effective means available to her .. THE POWER OF THE STATE.


Second, how am I supposed to disprove your imagination?

A pointless question. Why ask it ? You've never been in the position of trying to.


As far as Reagan; amnesty, SS reform, and various "revenue enhancements" don't comport with small government conservatism IMO nor does Thatcher's institution of the "community charge" and increasing the VAT. Those and all your defenses of her instituting big government solutions show not everything was conservative.

.. See, there's the flaw in your 'reasoning', right there.

You refuse to see that 'big Government' solutions can be, or ever are, Conservative ones. That is your big mistake.

Anyone claiming that I fight for big Government, because I want big Government, is misrepresenting my viewpoint. I, along with other Conservatives, much prefer small Government, with the individual taking as much responsibility for his or her own life and destiny as is possible. THAT SAID .... there are times, in life, when only a big Government solution will do.

Whether or not you like or dislike that is irrelevant. It happens to be the truth. Deal with it.

A true Conservative is not so completely enslaved to dogma that realism cannot be accommodated when necessary. It's one of the things separating us from Lefties .. Lefties are all about only recognising their insisted-upon vision of a worldview as valid. No .. sometimes, the power of the State just has to intervene.

I'm sure this was what drove Reagan during those examples you cite. Equally, in the UK, Trade Union reform via State legislation was .. simply .. NECESSARY. The alternative would've been a wrecked economy and a basket-case of a trading base.

Consider the response necessary to 9/11, by the way. What ELSE but a 'big Government' approach could have possibly served ???

One of the chief things marking you out as a Leftie, FJ, is how completely wedded you are to dogma. You CANNOT move past it. You cannot approach issues with realism guiding you, just as a Leftie can't. Lefties have their worldview, which they insist upon, come-what-may .. didn't Stalin have his five year plans ?

But Conservatives, in power, have to be different. It isn't lacking in Conservatism to apply whatever solutions best fix a problem ! Only a Leftie mind would absolutely insist that narrow dogma must never, ever, be deviated from by even a fraction of an inch.


Nevertheless none of that should discount the great strides that they made in advancing conservatism and changing the course of the West and their own countries. They were great leaders.

Congratulations in recognising that, FJ. Perhaps there's hope for you yet. :clap::clap:

BUT WASN'T IT THEIR PRACTICAL APPROACHES TO PROBLEMS, THEIR PRAGMATISM, THAT HELPED MAKE THAT TRUE ??

[Gunny]

I think the dem party is behind some of the Republicans that toss their hat in the ring--as its good strategy to weaken all candidates that are cutting each other down.
The huckster is a prime example of one that has no damn business getting in again-yet he has.. At whose urging and maybe even financial backing to some extent.
Obama stole billions and kicked 'em back to the dem party campaign coffers --why not use millions to further divide the opposition?
As you stated in worked last two time around---third time is charm.. -Tyr

Why should the Dems and the media bail on successful strategy? They don't care that Obama lied his way into office and has been a complete failure as President. Nor do they care Hillary has lied, cheated, stolen, and otherwise ran co-chaired a criminal enterprise with Bill. The Dems are going to do what they have been.

McCain was in 3rd place when the MSM went to work touting him the best GOP nominee when he was actually the worst. An independent running on the GOP ticket who has made his name going against the GOP in the Senate? Methinks NOT.

The BIGGEST problem in 08 and 2012 were all the people on the right who sat home and didn't vote because "their boy" wasn't chosen. I argued my a$$ off all over the place against THAT. Unless or until we fix this broken government, it's the lesser of the evils.

[Drummond]

As for Thatcher, enough of her decisions for increasing government power via the trade unions has already been pointed out as a progressive act.

If by 'progressive', you mean to suggest it was somehow deemable a Left wing act ... I do indeed disagree !! Lady Thatcher had a problem to fix, and it required a practical and effective solution to do so. Since when was it a 'Left wing' act to be practical in fixing problems ??

Perhaps, if you'd been in her shoes, you would've come up with a more 'Conservative' solution to power-crazed Union wreckers ? Can you tell me what that solution - given the absolute need to apply one - would have been ?


Only Drummond disagrees, but that may seriously be due to differences between 'conservatives' in US and UK. It seems to be, as Drummond has repeatedly made his case of being on the side of increasing government power, as long as he deems it for 'conservative' reasons.

Government power has its uses, and its place. If it didn't, it could be dispensed with entirely.

I say that a proper Conservative approach has to be one tempered by realism. Reagan and Thatcher both gave us examples of this in action. For which ... they get attacked ?!?

You surely have to wonder WHY their very successful approaches to issues they faced earns them criticism, when that criticism comes from a source purporting to NOT be in outright opposition to them ....

[Gunny]

While I agree, it's not necessary for a third party to be viable. Not voting means one's vote is non-existent. Just another citizen who is a couch-potato.

OTOH, by voting, even for a losing candidate, means one's vote exists. It's a message of existence, a message that citizens aren't happy with the status quo, a message that citizens are willing to act and NOT give up.

I agree on the not voting part. Disagree on the 3rd party part. I want the Dems OUT. I'll hold my nose and vote GOP.

I AM all for a viable 3rd party. One that makes sense. And has some. But good luck with THAT. Anytime anyone has tried, that's when you see Dem and GOP bipartisanship. They close ranks and run them out, and use the media to do it.

And voting for Ross Perot gave us Bill Clinton. Putting McLame as a candidate gave us our current Disaster-in-Chief.

[DragonStryk72]

'Copious' links ... seriously ?

More typically, you spend your time on abusive (and diversionary) rewrites and misrepresentations of my 'quoted' postings ...

If, above, you're referring to my failure to provide a link (a clear statement of evidence) between the Libertarian Movement and Trade Unions, can I point out that you, in turn, have failed to do the same to prove beyond doubt that a pencil is a pencil ?? I actually HAVE asked you to ...

It's highly relevant that you do so. It must be. Because, you see, Libertarians and Trade Unions are THE SAME. Just as a pencil is the same as .. a pencil.

Compare what it is that a Trade Unionist claims he'd be fighting for, with what Libertarians say they want. Consider particularly the record British Trade Unions have in taking on Governments, with a view to defying and diminishing their power (even to outright nonexistence, as happened in February 1974), and their insistence upon shrugging off any and all strictures Governments would seek to apply to them ?

Margaret Thatcher was no Libertarian (... yet, you seem to be ??). She fought the Unions, she did so effectively, and through by far the most effective means available to her .. THE POWER OF THE STATE.



A pointless question. Why ask it ? You've never been in the position of trying to.



.. See, there's the flaw in your 'reasoning', right there.

You refuse to see that 'big Government' solutions can be, or ever are, Conservative ones. That is your big mistake.

Anyone claiming that I fight for big Government, because I want big Government, is misrepresenting my viewpoint. I, along with other Conservatives, much prefer small Government, with the individual taking as much responsibility for his or her own life and destiny as is possible. THAT SAID .... there are times, in life, when only a big Government solution will do.

Whether or not you like or dislike that is irrelevant. It happens to be the truth. Deal with it.

A true Conservative is not so completely enslaved to dogma that realism cannot be accommodated when necessary. It's one of the things separating us from Lefties .. Lefties are all about only recognising their insisted-upon worldview as valid. No .. sometimes, the power of the State just has to intervene.

I'm sure this was what drove Reagan during those examples you cite. Equally, in the UK, Trade Union reform via State legislation was .. simply .. NECESSARY. The alternative would've been a wrecked economy and a basket-case of a trading base.

Consider the response necessary to 9/11, by the way. What ELSE but a 'big Government' approach could have possibly served ???

One of the chief things marking you out as a Leftie, FJ, is how completely wedded you are to dogma. You CANNOT move past it. You cannot approach issues with realism guiding you, just as a Leftie can't. Lefties have their worldview, which they insist upon, come-what-may .. didn't Stalin have his five year plans ?

But Conservatives, in power, have to be different. It isn't lacking in Conservatism to apply whatever solutions best fix a problem ! Only a Leftie mind would absolutely insist that narrow dogma must never, ever, be deviated from by even a fraction of an inch.



Congratulations in recognising that, FJ. Perhaps there's hope for you yet. :clap::clap:

BUT WASN'T IT THEIR PRACTICAL APPROACHES TO PROBLEMS, THEIR PRAGMATISM, THAT HELPED MAKE THAT TRUE ??

So... you agree with his point that Thatcher and Reagan were not pure conservatives, period. Either they were completely ruled by dogma, which would make them lefties as you've labeled it, or alternatively, they at some point had thinking that wasn't conservative, which proves FJ's assertion correct. Either way, you're pretty much done, and you've proven FJ right.

He never did insist that it must be followed 100%, you did. This entire months-long whinging run of yours was started because you insisted he was a leftist because he did not 100% follow Thatcher's dogma, which you hypocritically stated that you follow her dogma 100%(Which again, by your statement above, makes you a leftist, since you are bound by dogma). Now you say a thing that completely lampoons every accusation you've dropped at his feet. Look, either just cede the argument, or just walk away, because man, it is just getting embarrassing for you, Drummond.

You still also haven't disproven anything he posted (Those would be those links and quotes he provided that you continue to run away from earlier in this thread. Feel free to go look, I'm not doing your homework for you, but stop lying that he didn't post them.), and continue, at the same time, to pat yourself on the back, despite not answering the points he posted, with links. Still trying to avoid the debate, and still digging your hole deeper, Drummond.

Trade Unionist would find little common ground with american Libertarians, and much to fight with us about. Unions have become bullies in many industries (my mother's union for bus drivers works with the company to make sure the wages are good, and won't cost jobs/hours), and while good unions ensure fair treatment of their workers, many have become something else entirely. They try to ratchet up wages as high as possible, sometimes to the point of destroying the business their people are working for (See Hostess for example of this one, where every union but one, the bakers union, agreed to terms, and the bakers held things at a dead stop until the company was forced to shutter.)

Now, the Dems will jump in with the union, in a kneejerk run of backing up the workers. The Reps would jump in on the side of Hostess, backing the company against the dems, and generally automatically backing corporations. Libertarians would, yes, have sided with Hostess in this instance, but done so due to the knowledge that the Bakers union had basically just held everyone's jobs hostage with a gun to their own head, and Hostess unfairly leveraged into insolvency. For both the workers, and the company at large, the stalemate was unworkable, and the rights of the majority of the workers and company that wanted to be back to work should have been maintained.

In this instance, the right of the Union to strike is superceded by the rights of the other employees, not of their union, to continue to be employed, and to work for a living, and the owners of the business to not be driven into the ground by untenable demands made by a group that is clearly exploiting the system.

