Libertarians

[Kathianne]

So, from this, should I conclude that you don't recognise Margaret Thatcher as being a Conservative ?

Then why did Ronald Reagan think she was ? How come their transatlantic partnership was such a successful one ?

I characterise a highly important feature of Conservatism as being grounded by reality. AND, Kathianne, reality is to be found in recognising that everyone's existence within a society comes down to a realistic trade-off between individual rights and ambitions against what society can afford to agree to.

Mrs Thatcher valued the individual. She fought to empower the individual, through share ownership, through council house ownership, through seeing to it that opportunities came their way which would enhance individualistic self-worth. She wanted the individual to be the engine which powered social order, and in this way, she utterly defied the Socialist model of high taxation and laws passed to restrict the individual, FOR ITS OWN SAKE.

That said, she was very strong on law and order. She was not one to tolerate any breakdown in social cohesion. Which is why she had no time for Libertarian-style antisocial behaviour.

Are you telling me that American Conservatives want Governmental powers so diminished that anarchy is the result ?? Because, Kathianne, I have to agree -- I'm NOT that 'sort' of 'conservative'.

Kathianne, you touch on the truth in your argument. The real difference between us is that you've ultimately no real inkling, through personal experience, of just how perniciously suffocating pervasive Socialism can be. You still believe that a social model which does NOT prepare for Socialist excesses, through unity, through rule of law, can be the antidote to determined Socialism.

I have to tell you that, in these circumstances, you will be easy prey for future Socialist, especially LIBERTARIAN, sabotage.

Mrs Thatcher did what she did because force of circumstances GAVE HER NO OTHER OPTION. She met a REAL challenge with a REAL solution, one having sufficient power to last and to triumph.

You are so entrenched in European socialism that you fail to recognize that you are asking for incremental change, in the direction you want it to go.

As far as 'we Americans' go, it's never taken hold in the way you're immersed in it. So much so, you don't recognize it as illustrated above.

There's nothing 'anti-social' in libertarianism as I've described. Quite the opposite. I'm not going to keep repeating the same words or examples.

That you choose to do so is illustrative of your not being able to defend what your position is. This maybe due to your own concept of what we've been attempting to discuss or may just be that you don't really wish to explore anything that doesn't fit your view.

You are the one who keeps bringing up Thatcher, I'm not entering into that discussion.

The government is not the engine for 'social order' in the great scheme of things, for most people. It's the mechanism which provides for punishment for those that disrupt the ability of others to go about the social interactions of their everyday lives. It's the mechanism through which those governed agree to provide for the projects that cannot be efficiently and economically done by the individual or small groups. It's the mechanism employed to provide for the common defense, within and without.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You are so entrenched in European socialism that you fail to recognize that you are asking for incremental change, in the direction you want it to go.

As far as 'we Americans' go, it's never taken hold in the way you're immersed in it. So much so, you don't recognize it as illustrated above.

There's nothing 'anti-social' in libertarianism as I've described. Quite the opposite. I'm not going to keep repeating the same words or examples.

That you choose to do so is illustrative of your not being able to defend what your position is. This maybe due to your own concept of what we've been attempting to discuss or may just be that you don't really wish to explore anything that doesn't fit your view.

You are the one who keeps bringing up Thatcher, I'm not entering into that discussion.

The government is not the engine for 'social order' in the great scheme of things, for most people. It's the mechanism which provides for punishment for those that disrupt the ability of others to go about the social interactions of their everyday lives. It's the mechanism through which those governed agree to provide for the projects that cannot be efficiently and economically done by the individual or small groups. It's the mechanism employed to provide for the common defense, within and without.

The government is not the engine for 'social order' in the great scheme of things, for most people.

^^^^ Actually it is and has been in Britain, thats his point IMHO. And he points out that the socialists and labor(leftists ) there are and were in alliance to effect that great and calamitous change.

Additionally the reason I see his point about Thatcher is she not only saved Britain from falling decades sooner. Thus to discount her contribution in his posts may be ok if you can justify discounting it.. which you have not as of yet --unless I missed reading the post(highly possible)..
The problem I see is the difference in peoples and culture between USA and Britain is not adequately being factored in IMHO.