[Gunny]

Y'all have made a train wreck out of this thread. You're so busy labeling each other and not reading what each has to say with an open mind it's ridiculous. There's a WHOLE lot of ignoring the English language here in favor of personally attacking those that disagree. The first one of you that thinks you're Jesus Christ, step up to the plate. I got a few things I need fixed. In the meantime, you CAN be wrong. It happens. Even to me. About once a decade, but ...:laugh:

[Drummond]

So... you agree with his point that Thatcher and Reagan were not pure conservatives, period. Either they were completely ruled by dogma, which would make them lefties as you've labeled it, or alternatively, they at some point had thinking that wasn't conservative, which proves FJ's assertion correct. Either way, you're pretty much done, and you've proven FJ right.

What a load of rubbish ! What ARE you talking about ??

Conservatives are REALISTS ! When have I ever said they weren't ? And since that's so, they deal with issues according to what's required to remedy them.


He never did insist that it must be followed 100%, you did. This entire months-long whinging run of yours was started because you insisted he was a leftist because he did not 100% follow Thatcher's dogma, which you hypocritically stated that you follow her dogma 100%(Which again, by your statement above, makes you a leftist, since you are bound by dogma).

FJ fails to be the 'One True', or 'Ultimate' Thatcherite because he reserves for himself latitude to disagree with her. You tell me .. how does it make the smallest sense for anyone declaring that incredible extent of devotion to all she stood for, to then willingly, apparently by unilateral preference, embark on any measure of disagreement ??

The level of that commitment to 'Thatcherism' professed by FJ is HIS invention. I had no hand in the wording he's used, which makes him 100% culpable for where it places him ... that's to say, in a logically irreconcilable position.

Ask yourself how FJ professes to be something which he then proves, by example, that he CANNOT be.


Now you say a thing that completely lampoons every accusation you've dropped at his feet. Look, either just cede the argument, or just walk away, because man, it is just getting embarrassing for you, Drummond.

Refuted. See above. Your argument defies proper scrutiny.


You still also haven't disproven anything he posted (Those would be those links and quotes he provided that you continue to run away from earlier in this thread. Feel free to go look, I'm not doing your homework for you, but stop lying that he didn't post them.), and continue, at the same time, to pat yourself on the back, despite not answering the points he posted, with links. Still trying to avoid the debate, and still digging your hole deeper, Drummond.

Dream on.

I could waste time by regurgitating lengthy descriptions of what a Libertarian is, and what Trade Unionists say they fight for ... and the result for each would add up to exactly the same thing. Since that's true, I now require, AS SHOULD YOU, to have FJ prove that a pencil is indeed a pencil !

Where's FJ's proof of THAT, along with supportive links ?

If something is the same as something else, THEN IT IS THE SAME. Why is that so very difficult to understand ??


Trade Unionist would find little common ground with american Libertarians, and much to fight with us about.

... Seriously ?


Unions have become bullies in many industries (my mother's union for bus drivers works with the company to make sure the wages are good, and won't cost jobs/hours), and while good unions ensure fair treatment of their workers, many have become something else entirely. They try to ratchet up wages as high as possible, sometimes to the point of destroying the business their people are working for (See Hostess for example of this one, where every union but one, the bakers union, agreed to terms, and the bakers held things at a dead stop until the company was forced to shutter.)

Now, the Dems will jump in with the union, in a kneejerk run of backing up the workers. The Reps would jump in on the side of Hostess, backing the company against the dems, and generally automatically backing corporations. Libertarians would, yes, have sided with Hostess in this instance, but done so due to the knowledge that the Bakers union had basically just held everyone's jobs hostage with a gun to their own head, and Hostess unfairly leveraged into insolvency. For both the workers, and the company at large, the stalemate was unworkable, and the rights of the majority of the workers and company that wanted to be back to work should have been maintained.

In this instance, the right of the Union to strike is superceded by the rights of the other employees, not of their union, to continue to be employed, and to work for a living, and the owners of the business to not be driven into the ground by untenable demands made by a group that is clearly exploiting the system.

Are you sure the Libertarians would've sided with Hostess, in your example ? You said 'Libertarians would, yes, have sided with Hostess in this instance' .... so that's not an established fact, just something you're choosing to believe ?

Let's be clear. Did they actually do so, in any shape or form, or are you just choosing to assume it, because it's helpful to your argument ?

Surely ... Libertarians would've argued that Hostess exercised an authority over the ordinary worker designed to rob them of their right to what THEY considered fair payment ? And therefore sided with the Unions, in order to diminish the power of the 'big, bad authority' Hostess would've represented, and see to it that the individual worker triumphed .. REGARDLESS of any other consequences ?

In my experience, Libertarians are Leftist. The link between them and Trade Unions (.. and yes, I recognise your description of Unions all too well, from how they've behaved in the UK) is indivisible. Each claims to be fighting for the rights of the individual, which each considers to be divorced from considerations of any measure (or context) of any greater good. And each will bitterly and ruthlessly fight any perceived authority figures at all likely to have cause to offer opposition.

[Max R.]

I agree on the not voting part. Disagree on the 3rd party part. I want the Dems OUT. I'll hold my nose and vote GOP.

I AM all for a viable 3rd party. One that makes sense. And has some. But good luck with THAT. Anytime anyone has tried, that's when you see Dem and GOP bipartisanship. They close ranks and run them out, and use the media to do it.

And voting for Ross Perot gave us Bill Clinton. Putting McLame as a candidate gave us our current Disaster-in-Chief.
...and voting for Nader gave us Bush. :)

Still, I don't like rewarding incompetence. Voting for Republican simply because they aren't Democrats isn't sufficient in my book. The amount of hubris and authoritarian asshattery running around Washington DC is very disappointing. We can't change it simply by voting in the same asshats because they wear red ties instead of blue ones.

[Max R.]

Oh I'll vote. To me, if you don't vote, you ain't got the right to bitch. And I'm a freakin' Gunny -- I LOVE to bitch.:laugh:

Agreed!

http://statusmind.com/images/2014/03/Smart-Quotes-35691-statusmind.com.jpg

[Gunny]

...and voting for Nader gave us Bush. :)

Still, I don't like rewarding incompetence. Voting for Republican simply because they aren't Democrats isn't sufficient in my book. The amount of hubris and authoritarian asshattery running around Washington DC is very disappointing. We can't change it simply by voting in the same asshats because they wear red ties instead of blue ones.

My "rewad" for a successful tour as a hat was a trip to HQMC when it was still in Arlington at the Navy Annex. I got the asshattery down pat. :laugh:

Barbara Boxer LOVED me. In fact, I was invited to never come back.:laugh::laugh:

[DragonStryk72]

What a load of rubbish ! What ARE you talking about ??

Conservatives are REALISTS ! When have I ever said they weren't ? And since that's so, they deal with issues according to what's required to remedy them.



FJ fails to be the 'One True', or 'Ultimate' Thatcherite because he reserves for himself latitude to disagree with her. You tell me .. how does it make the smallest sense for anyone declaring that incredible extent of devotion to all she stood for, to then willingly, apparently by unilateral preference, embark on any measure of disagreement ??

The level of that commitment to 'Thatcherism' professed by FJ is HIS invention. I had no hand in the wording he's used, which makes him 100% culpable for where it places him ... that's to say, in a logically irreconcilable position.

Ask yourself how FJ professes to be something which he then proves, by example, that he CANNOT be.



Refuted. See above. Your argument defies proper scrutiny.



Dream on.

I could waste time by regurgitating lengthy descriptions of what a Libertarian is, and what Trade Unionists say they fight for ... and the result for each would add up to exactly the same thing. Since that's true, I now require, AS SHOULD YOU, to have FJ prove that a pencil is indeed a pencil !

Where's FJ's proof of THAT, along with supportive links ?

If something is the same as something else, THEN IT IS THE SAME. Why is that so very difficult to understand ??



... Seriously ?



Are you sure the Libertarians would've sided with Hostess, in your example ? You said 'Libertarians would, yes, have sided with Hostess in this instance' .... so that's not an established fact, just something you're choosing to believe ?

Let's be clear. Did they actually do so, in any shape or form, or are you just choosing to assume it, because it's helpful to your argument ?

Surely ... Libertarians would've argued that Hostess exercised an authority over the ordinary worker designed to rob them of their right to what THEY considered fair payment ? And therefore sided with the Unions, in order to diminish the power of the 'big, bad authority' Hostess would've represented, and see to it that the individual worker triumphed .. REGARDLESS of any other consequences ?

In my experience, Libertarians are Leftist. The link between them and Trade Unions (.. and yes, I recognise your description of Unions all too well, from how they've behaved in the UK) is indivisible. Each claims to be fighting for the rights of the individual, which each considers to be divorced from considerations of any measure (or context) of any greater good. And each will bitterly and ruthlessly fight any perceived authority figures at all likely to have cause to offer opposition.

Um, nope, they paid them a clear wage, one that was agreed upon by the workers up to that point. Negotiating for higher pay is one thing, but what the Bakers union did was put a gun to Hostess's head and demand higher pay. At that point, it is no longer a negotiation between equal parties, it's a terrorist trying to extort someone for money. Per constitutional guidelines, that is just flat wrong.

The thing that Libertarians bear in mind is that BOTH the individual employees, and the individual business owners, have the same rights. An employee's rights should never come up to the level of, "I can put you on your knees, and kill your livelihood", period. That's no point at which that is okay behavior.

As well, both Unions and Corporations are authoritarian groups, capable of influence, and thus also capable of abusing that influence. Both need to be reined in, or else people's rights are just flatly going to get trampled. They should be equal in power, but because Unions started out at the low level of power, in answer to abuses by the companies of the time, they continued to receive more power to be able to balance out against the companies they worked for. As is the case with most social pushes, that level of power was not reduced when the unions became powerful enough to stand against the corporations, and thus the power swung unfairly in favor of Unions.

That is neither fair, nor just. It does nothing to enhance liberty, and only ensures a form of back and forth tyranny.

A total lack of government is just anarchy, which is asinine. Anarchy will always lead to tyranny, just the way that one shakes down. The libertarian ideal is to always make sure we are handling things at the lowest level possible (Increased states rights vs federal rights), and to restrict government from exceeding its authority.

The unfortunate problem is there is always an excuse for increasing power to the government when it shouldn't be, whether it's "For the children" or "Otherwise, the terrorist's win" or any of the whole slew of other runs of it.

For instance, when Bush threatened to put us into war using the War Powers Act, that was a direct abuse of the authority given in that Act. The idea of the bill was to make it so that the Commander-in-Chief could respond quickly to an attack, so that we wouldn't be bogged down in Congress while the enemy went on the offensive. It wasn't put in so that the President could get around Congress.

The Patriot Act is another example of this, wherein politicians used fear to get people to go along with a bill that hugely tilted the government's power and authority.

[Drummond]

Um, nope, they paid them a clear wage, one that was agreed upon by the workers up to that point. Negotiating for higher pay is one thing, but what the Bakers union did was put a gun to Hostess's head and demand higher pay. At that point, it is no longer a negotiation between equal parties, it's a terrorist trying to extort someone for money. Per constitutional guidelines, that is just flat wrong.

Now, in this, I have no argument with you .. I agree with your assessment. 'It's a terrorist trying to extort someone for money' is an excellent way of putting it.


The thing that Libertarians bear in mind is that BOTH the individual employees, and the individual business owners, have the same rights. An employee's rights should never come up to the level of, "I can put you on your knees, and kill your livelihood", period. That's no point at which that is okay behavior.

Again, very good point.


As well, both Unions and Corporations are authoritarian groups, capable of influence, and thus also capable of abusing that influence. Both need to be reined in, or else people's rights are just flatly going to get trampled. They should be equal in power, but because Unions started out at the low level of power, in answer to abuses by the companies of the time, they continued to receive more power to be able to balance out against the companies they worked for. As is the case with most social pushes, that level of power was not reduced when the unions became powerful enough to stand against the corporations, and thus the power swung unfairly in favor of Unions.

That is neither fair, nor just. It does nothing to enhance liberty, and only ensures a form of back and forth tyranny.

A somewhat fair overall point, though perhaps more open to question. A Corporation may exist, in effect, as an authoritarian group ... but to be factored into this is the right of the Corporation to actually run its own affairs as it chooses !

Along comes a Union, formed out of individuals' stated wishes for, as they claim, 'fair pay', 'fair conditions', proper respect to be shown to each individual member. Now ... I do NOT agree that Corporations and Unions should meet as 'equals', because in that scenario, you detract from the right the Corporation has to run its affairs as it sees fit. Those Corporations didn't plan for, nor ask for, a bunch of Union types to come along and act as any sort of brake for any of the Corporation's aspirations or goals. But if those two groups meet as equals, the Corporation's right and freedom to determine its own direction, much less its destiny, is thrown into perhaps fundamental doubt.

I cannot believe that a Union can have the right to do that. HOWEVER ... the individuals within the Union involved will use strength in numbers to try and fight their plans, if those plans clash with their own. A group of individuals fighting an 'authoritative body' ... and for what ? A recognisable LEFT WING victory ?


A total lack of government is just anarchy, which is asinine. Anarchy will always lead to tyranny, just the way that one shakes down. The libertarian ideal is to always make sure we are handling things at the lowest level possible (Increased states rights vs federal rights), and to restrict government from exceeding its authority.

... which sounds actually laudible. However, this assumes that society's conditions are unchanging. This is rarely, if ever, true.


The unfortunate problem is there is always an excuse for increasing power to the government when it shouldn't be, whether it's "For the children" or "Otherwise, the terrorist's win" or any of the whole slew of other runs of it.

Excuse, or, REASON ? 9/11 really did happen, and a new and pernicious enemy came within everyone's radar. Conditions changed, as did imperatives. Al Qaeda committed what was essentially an act of war, this necessitating that the US adopt a war footing to meet that challenge, a challenge it hadn't asked for.

You can't expect peacetime conditions to persist in such circumstances. Government needed more powers, and took them. GW Bush did nothing more than meet a new situation in properly realistic terms ... AND IN DOING SO, SHOWED THE ADAPTATION WHICH HIS CONSERVATIVE INSTINCTS REQUIRED.

It is Left wingers who rail against the War on Terror, and 'loss' of liberties which a war footing can and will cause. As would LIBERTARIANS.

When tested, Libertarians take a LEFT WING mindset on board.

Do you know that UK Libertarians, as the Libertarian Party's recent election manifesto made clear (.. yes, UK Libertarian are so 'individualistic' that they formed their own political Party !), that they were totally opposed to seeing Britain ever come to the aid of the US again in such circumstances ? That's something that our hard Left Parties would applaud.


For instance, when Bush threatened to put us into war using the War Powers Act, that was a direct abuse of the authority given in that Act. The idea of the bill was to make it so that the Commander-in-Chief could respond quickly to an attack, so that we wouldn't be bogged down in Congress while the enemy went on the offensive. It wasn't put in so that the President could get around Congress.

The Patriot Act is another example of this, wherein politicians used fear to get people to go along with a bill that hugely tilted the government's power and authority.

Perhaps my ignorance of American politics is playing its part here ... but I'm struggling to see the problem. Bush did not 'put you into war', all he was doing was providing the necessary and appropriate response to a war already STARTED BY YOUR ENEMY.

In other words, Conservative realism took hold, just as it should. Bush defended your country. In the meantime, all the disgusting Left could do was carp.

[Max R.]

my "rewad" for a successful tour as a hat was a trip to hqmc when it was still in arlington at the navy annex. I got the asshattery down pat. :laugh:

Barbara boxer loved me. In fact, i was invited to never come back.:laugh::laugh:

lol

[fj1200]

'Copious' links ... seriously ?

More typically, you spend your time on abusive (and diversionary) rewrites and misrepresentations of my 'quoted' postings ...

If, above, you're referring to my failure to provide a link (a clear statement of evidence) between the Libertarian Movement and Trade Unions, can I point out that you, in turn, have failed to do the same to prove beyond doubt that a pencil is a pencil ?? I actually HAVE asked you to ...

It's highly relevant that you do so. It must be. Because, you see, Libertarians and Trade Unions are THE SAME. Just as a pencil is the same as .. a pencil.

Compare what it is that a Trade Unionist claims he'd be fighting for, with what Libertarians say they want. Consider particularly the record British Trade Unions have in taking on Governments, with a view to defying and diminishing their power (even to outright nonexistence, as happened in February 1974), and their insistence upon shrugging off any and all strictures Governments would seek to apply to them ?

Margaret Thatcher was no Libertarian (... yet, you seem to be ??). She fought the Unions, she did so effectively, and through by far the most effective means available to her .. THE POWER OF THE STATE.

Yes, copious links that you've been ignoring. And if you'd spend less time whining and more time discussing then all of this would take less time.

But you are incredibly wrong; Of course I grant that a pencil is a pencil but a pencil not a hammer which is what you're suggesting when you state that Libertarians are the same as the Trade Unionists. That's why you need a link because what you state is ridiculous.

And I never stated that Mags was a Libertarian. Plenty of others have made a connection which is one of the copious links you've ignored.


.. See, there's the flaw in your 'reasoning', right there.

You refuse to see that 'big Government' solutions can be, or ever are, Conservative ones. That is your big mistake.

Anyone claiming that I fight for big Government, because I want big Government, is misrepresenting my viewpoint. I, along with other Conservatives, much prefer small Government, with the individual taking as much responsibility for his or her own life and destiny as is possible. THAT SAID .... there are times, in life, when only a big Government solution will do.

Whether or not you like or dislike that is irrelevant. It happens to be the truth. Deal with it.

A true Conservative is not so completely enslaved to dogma that realism cannot be accommodated when necessary. It's one of the things separating us from Lefties .. Lefties are all about only recognising their insisted-upon vision of a worldview as valid. No .. sometimes, the power of the State just has to intervene.

I'm sure this was what drove Reagan during those examples you cite. Equally, in the UK, Trade Union reform via State legislation was .. simply .. NECESSARY. The alternative would've been a wrecked economy and a basket-case of a trading base.

Consider the response necessary to 9/11, by the way. What ELSE but a 'big Government' approach could have possibly served ???

One of the chief things marking you out as a Leftie, FJ, is how completely wedded you are to dogma. You CANNOT move past it. You cannot approach issues with realism guiding you, just as a Leftie can't. Lefties have their worldview, which they insist upon, come-what-may .. didn't Stalin have his five year plans ?

But Conservatives, in power, have to be different. It isn't lacking in Conservatism to apply whatever solutions best fix a problem ! Only a Leftie mind would absolutely insist that narrow dogma must never, ever, be deviated from by even a fraction of an inch.

Big government solutions are NEVER conservative solutions. That is your mistake. If you defend big government as some sort of solution then clearly you see the need for big government to solve some sort of problem. Conservative is small government because small government is superior, conservatism is NOT small government unless we happen to think big government is better.

BTW your leftie drivel is what shows you to be a talentless hack. My apologies for "attacking" you but your inane drivel when you get backed into a corner is annoying. Do you know how many on this board have Libertarian leanings? It must gall you that you can't call them lefties. You suck at this.


Congratulations in recognising that, FJ. Perhaps there's hope for you yet.

BUT WASN'T IT THEIR PRACTICAL APPROACHES TO PROBLEMS, THEIR PRAGMATISM, THAT HELPED MAKE THAT TRUE ??

If you'd been paying attention I've never said otherwise. You've been too stuck in your imagination to see what you don't want to see. But no, it wasn't their "pragmatism" that made it so. If they had to give something to get something it doesn't make what they had to give a conservative solution. That's not a hard thing to grasp... or shouldn't be.

[fj1200]

If by 'progressive', you mean to suggest it was somehow deemable a Left wing act ... I do indeed disagree !! Lady Thatcher had a problem to fix, and it required a practical and effective solution to do so. Since when was it a 'Left wing' act to be practical in fixing problems ??

Perhaps, if you'd been in her shoes, you would've come up with a more 'Conservative' solution to power-crazed Union wreckers ? Can you tell me what that solution - given the absolute need to apply one - would have been ?

A conservative solution would be one that involves deregulation and a decrease in the government granted power of a union.


From 1979, a new Conservative government took a strongly sceptical policy to all forms of labour law and regulation. During the 1980s ten major Acts gradually reduced the autonomy of trade unions and the legality of industrial action.[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_labour_law#cite_note-30) Reforms to the internal structure of unions mandated that representatives be elected and a ballot is taken before a strike, that no worker could strike in sympatheticsecondary action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_action) with workers with a different employer, and that employers could not run a closed shop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop) system of requiring all workers to join the recognised union. The wage councils were dismantled. A public campaign against the merits of unions paralleled the decline of membership and collective agreement coverage to under 40 per cent. In addition, the government opted out of the EU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union)Social Chapter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Chapter) in the Maastricht Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_labour_law

footnote:

Employment Act 1980 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Act_1980) (trade union right to government funds for ballots, narrowed picketting immunity, reduced secondary action immunity, unions right to expel members limited), Employment Act 1982 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Act_1982)(narrowed "trade dispute" definition), Trade Union Act 1984 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Union_Act_1984) (secret ballots for union elections and strikes),Public Order Act 1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Act_1986) (set out offences related to picketing, and increased police power over groups of over 20 people), Wages Act 1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wages_Act_1986&action=edit&redlink=1) (deregulated restrictions on employers fining and deducting money from employees' pay, removed statutory holiday entitlement, reduced state funding for redundancies),Employment Act 1988 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Employment_Act_1988&action=edit&redlink=1) (worker's right to not join a union, trade union member's right to challenge strike ballots),Employment Act 1989 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Employment_Act_1989&action=edit&redlink=1) (restricted trade union officials' time off for duties, abolished the Training Commission, abolished government support for redundancy payments), Employment Act 1990 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Employment_Act_1990&action=edit&redlink=1) (removing closed shop and secondary action protection), TULRCA 1992 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TULRCA_1992)(consolidated legislation hitherto), Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Union_Reform_and_Employment_Rights_Act_1993) (trade union duty to inform employers of upcoming strikes)

That seems to be on the whole what occurred. Reagan used the power of government, because they were the employer, to vastly limit the power of a union. On the whole; a conservative solution along the lines of Thatcher's actions IMO.