Kat I admire and agree with your view of taking that political stand that you do but Drummond is no different in how he takes his stand as both are wrapped in integrity, intelligence and prudent decision making based upon life experiences..

However , where I disagree is this, fj is wrong as usual. In that he takes a far to moderate approach to any right wing ideas that he may support.
Drummond keeps pointing this out but then gets beaten for being repetitive IMHO.

Carry on, very entertaining just had to ad my meager 2 cents in.... -Tyr

[Kathianne]

^^^^ Actually it is and has been in Britain, thats his point IMHO. And he points out that the socialists and labor(leftists ) there are and were in alliance to effect that great and calamitous change.

Additionally the reason I see his point about Thatcher is she not only saved Britain from falling decades sooner. Thus to discount her contribution in his posts may be ok if you can justify discounting it.. which you have not as of yet --unless I missed reading the post(highly possible)..
The problem I see is the difference in peoples and culture between USA and Britain is not adequately being factored in IMHO.

Kat I admire and agree with your view of taking that political stand that you do but Drummond is no different in how he takes his stand as both are wrapped in integrity, intelligence and prudent decision making based upon life experiences..

However , where I disagree is this, fj is wrong as usual. In that he takes a far to moderate approach to any right wing ideas that he may support.
Drummond keeps pointing this out but then gets beaten for being repetitive IMHO.

Carry on, very entertaining just had to ad my meager 2 cents in.... -Tyr

The difference is Tyr, I readily stipulated that there appears to be real differences in our experiences and most important in what in fact we were supposed to be discussing. There are real differences between our cultures also, being that UK like Western Europe in general is and has been socialist since Bismarck. Thatcher slowed it down some, which is why she is so admired here. However, she never attempted to roll it back, indeed like the GOP there's a lot to be said that Drummond like many 'conservatives' in Europe are truly trying to make socialism work the way they want it to.

I've said many times, Reagan wasn't my favorite president, but he DID destroy PATCO, no 'compromise' not just 'pushing back.' I don't know that would even be possible in Europe.

Instead of discussing any of the differences, Drummon chooses to condescend to 'you just wait,' 'I know I'm right,' 'You're going with the socialist opening of libertarianism.' Not only not true with me, he's wrong on the introduction of the Thatcher example of using their unions as his example of 'libertarianism.' He's talking about collectives, playing on they are made up of individuals. That's like saying the sun will come up tomorrow.

[Perianne]

The difference is Tyr, I readily stipulated that there appears to be real differences in our experiences and most important in what in fact we were supposed to be discussing. There are real differences between our cultures also, being that UK like Western Europe in general is and has been socialist since Bismarck. Thatcher slowed it down some, which is why she is so admired here. However, she never attempted to roll it back, indeed like the GOP there's a lot to be said that Drummond like many 'conservatives' in Europe are truly trying to make socialism work the way they want it to.

I've said many times, Reagan wasn't my favorite president, but he DID destroy PATCO, no 'compromise' not just 'pushing back.' I don't know that would even be possible in Europe.

Instead of discussing any of the differences, Drummon chooses to condescend to 'you just wait,' 'I know I'm right,' 'You're going with the socialist opening of libertarianism.' Not only not true with me, he's wrong on the introduction of the Thatcher example of using their unions as his example of 'libertarianism.' He's talking about collectives, playing on they are made up of individuals. That's like saying the sun will come up tomorrow.

Now I understand you more.

[Perianne]

This thread is what debate is all about.

I love it.

[Drummond]

^^^^ Actually it is and has been in Britain, thats his point IMHO. And he points out that the socialists and labor(leftists ) there are and were in alliance to effect that great and calamitous change.

Additionally the reason I see his point about Thatcher is she not only saved Britain from falling decades sooner. Thus to discount her contribution in his posts may be ok if you can justify discounting it.. which you have not as of yet --unless I missed reading the post(highly possible)..
The problem I see is the difference in peoples and culture between USA and Britain is not adequately being factored in IMHO.

Kat I admire and agree with your view of taking that political stand that you do but Drummond is no different in how he takes his stand as both are wrapped in integrity, intelligence and prudent decision making based upon life experiences..

However , where I disagree is this, fj is wrong as usual. In that he takes a far to moderate approach to any right wing ideas that he may support.
Drummond keeps pointing this out but then gets beaten for being repetitive IMHO.

Carry on, very entertaining just had to ad my meager 2 cents in.... -Tyr

BRILLIANT !!!

Extremely well put, Tyr. You understand exactly where I'm coming from in this.

Kathianne, Tyr says:

The problem I see is the difference in peoples and culture between USA and Britain is not adequately being factored in IMHO.

I completely agree. Indeed, Kathianne, you seem implacably determined to continue to ignore and disregard them, beyond recognising the differences AS differences.

My belief is that the greatest flaw in your position is that you're doing this.

To say that America has taken one direction, and THAT THE DIRECTION REMAINS INVIOLABLE, is where the flaw exists. In my society, Leftist Unions acted as Libertarians, took on the position that their resistance to societal control was sacrosanct, and that they had the 'right' to oppose and overthrow any Conservative led Government wanting to run society along responsible lines.

They did precisely that, in 1974, because Ted Heath was weak enough to give them their means of managing it. Where did it lead ? A basket-case of a society, where the ruling Lefties simply rubber-stamped all the concessions the Unions expected them to make.

In that direction, lay ruination. Inflation topping 26 percent, two years later ! A Prime Minister resigning in disgrace, discredited.

History taught us a lesson. Margaret Thatcher learned that lesson, applied her remedy. And it WAS a remedy. We prospered from strong Conservative-principled Government, threats beaten down THROUGH STRONG GOVERNMENT.

The Libertarian way leads to anarchy. It is anti-social in the extreme, and it was our LEFT that originated all that chaos.

Now, Kathianne, you can keep on saying that 'America is different, you can't compare the two' to your hearts' content, and think of UK history as an irrelevance. But none of that gives you any guarantee that, in future, you aren't destined to repeat our mistakes, and one day see our history, played out in the US.

I have one simple remedy for you. It may be enough. JUST KEEP YOUR LEFT LOCKED OUT OF POSITIONS OF POWER.

If you can somehow do this, I'll make you a prediction. 'Somehow', your Libertarians will suffer. Libertarianism will not gain the traction it needs to thrive as a workable philosophy. Why ? BECAUSE AT HEART IT IS LEFT WING.

... and, sad to say, FJ will not be a happy man !!

[Jeff]

Right. Now try retired military tricare. They have a wrote script. Anything you ask for is exactly what you don't get. Ibuprofen will cure everything.

That truly sucks Bro, I hate that this country treats our Hero's that way ( yes if you served you ought to be treated correctly ) I have a friend of mine down here going through the same thing Gunny but his wife picked up on some of his insurance and he went to a pain clinic and they helped him. Now you don't want to just go to any pain clinic as some of them are no better than drug dealers, they will give you what ever you want as long as the money is right. But a good clinic will work you up and try and keep you on the lowest doses, just enough to help but it won't take all the pain away, my Doc explained to me that I would have to get use to living with some pain, he said sure I can take it all away but I would take any quality of life away as well. And then there is the pay as you go, I know it is expensive but man if you can afford it then I would go for it, it sure is nice to at least take the edge off.

Now as far as the pain meds themselves, they stink, I hate them, I believe they are slowing killing me. But for me to go without I wouldn't be able to function. Like yesterday, a friend of mine had surgery for lung cancer so I was at the hospital on my feet all day, last night I hurt so bad it was unreal ( and that was with taken the extra I have for the real bad nights ) These meds are a catch 22, you have to have them but they surely aren't doing your body any good.

[tailfins]

Deeds are more important than words. Libertarian candidates help Republicans lose close elections.

[Drummond]

The difference is Tyr, I readily stipulated that there appears to be real differences in our experiences and most important in what in fact we were supposed to be discussing. There are real differences between our cultures also, being that UK like Western Europe in general is and has been socialist since Bismarck. Thatcher slowed it down some, which is why she is so admired here. However, she never attempted to roll it back, indeed like the GOP there's a lot to be said that Drummond like many 'conservatives' in Europe are truly trying to make socialism work the way they want it to.