Government power has its uses, and its place. If it didn't, it could be dispensed with entirely.

I say that a proper Conservative approach has to be one tempered by realism. Reagan and Thatcher both gave us examples of this in action. For which ... they get attacked ?!?

You surely have to wonder WHY their very successful approaches to issues they faced earns them criticism, when that criticism comes from a source purporting to NOT be in outright opposition to them ....

Who attacked Reagan and Thatcher? Nevertheless nobody here is arguing that their non-conservative solutions were successful... except for you so far.

[DragonStryk72]

A somewhat fair overall point, though perhaps more open to question. A Corporation may exist, in effect, as an authoritarian group ... but to be factored into this is the right of the Corporation to actually run its own affairs as it chooses !

Yes, while a Corporation should be able to run its own affairs, it is also a group made up of individuals, and a union of employees should have a degree of say in their treatment, and the ability to effect reasonable change, such as getting fair pay for their work, better working conditions, and such.

As long as the balance of power is essentially equal, this actually aids both corporation and union, ensuring a motivated employee base that feels that they work in partnership with their employers, as opposed to being a set of disposable numbers.


Along comes a Union, formed out of individuals' stated wishes for, as they claim, 'fair pay', 'fair conditions', proper respect to be shown to each individual member. Now ... I do NOT agree that Corporations and Unions should meet as 'equals', because in that scenario, you detract from the right the Corporation has to run its affairs as it sees fit. Those Corporations didn't plan for, nor ask for, a bunch of Union types to come along and act as any sort of brake for any of the Corporation's aspirations or goals. But if those two groups meet as equals, the Corporation's right and freedom to determine its own direction, much less its destiny, is thrown into perhaps fundamental doubt.

But again, Corporations have a form of influence and authority, and thus, are prone to abuse. To simply left them run unchecked from within is to essentially ensure the repeated collapse of the economy through boom and bust thinking.

Again, as long as the two are working in the same basic direction, Unions can be a great thing, a natural balance that makes certain that the corporations are still acting in a manner that is conducive to their continued growth.

The main problem is that Unions were allowed too much power, and this is the place we find ourselves. As example of this: The Autoworkers Union. This is a unionization of an entire industry, which, really, is monopolistic, as it is made of every worker in the automotive industry, allowing them unfair leverage over the auto companies. If there were, say, the Ford Automotive Industry, that's perfectly fine. The whole sum of the employees of Ford should have a degree of say in their working conditions, as well as fair wages for their work. However, Dodge's workers should definitely not have a say in Ford's working conditions. Under the current rules, though, they do.



I cannot believe that a Union can have the right to do that. HOWEVER ... the individuals within the Union involved will use strength in numbers to try and fight their plans, if those plans clash with their own. A group of individuals fighting an 'authoritative body' ... and for what ? A recognisable LEFT WING victory ?

It shouldn't be a fight to begin with, but that is all the current system puts forth. In allowing unchecked power of any one group, that group will assert that power over their rival. Groups that are of equal power are more likely to work together than for one to attempt domination of the other. This is simple human nature, and it is why checks and balances need to be observed.


... which sounds actually laudible. However, this assumes that society's conditions are unchanging. This is rarely, if ever, true.




Excuse, or, REASON ? 9/11 really did happen, and a new and pernicious enemy came within everyone's radar. Conditions changed, as did imperatives. Al Qaeda committed what was essentially an act of war, this necessitating that the US adopt a war footing to meet that challenge, a challenge it hadn't asked for.

Yes, on 9/11 we were attacked... by the least capable, least well-armed, and least-numerous enemy we have ever face in our history. Not even when fighting opponents like The Empire on Which the Sun Never Sets did we abandon our belief in liberty, so why do these pissants get it? They have never, not once, one a single battle, getting in a single suckerpunch that precipitated us crushing whole countries.

There's this exchange in The Avengers that I love between Coulson and Loki:

"You're going to lose."
"Am I?"
"It's in your nature."

This is the current situation as it stands. The terrorists, they're going to lose, because their nature prevents them from ever achieving victory. There is no future where they succeed, because, in the end, liberty is intrinsic to life, and they stand directly against such liberty. They might as well try to yell back the tide.


You can't expect peacetime conditions to persist in such circumstances. Government needed more powers, and took them. GW Bush did nothing more than meet a new situation in properly realistic terms ... AND IN DOING SO, SHOWED THE ADAPTATION WHICH HIS CONSERVATIVE INSTINCTS REQUIRED.

It is Left wingers who rail against the War on Terror, and 'loss' of liberties which a war footing can and will cause. As would LIBERTARIANS.

Yeah, it's not really that much of war. Sorry, but name a single victory our opponents have ever actually had? Whack-a-Mole isn't a war, and regardless of how it plays out, it goes badly for the moles. The only thing that they can even hope for is that we are a distracted for a moment here or there, so we don't catch their particular mole on the head before they go back to hiding.


When tested, Libertarians take a LEFT WING mindset on board.

Do you know that UK Libertarians, as the Libertarian Party's recent election manifesto made clear (.. yes, UK Libertarian are so 'individualistic' that they formed their own political Party !), that they were totally opposed to seeing Britain ever come to the aid of the US again in such circumstances ? That's something that our hard Left Parties would applaud.



Perhaps my ignorance of American politics is playing its part here ... but I'm struggling to see the problem. Bush did not 'put you into war', all he was doing was providing the necessary and appropriate response to a war already STARTED BY YOUR ENEMY.

In other words, Conservative realism took hold, just as it should. Bush defended your country. In the meantime, all the disgusting Left could do was carp.

That is the fault of our president in the manner in which he went to war. He could have easily told the truth and gotten people in on it, or alternatively, kept focus on our real enemy, Bin Laden, but no, he allowed Bin Laden to distract him into going into Iraq, who knew it would turn into a total cluster fuck.

We created these enemies, Saddam, AQ, ISIS. They're our monsters, created because we don't go show the patience to go about things the correct way. Even the English have had their hand in stirring the pot in the middle-east in the way they handled Israel. Government power used irresponsibly leads only to suffering.

Iraq started no war with us, they just started a pissing contest, one they'd run pretty much every year or two so that Saddam could make the various groups that wanted to murder each other more afraid of him, and stay in line. Bin Laden decided to institute his own mugging, nothing more. Again, he cannot and will not win, that was never a possibility, due to the sheer costs such victory would require. Why shame our morals and ethics for such a pathetic opponent?

Calling it a war really isn't the best term, because really, it isn't a war. It's a bunch of guys constantly losing almost every single engagement, and once in a blue moon getting off a single jab at us, once about every decade or so as they are driven further into hiding. Again, there is no world in which they are a worthy opponent to us. The only thing that makes the even newsworthy is us deciding they're newsworthy. Sort of like the Steelers.

What you call realism is the worst form of self-delusion. It was our forefathers who saw the reality, and set our system to protect us against our own nature to rationalize away our own rights. This is what the Libertarians here strive to protect.

[Drummond]

Of course I grant that a pencil is a pencil but a pencil not a hammer which is what you're suggesting when you state that Libertarians are the same as the Trade Unionists. That's why you need a link because what you state is ridiculous.

You're playing games here. What's the same about Libertarians and Trade Unions isn't concerned with strength of actions, but an interlocking of individuals' beliefs, what Unions and Libertarians alike say they want to represent.

Trade Unions are all about 'strength in numbers'. Whilst Libertarians might not be nearly as willing to openly admit the soundness of that principle, the British Libertarians aren't as shy about doing so. They play the 'political party' game, which is ultimately ALL about that, along with Governmental power ... and the wielding of it through a unified effort. And that is the same power-in-numbers game as forms the bedrock of Union power.

Analyse what drives Trade Unionists. Analyse what drives Libertarians. See if you can insert so much as a cigarette paper between any differences at all.


And I never stated that Mags was a Libertarian.

No, I don't believe you did. Nonetheless, don't you identify as either a Libertarian yourself, or, someone sympathetic to their stated ideal ? Which is curious behaviour isn't it, coming as it 'does' from 'The One True Thatcherite', or 'The Ultimate Thatcherite'.

Use such expressions of support for her, and you say that you are THE most loyal follower of all she stood for, that the world has seen !! Yet, you also identify with Libertarianism ??!?

Doesn't make sense, FJ. UNLESS YOU ARE A FRAUD.


Plenty of others have made a connection which is one of the copious links you've ignored.

Such perceptions came from people who wanted to explain away her departure from the old bog-standard, comparatively non-evolved, version of British Conservatism that had existed before her. And they are only PERCEPTIONS, borne of opinions. There is a better way to view what Lady Thatcher was all about ... namely, FACTUALLY, based on evidence of what she SAID and DID.


Big government solutions are NEVER conservative solutions. That is your mistake. If you defend big government as some sort of solution then clearly you see the need for big government to solve some sort of problem. Conservative is small government because small government is superior, conservatism is NOT small government unless we happen to think big government is better.

Small Government is superior, you say. I note you've been a little shy about saying that big Government ACTIONS are inferior. How come ?

Well, it's obvious. There are times when nothing else will do. Margaret Thatcher couldn't have stemmed Trade Union wrecking actions by small Government methodology. Then again, GW Bush couldn't have come up with any appropriate and effective response to 9/11 unless he'd used the full weight of Government powers to do it.

If you argue otherwise .. and since you say that small Government is superior .. I challenge you to come up with small Government solutions to each of these two problems I've touched upon.

I say you can't do so. And, why ? BECAUSE THERE ARE TIMES WHEN ONLY A BIG GOVERNMENT SOLUTION WILL DO, AND IS THE ONLY ANSWER POSSIBLE.

Recognising the nature of a problem, then fixing it realistically, IS the mark of a Conservative, FJ. What you're not grasping - this because you're so bogged down with your Left-wing thinking - is that Conservatives, UNLIKE LEFTIES, are not so totally enslaved to dogma that they refuse to deal with the real world in a real way.

Only a Leftie stays stuck in a self-crafted dreamworld, unable and unwilling to step out of it for a second and face reality.


My apologies for "attacking" you but your inane drivel when you get backed into a corner is annoying.

Your apology doesn't mean anything, when you follow it up with another attack. Don't waste my time.


Do you know how many on this board have Libertarian leanings? It must gall you that you can't call them lefties. You suck at this.

But I've seen posts where people seem to think that Libertarianism is not left wing. Which could mean that they're right wing at heart, but have been duped.

UK Libertarianism is a little more transparent. British Libertarians play the 'power in numbers' game (as the formation of their own Political party amply proves in itself), and do so without being worried about any ideological fallout.


But no, it wasn't their "pragmatism" that made it so. If they had to give something to get something it doesn't make what they had to give a conservative solution. That's not a hard thing to grasp... or shouldn't be.

... BUT ... I thought that, according to you, small Government was superior ? So, tell me .. why would any Conservative Government, or leader, ever opt for something seen as an 'inferior' approach ?

Answer .. because, at the times and under the circumstances which apply, IT ACTUALLY ISN'T. That's because dealing with problems realistically IS a superior approach. Now .. either prove that small Government solutions to problems is ALWAYS possible, and ALWAYS works better, OR, accept that your slavish adherence (apparently so, anyway) to the superiority of small Government leads to an imperfect and on occasion an unworkable approach to real decision-making.

It is NOT inconsistent with Conservatism to come up with the best solutions to issues and scenarios. However, a Leftie would love to box Conservatives into limitations which make their politics observably undesirable ... eh, FJ ?

[Drummond]

Yes, while a Corporation should be able to run its own affairs, it is also a group made up of individuals, and a union of employees should have a degree of say in their treatment, and the ability to effect reasonable change, such as getting fair pay for their work, better working conditions, and such.

As long as the balance of power is essentially equal, this actually aids both corporation and union, ensuring a motivated employee base that feels that they work in partnership with their employers, as opposed to being a set of disposable numbers.

'A say' ... yes, I agree. But accepting equality between Unions and Corporations is a recipe for disaster. Each, at times and under circumstances making it appropriate to be at all adversarial, would fight to win out.


But again, Corporations have a form of influence and authority, and thus, are prone to abuse. To simply left them run unchecked from within is to essentially ensure the repeated collapse of the economy through boom and bust thinking.

You're suggesting that Corporations are some form of evil ? I don't accept that, and won't, because I have faith in Capitalism and the Capitalist system ! Corporations aren't a perfect entity by any means, but then, what in life IS ?


Again, as long as the two are working in the same basic direction, Unions can be a great thing, a natural balance that makes certain that the corporations are still acting in a manner that is conducive to their continued growth.

Now, here I can agree in principle. BUT, how often does that work out in real life ? Corporations want to expand, want to profit. They exist to make money for themselves. Unions exist to grab as big a share of that as they can get their hands on.

Thus, Unions do not engage in a symbiotic relationship, but a broadly parasitic one.

Ideally that wouldn't be true. But it so very often IS. A general rule of thumb would have to be not to trust in Unions as anything benevolent.


The main problem is that Unions were allowed too much power, and this is the place we find ourselves. As example of this: The Autoworkers Union. This is a unionization of an entire industry, which, really, is monopolistic, as it is made of every worker in the automotive industry, allowing them unfair leverage over the auto companies. If there were, say, the Ford Automotive Industry, that's perfectly fine. The whole sum of the employees of Ford should have a degree of say in their working conditions, as well as fair wages for their work. However, Dodge's workers should definitely not have a say in Ford's working conditions. Under the current rules, though, they do.

You make my case for me, it seems to me.

And it isn't so much that Unions are ALLOWED power, so much as they are GIVEN power. If they abuse it, it should be taken away from them.

Mrs Thatcher understood that well. So, she applied the remedy, and legislated to curb those powers. Some might say that, being a 'big Government' decision, it shouldn't have been made. Anyone doing so argues the cause of the LEFT WING Unions involved.


It shouldn't be a fight to begin with, but that is all the current system puts forth. In allowing unchecked power of any one group, that group will assert that power over their rival. Groups that are of equal power are more likely to work together than for one to attempt domination of the other. This is simple human nature, and it is why checks and balances need to be observed.

A good description, but I don't agree with your conclusion. Groups of equal power will jockey for ways to gain an edge ! You'd have an endless power struggle on your hands. And, enter Left wing interests into the mix, who infiltrate Unions, put up their own candidates for election, grab Union leadership, them foment fight after fight.

I know what I'm talking about ... I've seen Unions taken over in just that way, with the incidence of strikes skyrocketing shortly thereafter.


Yes, on 9/11 we were attacked... by the least capable, least well-armed, and least-numerous enemy we have ever face in our history. Not even when fighting opponents like The Empire on Which the Sun Never Sets did we abandon our belief in liberty, so why do these pissants get it? They have never, not once, one a single battle, getting in a single suckerpunch that precipitated us crushing whole countries.

There's this exchange in The Avengers that I love between Coulson and Loki:

"You're going to lose."
"Am I?"
"It's in your nature."

This is the current situation as it stands. The terrorists, they're going to lose, because their nature prevents them from ever achieving victory. There is no future where they succeed, because, in the end, liberty is intrinsic to life, and they stand directly against such liberty. They might as well try to yell back the tide.

I agree with you - terrorists are bound to lose. However, in losing, how much damage will they do in the interim ? What if a terrorist faction gets a nuke and deploys it, killing millions of people ?

Use of that weapon just has to rebound against the group using it. But what if they're crazy enough to do it ?

And what if, BY doing our absolute utmost in the War on Terror, that group is robbed of the chance to gain that edge ? Al Qaeda was wrongfooted by the carpet-bombing of Afghanistan in 2001, they had to reorganise and regroup .. losing many of their 'people' in the process.

Other War on Terror actions have kept them wrongfooted. Coalition forces kept their efforts tied up in Iraq.

'Long may it be so' .. EXCEPT, IT WASN'T. Obama interfered, put a spanner in the works, gave them a reprieve, by withdrawing from Iraq. He was even obliging enough to them to announce his intention, well in advance !!

We see the result, with ISIS.


... it's not really that much of war. Sorry, but name a single victory our opponents have ever actually had?

I think that the successes ISIS are enjoying help answer that.

The War on Terror was relaxed, when troops were taken out of Iraq. That 'relaxation' supplied an edge which has been fully taken advantage of.

That relaxation should never have happened. If there are more incidences of it, terrorists will exploit them.


That is the fault of our president in the manner in which he went to war. He could have easily told the truth and gotten people in on it, or alternatively, kept focus on our real enemy, Bin Laden, but no, he allowed Bin Laden to distract him into going into Iraq, who knew it would turn into a total cluster fuck.

How did he lie ? Everyone had concerns about WMD stockpiles in Iraq, the UN included. To not invade Iraq would've sent the signal to any maverick regime that it can create such stockpiles without fearing any consequences.


We created these enemies, Saddam ...

You didn't create WHAT he was. Namely, a brutal maverick who was a terrorist friend, and who even bankrolled one terrorist group.


.. AQ ..

Untrue. You helped create the Mujahiddeen, a freedom-fighting group. Al Qaeda was a mutated reinvention of them, and you had no hand at all in that.


.. ISIS

There I agree, for the reason I've given, a relaxation of the War on Terror, courtesy of Obama.


They're our monsters, created because we don't go show the patience to go about things the correct way. Even the English have had their hand in stirring the pot in the middle-east in the way they handled Israel. Government power used irresponsibly leads only to suffering.

Government inaction could be worse. Not responding to 9/11 with the War on Terror would've strengthened terrorism. Al Qaeda were decimated in Afghanistan. In Iraq, the vital lesson was taught that if WMD stockpiles were built up by a maverick force, undesirable consequences CAN be expected from it. And ISIS has grown on the back of insufficient Governmental countermeasures !


Iraq started no war with us, they just started a pissing contest, one they'd run pretty much every year or two so that Saddam could make the various groups that wanted to murder each other more afraid of him, and stay in line.

Iraq started a security scare by refusing for a decade to admit accountability to the UN for whatever weaponry they had -- and bear in mind that this period of unaccountability began with the certain knowledge that, then, Iraq definitely DID have WMD's. All of this perpetuated a security concern that could not go undealt-with indefinitely. And so, ultimately, it WAS dealt with.


Bin Laden decided to institute his own mugging, nothing more.

3,000 dead on 9/11 is a bit more than a 'mugging'. It needed a response, and it got one. Terrorist training camps were set up across much of Afghanistan. They HAD to be dealt with. If not ... more 9/11's would've followed, with terrorists emboldened through lack of countering action.


Why shame our morals and ethics for such a pathetic opponent?

Would it shame your morals and ethics by, through not strongly responding, instead choosing to play Russian roulette with many thousands of future innocent victims' lives ??


Calling it a war really isn't the best term, because really, it isn't a war. It's a bunch of guys constantly losing almost every single engagement, and once in a blue moon getting off a single jab at us, once about every decade or so as they are driven further into hiding. Again, there is no world in which they are a worthy opponent to us. The only thing that makes the even newsworthy is us deciding they're newsworthy. Sort of like the Steelers.

It's a different form of war. Because it's different, doesn't mean that winning it isn't vitally important.


What you call realism is the worst form of self-delusion. It was our forefathers who saw the reality, and set our system to protect us against our own nature to rationalize away our own rights. This is what the Libertarians here strive to protect.

You have the right to fight terrorists. I believe you should do so, to the very maximum ability at your disposal.

Meanwhile, OUR Libertarians are self-centred enough to pledge to put British interests so far to the forefront of their thinking, that they'd not consider coming to your aid as an ally should you be attacked again in any future 9/11. Had our Libertarians gained real power .. and ours DID seek power through our political system, through their own political Party .. their manifesto wording effectively ruled it out. Indeed, though they also pledged to continue in NATO, that was with the qualification that NATO membership continued to serve British interests .. a rather lukewarm commitment, it seems to me.

Our Left wing Parties would've heartily approved.

[DragonStryk72]

'A say' ... yes, I agree. But accepting equality between Unions and Corporations is a recipe for disaster. Each, at times and under circumstances making it appropriate to be at all adversarial, would fight to win out.

There's always going to be give and take, which is why I chose "essentially equal" as the statement. Much like a marriage, things are never going to be exactly 50/50, it just isn't feasible to expect.

The key is that one group shouldn't be able to fundamentally cripple the other.


You're suggesting that Corporations are some form of evil ? I don't accept that, and won't, because I have faith in Capitalism and the Capitalist system ! Corporations aren't a perfect entity by any means, but then, what in life IS ?

Um, no, I'm not. In fact, I've been on here previously about how people need to stop treating companies like they're Captain Planet villains. Faith is one thing, blind adherence is something else, and not a helpful thing.

Any group that has authority, has the capacity for abuse of that authority, period. The Church has abused its authority before, such as when they signed off on excommunications basically for money back in the middle ages, or the many wars against other Christian denominations for being "not catholic". Even good, well-meaning organizations can severely exceed their power.

It's that whole "Road to hell is paved with good intentions" thing. Unions and Corporations have the same capacity for this.


Now, here I can agree in principle. BUT, how often does that work out in real life ? Corporations want to expand, want to profit. They exist to make money for themselves. Unions exist to grab as big a share of that as they can get their hands on.

Not really. Unions exist to negotiate for the betterment of the workforce, but unfortunately, that is almost always decided as "pay us more money" by the union and its members, because it's the most direct way of improving a worker's lot, since work safety has pretty much become standardized across the board. A solid Union, like my mother's, doesn't push too hard on trying to increase wages just to increase, instead maybe trying to improve the health insurance, or maybe get the company to run a shuttle for employees to who are without transport.


Thus, Unions do not engage in a symbiotic relationship, but a broadly parasitic one.

Power granted by the government reversed, most companies would do the same. The Unions are operating within what the government has deemed "acceptable practices", and that will always pretty much be the line. Because that line is a very lax one, and has been stacked in an unbalanced manner, we come to a huge problem.


Ideally that wouldn't be true. But it so very often IS. A general rule of thumb would have to be not to trust in Unions as anything benevolent.

No group with authority or influence, be it government, company or union should be trusted as being totally benevolent. That's the whole problem, is we always try to frame things in a "good guys/bad guys" light.


You make my case for me, it seems to me.

And it isn't so much that Unions are ALLOWED power, so much as they are GIVEN power. If they abuse it, it should be taken away from them.

Mrs Thatcher understood that well. So, she applied the remedy, and legislated to curb those powers. Some might say that, being a 'big Government' decision, it shouldn't have been made. Anyone doing so argues the cause of the LEFT WING Unions involved.

Problems with are several:

1. Simply taking away power only swings the imbalance the other way, and then we have to snatch power away from the corporations, and keep cutting away rights until even. This is going to basically screw everyone up.

2. Unions should have power, but that power needs to be equivalent. Government pretty much never cedes power once given, being prone to grow, not retract. When they added power to the Unions for collective bargaining, they did actually need the aid, as companies were far more powerful than them. The problem is that those extra supports were never taken away when the innate power of the unions grew.

3. Many politicians, both on the right and left here, have unions donating significantly to their campaigns. How many campaign contribution do you think they'll lose if they go against the unions. That's the issue of them having gotten too big. Where do you even start? Cause you're basically gonna get tagged as wanting the average worker to die in the streets.






A good description, but I don't agree with your conclusion. Groups of equal power will jockey for ways to gain an edge ! You'd have an endless power struggle on your hands. And, enter Left wing interests into the mix, who infiltrate Unions, put up their own candidates for election, grab Union leadership, them foment fight after fight.

I know what I'm talking about ... I've seen Unions taken over in just that way, with the incidence of strikes skyrocketing shortly thereafter.

Yeah, there's always going to be a vie for power, the corporation's going to try to win, too. Just human nature on that one, which is when equal rights must be protected, but as long as we do it with a scalpel, and not the blunt force of federal government, it can be handled well.


I agree with you - terrorists are bound to lose. However, in losing, how much damage will they do in the interim ? What if a terrorist faction gets a nuke and deploys it, killing millions of people ?

Not much, all figured. I mean, yeah, the WTC destruction is basically their elvis numbers, and that was a decade and a half ago.

As to nukes getting involved, I pose this: We blew apart two whole countries, pretty much literally carpet-bombed Afghanistan, and then did another rendition of it for Shock and Awe in Iraq, hunted the leaders of both to their holes, and both are now dead, along with almost every other major figure of their respective regimes. They really don't wanna do any real sort of damage to us. We do not take it well, and respond viciously.


Use of that weapon just has to rebound against the group using it. But what if they're crazy enough to do it ?

And what if, BY doing our absolute utmost in the War on Terror, that group is robbed of the chance to gain that edge ? Al Qaeda was wrongfooted by the carpet-bombing of Afghanistan in 2001, they had to reorganise and regroup .. losing many of their 'people' in the process.

Other War on Terror actions have kept them wrongfooted. Coalition forces kept their efforts tied up in Iraq.

1. OBL was in Pakistan the whole time, the next country over from Afghanistan. Iraq was a planned distraction by Bin Laden, who wanted us to do exactly as you put forth here. So, no, they weren't wrongfooted, we were doing exactly what the enemy wanted us to do, abandon reason to fight "what ifs". Bin Laden was more than willing to sacrifice Afghanistan in order to achieve his overarching goal, and us resorting to torture only insures that we give him further recruitment fuel, not just from those we torture, but from their family and loved ones.

2. As to crazy, have you ever noticed that people with anger management issues never seem to act up around someone who they know will kick the shit out of them? You're not getting their prevailing tactic, which is a calculated point to get us t


'Long may it be so' .. EXCEPT, IT WASN'T. Obama interfered, put a spanner in the works, gave them a reprieve, by withdrawing from Iraq. He was even obliging enough to them to announce his intention, well in advance !!

That place was a total cluster fuck before we pulled out, and again, our actual enemy wanted us there, as opposed to the enemies we created when we interfered. First rule of winning a war: Don't do the exact thing your enemy wants you to do.


We see the result, with ISIS.

I think that the successes ISIS are enjoying help answer that.

The War on Terror was relaxed, when troops were taken out of Iraq. That 'relaxation' supplied an edge which has been fully taken advantage of.

That relaxation should never have happened. If there are more incidences of it, terrorists will exploit them.

So, your strategy to win over Bin Laden and AQ is to continue doing exactly what they want you to do? Somehow, I don't see that plan of attack working. Why do we even need to send troops? Our spec ops guys physically outnumber most terrorist organizations, are better trained and equipped, and can move in where the enemy can't see us coming. And shit, they're the ones who found Bin Laden in the end, so I don't see an upswing in continuing a non-working tactic that our enemy wants us to use, versus going a route that doesn't work in their favor.



How did he lie ? Everyone had concerns about WMD stockpiles in Iraq, the UN included. To not invade Iraq would've sent the signal to any maverick regime that it can create such stockpiles without fearing any consequences.

Well, there was the direct intelligence that he flatly ignored, which stated there weren't WMDs. Then, there's the fact that Iraq didn't actually have them, and had done this trick a bunch of times before, acting tough until we go away, then declaring victory over the US. I mean, seriously, we'd been in this exact neighborhood every year or two since the Gulf War.




You didn't create WHAT he was. Namely, a brutal maverick who was a terrorist friend, and who even bankrolled one terrorist group.

And we'd been fine with him to that point. We knew who he was every since the 90s, and nothing had changed. And we learned something new after deposing him: He was the only thing holding Iraq together, and the different groups, their devil dead, went for one another's throats.




Untrue. You helped create the Mujahiddeen, a freedom-fighting group. Al Qaeda was a mutated reinvention of them, and you had no hand at all in that.

We directly supplied Bin Laden, and backed him. We helped train his troops. Whatever he became, we gave him the foundations. At the time, we were scared of the Soviet Union (Who Bin Laden was fighting).




There I agree, for the reason I've given, a relaxation of the War on Terror, courtesy of Obama.

You're incorrect, because without us toppling Saddam, here's a question: What would Saddam have done to a group like ISIS? Remember that he actually drove AQ out of Iraq, and while he did send money to some terror groups, note that they didn't operate inside his country. Many things Saddam was, naive enough to believe that they wouldn't try to usurp him, no.




Government inaction could be worse. Not responding to 9/11 with the War on Terror would've strengthened terrorism. Al Qaeda were decimated in Afghanistan. In Iraq, the vital lesson was taught that if WMD stockpiles were built up by a maverick force, undesirable consequences CAN be expected from it. And ISIS has grown on the back of insufficient Governmental countermeasures !

Could be, might be, what if? Actually, what the world learned from Iraq is that the US is unstable, and that if we've decided we're coming for you, no amount of exonerating evidence will be enough, and then, when our people get tired of the war, we'll back and let it fall in on itself. We came out of Iraq looking weak, and far before Obama started pulling troops.




Iraq started a security scare by refusing for a decade to admit accountability to the UN for whatever weaponry they had -- and bear in mind that this period of unaccountability began with the certain knowledge that, then, Iraq definitely DID have WMD's. All of this perpetuated a security concern that could not go undealt-with indefinitely. And so, ultimately, it WAS dealt with.

You mean those buried, dead weapons that were out in the middle of the desert that they'd already disposed of? Yeah, no, that's not what we were talking about, and if they had so many, why didn't they use even a single one when it became obvious we were coming in on full assault with the direct intent to take the country out from under Saddam? If you're going to die by missiles and Marines, it is not the time for restraint.




3,000 dead on 9/11 is a bit more than a 'mugging'. It needed a response, and it got one. Terrorist training camps were set up across much of Afghanistan. They HAD to be dealt with. If not ... more 9/11's would've followed, with terrorists emboldened through lack of countering action.

No, I said they instituted their own mugging. Yes, going to Afghanistan was fine, it was Iraq where things went right down the shitter. Going to war for specific cause is fine, but we didn't just go after the guys who hit us, and there's absolutely no reason to abandon morals, ethics, and reason against the cowards.




Would it shame your morals and ethics by, through not strongly responding, instead choosing to play Russian roulette with many thousands of future innocent victims' lives ??

Strong response, and allowing ourselves to be brutal warmongers are different things, Drummond. When we went into Iraq, we took innocent lives, period. That's the truth of war, and why it should be the last resort. Going after terrorists tactically, using our strengths (occupying countries is not one of them), would have been more efficient, and likely yielded better all around results.




It's a different form of war. Because it's different, doesn't mean that winning it isn't vitally important.

It's a war against an emotion. You're right, it is different, because it's a war that cannot possibly be won, just like the war on drugs cannot be won. All we can do in either is shit more money down the drain, and add to the stack of the dead.

Stopping terror is vitally important, but brutal war only increases terror, not lessening it. We cannot win by force alone, we have to win in the court of public opinion as well. The people of these countries have to want our aid, not be afraid of us, or want vengeance on us for the death and destruction we cause.


You have the right to fight terrorists. I believe you should do so, to the very maximum ability at your disposal.

Fighting to my maximum ability, means doing so tactically, not simply trying to crush them with a hammer. Making them our prey is key, as is winning hearts and minds. We can't do that with tanks and missiles.


Meanwhile, OUR Libertarians are self-centred enough to pledge to put British interests so far to the forefront of their thinking, that they'd not consider coming to your aid as an ally should you be attacked again in any future 9/11. Had our Libertarians gained real power .. and ours DID seek power through our political system, through their own political Party .. their manifesto wording effectively ruled it out. Indeed, though they also pledged to continue in NATO, that was with the qualification that NATO membership continued to serve British interests .. a rather lukewarm commitment, it seems to me.

Our Left wing Parties would've heartily approved.

lol, our Libertarians support open carry, many, like Gunny and I, are former military ourselves, and we also did back the war in Afghanistan. We were going after the guys that went after us, but where we break off is basically Iraq.

[Drummond]

There's always going to be give and take, which is why I chose "essentially equal" as the statement. Much like a marriage, things are never going to be exactly 50/50, it just isn't feasible to expect.

The key is that one group shouldn't be able to fundamentally cripple the other.

In an ideal world, I'd be happy to agree. But we do not have such a world. Reality demands otherwise.

Because I have much to say, I'll concentrate on the following issue as my main subject in reply.

So .. let me give you an example from recent British history, and one which I think might help illustrate why Trade Unionism and Libertarianism are so identifiable with each other. And why Unions and Managements will always be rival forces.

GCHQ.

.. OR, 'Government Communications Headquarters'.

The UK's GCHQ could be adequately described as the technical wing of our security services. More specifically, though their precise duties have evolved according to contemporary need, they basically monitor others' communications capabilities and actions .. surveillance duties, debugging of hostile computer programmes, looking out for and pre-empting possible cyber attacks, that sort of thing. It's said that GCHQ has the technical capacity, right now, to monitor all emails, phone calls, internet activity, that the British are involved with in our territory .. and far beyond.

In the world of the 1980's, though, they were centred on Cold War duties. A priority for them was to monitor communications traffic emanating from the Soviet Union. Though always a British setup, when directed to, they shared their findings with other allies, such as, for example, the US.

So, in the early 1980's, the Thatcher Government gave consideration to whether a Trade Union could be permitted in GCHQ. Their considered belief was that it couldn't be. Imagine a strike called there, at the time of a national / international emergency, when to gain intelligence from the USSR could be vital to us all.

So, Mrs Thatcher and her Government banned Union activity there. They offered a 'staff association' in its place, along with a one-off compensatory payment to every staff member willing to give up Union membership. For those who weren't ... they could expect dismissal.

The understanding was clear. Whether or not they ACTUALLY posed a security threat, they potentially could. That was deemed unacceptable, absolutely requiring remedial action.

The Unions hit back. They were determined to not accept the decision. They mounted a protracted legal challenge to it. They consulted with other Unions in other walks of life, as it were, for secondary support. And they got it.

The legal challenge ultimately failed, and the Union ban persisted at GCHQ (Unions were reinstated there, but not before 1997, when Blair's Labour Government was elected). But nobody in the 'Union world' was prepared to take that ban lying down. Strikes broke out in various industries. Supportive walkouts happened across the spectrum of other Government Departments.

At the heart of all this was the understood imperative to maximise national security. The argument was well understood. BUT THE UNIONS DIDN'T CARE. TO THEM, THE CAUSE OF TRADE UNIONISM TRUMPED ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING ELSE.

So you see, DragonStryk, your idea of a 'partnership' between Unions and their management 'counterparts' is fanciful at best. Yes, IDEALLY, they should see themselves as a form of partnership. But the REALITY is that one is a dangerous parasitic entity, interested only in surviving, thriving, and exercising power, NO MATTER HOW ULTIMATELY DESTRUCTIVE THE OUTCOME.



Do you see, DragonStryk ? Unions and 'managements' are on opposite sides, irreconcilably so. All Trade Unions want is to be adversarial, REGARDLESS of its consequences.

- Now. Ask yourself what the Libertarian position would be. How on earth could it fail to side with that of the Trade Unions ? Here, we had an example of a Big Government decision foisted on a Union, and the Union fighting for their individual members' right to belong to one. Do you seriously think that the Libertarian answer to this could oppose that taken by the Unions, namely, to fight Big Government interference against a supposed 'fundamental freedom' ?

One other detail from this might interest you. At the affected Union's Annual Conference in Brighton, the GCHQ delegate, in stating his case to all other attending delegates of other Departments, said they didn't WANT the strike weapon. Their idea was that Union strikes in non security-sensitive Departments could be called in the event of a dispute in GCHQ. BUT ... another Department delegate, from DSS Newcastle, argued that it was vital that full Union freedoms persist at GCHQ and be considered inviolable, including the ability to go out on strike at GCHQ.

DSS Newcastle won the day, and the Conference voted that part of their struggle against Government had to include the right to strike at GCHQ.

DragonStryk, you cannot reconcile this with your considerably rosier picture of Unions and Managements entering into a cooperative partnership. Our Union experience in the UK is that fundamental differences in attitude cannot be reconciled. Unions here would rather place their obviously Libertarian values ABOVE ALL ELSE REGARDLESS OF COST, OR OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.


No group with authority or influence, be it government, company or union should be trusted as being totally benevolent. That's the whole problem, is we always try to frame things in a "good guys/bad guys" light.

The 'good guys/bad guys' choice didn't necessarily apply in the example I've supplied. Government saw a possible security issue, and they worked to plug it. In so doing, they managed to turn the whole of the Trade Union movement against them.

The Trade Unions could have been said to have a valid concern. But I'd always argue that the Government's national security needs trump it. Libertarians would hate the 'Big Government' decision-making involved, but the fact is, THE JUSTICE INVOLVED IN TAKING IT WAS ALWAYS GOING TO BE SUPERIOR TO TAKING A SMALL GOVERNMENT, 'NONINTERFERENCE' LINE.

To another argument ....


As to nukes getting involved, I pose this: We blew apart two whole countries, pretty much literally carpet-bombed Afghanistan, and then did another rendition of it for Shock and Awe in Iraq, hunted the leaders of both to their holes, and both are now dead, along with almost every other major figure of their respective regimes. They [I]really don't wanna do any real sort of damage to us. We do not take it well, and respond viciously.

So are you saying that because of those military actions, terrorists have learned their lesson ? In which case ... that supports the Big Government decision taken to launch them, surely.

Except .. that Obama has pretty much brought the War on Terror to an end, by his decision to prematurely (and VERY publicly announced beforehand) withdraw troops from Iraq. ISIS, and all the associated brutalities and destabilisations, is the result.


1. OBL was in Pakistan the whole time, the next country over from Afghanistan. Iraq was a planned distraction by Bin Laden, who wanted us to do exactly as you put forth here. So, no, they weren't wrongfooted, we were doing exactly what the enemy wanted us to do, abandon reason to fight "what ifs". Bin Laden was more than willing to sacrifice Afghanistan in order to achieve his overarching goal, and us resorting to torture only insures that we give him further recruitment fuel, not just from those we torture, but from their family and loved ones.

You speak of 'recruitment fuel'. Well .. just before 9/11, therefore before any response to it, including Iraq, of course ... Al Qaeda had terrorist training camps dotted across Afghanistan. Were those camps empty ? Or, were they full of terrorist recruits ??

So what makes you think that bin Laden had problems with recruiting ? What makes you think that America's total response to 9/11, including whatever interrogation techniques were used, makes the 'harmful difference' you seem to be suggesting ?


That place was a total cluster fuck before we pulled out, and again, our actual enemy wanted us there, as opposed to the enemies we created when we interfered. First rule of winning a war: Don't do the exact thing your enemy wants you to do.

Afghanistan: riddled with terrorist training camps requiring neutralisation.

Iraq: ruled by a dictator determined to remain unaccountable for any WMD stocks. Had he succeeded, every nutcase out there would be happy to infer the same 'freedom'.

Perhaps you think that keeping a maverick, brutal dictator who even bankrolled a terrorist group free to think himself free to keep a WMD stockpile would be better for world security than actually dealing with him. I do not.


So, your strategy to win over Bin Laden and AQ is to continue doing exactly what they want you to do? Somehow, I don't see that plan of attack working.

Well, DO they want to be blown to bits, and kept busy in their own backyard ?

And when American troops withdrew from one such backyard, namely Iraq, do you think that ISIS neither saw, nor took, any advantage from that withdrawal ?


Why do we even need to send troops? Our spec ops guys physically outnumber most terrorist organizations, are better trained and equipped, and can move in where the enemy can't see us coming. And shit, they're the ones who found Bin Laden in the end, so I don't see an upswing in continuing a non-working tactic that our enemy wants us to use, versus going a route that doesn't work in their favor.

History surely answers that one. The ISIS successes I've just referred to, for one, at least in part attributable to removing troops from a region. Afghanistan's training camps were too numerous for other than full-blown military action to be the answer, and besides, in the bombing's aftermath, there was a need to ensure that the Taliban was properly dealt with.


Well, there was the direct intelligence that he flatly ignored, which stated there weren't WMDs.

You're referring to Saddam's own statement on them ?

The true situation needed proper, effective verification. The UN's version of it was feeble and would've been inconclusive even if their inspection teams had spent years longer in Iraq, just going to the sites Saddam's people told them about !!!


Then, there's the fact that Iraq didn't actually have them,

Untrue ... they DID have SOME. Degraded, perhaps, but in the wrong hands, still viable enough weapons to be useful to terrorists.

And did UN Resolution 1441 specifically refer to pristine weapons, or JUST whether WMD's were held ? Fact is that Saddam really WAS in violation of that Resolution, and that couldn't go unanswered.


and had done this trick a bunch of times before, acting tough until we go away, then declaring victory over the US. I mean, seriously, we'd been in this exact neighborhood every year or two since the Gulf War.

Then ... THANK GOD FOR GW BUSH'S UNCOMPROMISING SOLUTION !


And we'd been fine with him to that point. We knew who he was every since the 90s, and nothing had changed. And we learned something new after deposing him: He was the only thing holding Iraq together, and the different groups, their devil dead, went for one another's throats.

Mass graves. Torture establishments. Rape rooms. Giving shelter to a top Al Qaeda terrorist. Funding Hamas. Gassing the Kurds (.. and with a WMD !). Being maverick enough to invade neighbouring countries, therefore remaining a continuing threat that he might do it again sometime. Defying the whole world on WMD accountability.

Did the world 'need' that particular brand of 'holding Iraq together' .. ?


We directly supplied Bin Laden, and backed him. We helped train his troops. Whatever he became, we gave him the foundations. At the time, we were scared of the Soviet Union (Who Bin Laden was fighting).

Bin Laden was not, then, leader of Al Qaeda .. not least because Al Q didn't even exist. He was, and acted as, a freedom fighter.

The US holds no responsibility for what bin Laden became. They did not create Al Qaeda.


You're incorrect, because without us toppling Saddam, here's a question: What would Saddam have done to a group like ISIS?

I've no idea. Maybe he'd have fired a few Scuds at them and hoped for the best (.. as he did against Israel, remember). Or perhaps he'd have done a dodgy deal with them.

Who knows ... an unmolested Saddam might've built up a very formidable WMD arsenal by the time ISIS came knocking, that courtesy of Left-wing approved-of American inaction against him !! Maybe ISIS would've left him alone, in exchange for some of those WMD's ?

Or then again, maybe ISIS would've defeated Saddam, and taken ALL of such a stock by force .....


Remember that he actually drove AQ out of Iraq, and while he did send money to some terror groups, note that they didn't operate inside his country. Many things Saddam was, naive enough to believe that they wouldn't try to usurp him, no.

But you can't know what a future Saddam would've done. These scenarios don't remain static .. they evolve. Taking a chance on a known bloodthirsty maverick whose regard for human life was zero, would really have NOT been a good idea !!!!!!


Could be, might be, what if? Actually, what the world learned from Iraq is that the US is unstable, and that if we've decided we're coming for you, no amount of exonerating evidence will be enough, and then, when our people get tired of the war, we'll back and let it fall in on itself. We came out of Iraq looking weak, and far before Obama started pulling troops.

I'm curious. What 'exonerating evidence' did Saddam ever supply, proving that he had no WMD's ???

I recall that Hans Blix was taken to a handful of sites where WMD's had been destroyed. But Blix had no way of determining the numbers destroyed. For all anyone knew, a good 90 percent of the original stock might have remained.

So tell me what 'exonerating evidence' was available.


You mean those buried, dead weapons that were out in the middle of the desert that they'd already disposed of? Yeah, no, that's not what we were talking about,

Covered already. Pristine OR degraded, their existence violated UN Resolution 1441, mandating 'serious consequences'.


and if they had so many, why didn't they use even a single one when it became obvious we were coming in on full assault with the direct intent to take the country out from under Saddam? If you're going to die by missiles and Marines, it is not the time for restraint.

It might well be, if in using WMD's you use them in your own territory, in your own backyard. And to what result, the killing and poisoning of people AND territory, both invader and resident alike ??


No, I said they instituted their own mugging. Yes, going to Afghanistan was fine, it was Iraq where things went right down the shitter. Going to war for specific cause is fine, but we didn't just go after the guys who hit us, and there's absolutely no reason to abandon morals, ethics, and reason against the cowards.

So, the War on Terror couldn't be justified ?

I know plenty of Lefties who'd agree with you.


Strong response, and allowing ourselves to be brutal warmongers are different things, Drummond. When we went into Iraq, we took innocent lives, period. That's the truth of war, and why it should be the last resort. Going after terrorists tactically, using our strengths (occupying countries is not one of them), would have been more efficient, and likely yielded better all around results.

But who was, or was not, an enemy ? A non-enemy may be recruited to BECOME that enemy (and plenty were recruited, pre-9/11).

And the War on Terror was a defensive action, defending against terrorist aggression. No 'warmongering' was ever involved, not on the US side, anyway (... though again, it's the Left who'd stridently assert otherwise).

This is a very lengthy post, so I'll break off here. Suffice it to say that I note you are expressing opinions which the Left wing of my own country would applaud you for ... loudly. This, of itself, should be cause for concern, surely, for any avowed NON Left-winger !

Oh, a final quick point. Thank you, DragonStryk, for being willing to debate in reasonable terms, as should be standard on a site like this. I regard that as an infinitely better exchange than those I get from the individual you've been happy to defend of late.

[Drummond]

A conservative solution would be one that involves deregulation and a decrease in the government granted power of a union.

Not only an evasion, but a total reversal of the reality involved. I wanted you to supply an alternative solution, something 'small Government', which you claimed would be superior .. but you've ducked giving one.

Powers aren't 'granted' to a Union, if what we're talking about involves fundamental rights. The opposite is involved ... you have to introduce regulations to curb the power a union has. This is what Margaret Thatcher did .. she introduced restrictive legislation.


That seems to be on the whole what occurred. Reagan used the power of government, because they were the employer, to vastly limit the power of a union. On the whole; a conservative solution along the lines of Thatcher's actions IMO.

And you have still not suggested any specific alternative. Quite.

Realism demanded the solutions which Reagan and Thatcher employed.


Who attacked Reagan and Thatcher? Nevertheless nobody here is arguing that their non-conservative solutions were successful... except for you so far.

Are you seriously denying that the solutions were successful ? On what basis ? Here in the UK, nobody, to this day, has had the guts to try and reverse Mrs Thatcher's anti-Union legislation. THEY DARE NOT, because they know what they'd be unleashing if they did.

And I say again: realism is, of itself, a Conservative trait. It's the Left that insists upon avoiding it, in favour instead of their preferred worldview and propaganda stances.

[fj1200]

Not only an evasion, but a total reversal of the reality involved. I wanted you to supply an alternative solution, something 'small Government', which you claimed would be superior .. but you've ducked giving one.

Powers aren't 'granted' to a Union, if what we're talking about involves fundamental rights. The opposite is involved ... you have to introduce regulations to curb the power a union has. This is what Margaret Thatcher did .. she introduced restrictive legislation.

How many more links do I need to show you that you're full of BS? Power was granted to unions by government. That is how closed shop works for example; the government mandates to the company who they must hire or where from. Relaxing those rules is not an increase in government, it's an increase in freedom. She introduced liberalizing (as in increasing liberty) legislation.


And you have still not suggested any specific alternative. Quite.

Realism demanded the solutions which Reagan and Thatcher employed.

An alternative to big government bad legislation? A conservative alternative would be better in the long run. Reagan signed a big tax cut in '87 but also went along with the Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC was poorly designed which doesn't make it a good thing just because Reagan signed it. I'll go with that he had to agree to it to get income tax rates simplified and down to 28% but that doesn't mean the EITC was good. Your logic maintains that Reagan signed it so EITC good. Many on this very forum will disagree with that statement.


Are you seriously denying that the solutions were successful ? On what basis ? Here in the UK, nobody, to this day, has had the guts to try and reverse Mrs Thatcher's anti-Union legislation. THEY DARE NOT, because they know what they'd be unleashing if they did.

And I say again: realism is, of itself, a Conservative trait. It's the Left that insists upon avoiding it, in favour instead of their preferred worldview and propaganda stances.

They dare not because it would be crap legislation. Crap legislation that involves an increase in government rules and regulations. If you agree with that and I don't see how you can't then the rest of your argument goes out the window; if rolling back Thatcher means an increase in government then Thatcher's reforms meant a decrease in government, i.e. a conservative solution.

[Gunny]

lol, our Libertarians support open carry, many, like Gunny and I, are former military ourselves, and we also did back the war in Afghanistan. We were going after the guys that went after us, but where we break off is basically Iraq.

Howso? I never supported the invasion of Iraq. I knew THEN, and posted it, that what is happening NOW, would happen.

The only thing I supported was once we were in, we needed to finish the job. We didn't. The results are on Fox and CNN daily.

I'm not even going to take credit for knowing what was going to happen. Back in 91, Bush I's advisers told him the same thing, and it made perfect sense. And, as conveniently not remembered by the left, was the reason given for not invading Iraq. The left was whining for how long "Bush didn't finish the job"? Then they criticized Bush II for trying to.

However, invading Iraq was short-sighted with no appreciation for global, geo-political situations.

[fj1200]

You're playing games here. What's the same about Libertarians and Trade Unions isn't concerned with strength of actions, but an interlocking of individuals' beliefs, what Unions and Libertarians alike say they want to represent.

Trade Unions are all about 'strength in numbers'. Whilst Libertarians might not be nearly as willing to openly admit the soundness of that principle, the British Libertarians aren't as shy about doing so. They play the 'political party' game, which is ultimately ALL about that, along with Governmental power ... and the wielding of it through a unified effort. And that is the same power-in-numbers game as forms the bedrock of Union power.

Analyse what drives Trade Unionists. Analyse what drives Libertarians. See if you can insert so much as a cigarette paper between any differences at all.

I'm playing games yet you maintain that two completely disparate organizations are in essence the same. Your logic is ridiculous and unsupported by almost anyone. If it were you would be able to find supporting links to help your case. You cannot.


:blah: Thatcherite', :blah: 'The Ultimate Thatcherite'. :blah:

Anything to add to all the links you can't find to your vacuous argument or do you want to prattle on about Mags?


Such perceptions came from people who wanted to explain away her departure from the old bog-standard, comparatively non-evolved, version of British Conservatism that had existed before her. And they are only PERCEPTIONS, borne of opinions. There is a better way to view what Lady Thatcher was all about ... namely, FACTUALLY, based on evidence of what she SAID and DID.

So you choose to ignore the obvious connections and fail to provide any support for yours. :dunno:


Small Government is superior, you say. I note you've been a little shy about saying that big Government ACTIONS are inferior. How come ?

Well, it's obvious. There are times when nothing else will do. Margaret Thatcher couldn't have stemmed Trade Union wrecking actions by small Government methodology. Then again, GW Bush couldn't have come up with any appropriate and effective response to 9/11 unless he'd used the full weight of Government powers to do it.

If you argue otherwise .. and since you say that small Government is superior .. I challenge you to come up with small Government solutions to each of these two problems I've touched upon.

I say you can't do so. And, why ? BECAUSE THERE ARE TIMES WHEN ONLY A BIG GOVERNMENT SOLUTION WILL DO, AND IS THE ONLY ANSWER POSSIBLE.

Recognising the nature of a problem, then fixing it realistically, IS the mark of a Conservative, FJ. What you're not grasping - this because you're so bogged down with your Left-wing thinking - is that Conservatives, UNLIKE LEFTIES, are not so totally enslaved to dogma that they refuse to deal with the real world in a real way.

Only a Leftie stays stuck in a self-crafted dreamworld, unable and unwilling to step out of it for a second and face reality.

Wow, and you maintain that you don't adhere to some sort of dogma. :rolleyes: All we get is dogma from you and leftie prattle.

I've already explained how Mags used government to deregulate UK labor markets. Deregulation is a small government solution based on conservative ideals. I've also never disputed that national defense is a necessary function of government so I reject your strawman.

Having said that though there can be (at least) two ways to fight a war. When FDR was deciding how to prosecute WWII he was being encouraged to take a command and control approach by his advisors, wife, etc. but he also spoke with the GM CEO? who suggested that he let rely on the private sector in providing the means by which he could do his job as CiC. Thankfully he completely rejected his previous ways of governing for the conservative approach of relying on the free markets to supply the war materials.

Your leftie prattle proves you to be a dogmatic fool who can't step out of his imagination.


Your apology doesn't mean anything, when you follow it up with another attack. Don't waste my time.

I don't care, you're a fool who can't see what people have been telling him.


But I've seen posts where people seem to think that Libertarianism is not left wing. Which could mean that they're right wing at heart, but have been duped.

UK Libertarianism is a little more transparent. British Libertarians play the 'power in numbers' game (as the formation of their own Political party amply proves in itself), and do so without being worried about any ideological fallout.

Logic that is stupid beyond belief. And that first part made no sense. You've offered no proof that Libertarians are left other than your imagination.


... BUT ... I thought that, according to you, small Government was superior ? So, tell me .. why would any Conservative Government, or leader, ever opt for something seen as an 'inferior' approach ?

Answer .. because, at the times and under the circumstances which apply, IT ACTUALLY ISN'T. That's because dealing with problems realistically IS a superior approach. Now .. either prove that small Government solutions to problems is ALWAYS possible, and ALWAYS works better, OR, accept that your slavish adherence (apparently so, anyway) to the superiority of small Government leads to an imperfect and on occasion an unworkable approach to real decision-making.

It is NOT inconsistent with Conservatism to come up with the best solutions to issues and scenarios. However, a Leftie would love to box Conservatives into limitations which make their politics observably undesirable ... eh, FJ ?

You bring stupid to a whole new level. No, it (the big government solution) actually is inferior. As mentioned previously because Reagan wanted a huge tax cut but had to sign EITC doesn't mean EITC was a good solution at the time. It was merely a cost to getting the tax cut.

Trivia question for you; Who proposed the tax legislation that Reagan signed?