I've said many times, Reagan wasn't my favorite president, but he DID destroy PATCO, no 'compromise' not just 'pushing back.' I don't know that would even be possible in Europe.

Instead of discussing any of the differences, Drummon chooses to condescend to 'you just wait,' 'I know I'm right,' 'You're going with the socialist opening of libertarianism.' Not only not true with me, he's wrong on the introduction of the Thatcher example of using their unions as his example of 'libertarianism.' He's talking about collectives, playing on they are made up of individuals. That's like saying the sun will come up tomorrow.

Well, Kathianne, the sun WILL come up tomorrow.

No one Libertarian can make any difference to anything. It's the equivalent of 'tilting at windmills', doing a Don Quixote.

So, what's their answer ? EASY. They band together. In the UK, they formed Unions, to fight for what they regarded as their individual rights. In so doing, they repeatedly became an antisocial force, possessing such monumental arrogance that they EVEN throught it 'right' to defeat entire Governments.

Who are, by far, the biggest paymasters of our Labour Party, the UK's Socialists ? TRADE UNIONS.

Margaret Thatcher, as Conservative Leader and Prime Minister, dedicated herself to fighting that antisocial and anti-Governmental force, and she did it through MEANINGFUL, EFFECTIVE methodology. And she remained recognisable as a CONSERVATIVE in doing so.

Ronald Reagan (apparently, NOT your favourite President ?) recognised her as a great Conservative leader without the smallest hesitation.

How come ... if she wasn't acting as a Conservative ?

[Drummond]

Deeds are more important than words. Libertarian candidates help Republicans lose close elections.

I'm sure they do.

Perhaps they're permanently 'blind' to that effect ?

Somehow, I don't think so.

[Kathianne]

Now I understand you more.

and yet you don't know WHY. You can search for my posts, where I felt I was wrong on some of my reasoning back then, and why I wasn't in toto.

BRILLIANT !!!

Extremely well put, Tyr. You understand exactly where I'm coming from in this. Yet, in spite of being a friend of yours, he agreed with what I have been saying. Indeed, he understands where this country and it's people are.

Kathianne, Tyr says:

^^^^ Actually it is and has been in Britain, thats his point IMHO. And he points out that the socialists and labor(leftists ) there are and were in alliance to effect that great and calamitous change.

Additionally the reason I see his point about Thatcher is she not only saved Britain from falling decades sooner. Thus to discount her contribution in his posts may be ok if you can justify discounting it.. which you have not as of yet --unless I missed reading the post(highly possible)..
The problem I see is the difference in peoples and culture between USA and Britain is not adequately being factored in IMHO.

Kat I admire and agree with your view of taking that political stand that you do but Drummond is no different in how he takes his stand as both are wrapped in integrity, intelligence and prudent decision making based upon life experiences Then Drummond, you totally ignored what Tyr wrote, again repeat your same arguments again, while happy to have what you consider 'back up.' Illustrated as follows:

I completely agree. Indeed, Kathianne, you seem implacably determined to continue to ignore and disregard them, beyond recognising the differences AS differences.

My belief is that the greatest flaw in your position is that you're doing this. This is projecting what you've been doing, followed by grabbing your crystal ball and seeing into the future:

To say that America has taken one direction, and THAT THE DIRECTION REMAINS INVIOLABLE, is where the flaw exists. In my society, Leftist Unions acted as Libertarians, took on the position that their resistance to societal control was sacrosanct, and that they had the 'right' to oppose and overthrow any Conservative led Government wanting to run society along responsible lines.

Ah, but I never claimed to see into the future. I never was denying the reality, as you see it, of your own country. Long ago I acknowledged a lack of knowledge to enter into that part of debate with you.
...

History taught us a lesson. Margaret Thatcher learned that lesson, applied her remedy. And it WAS a remedy. We prospered from strong Conservative-principled Government, threats beaten down THROUGH STRONG GOVERNMENT. I am very happy that things have worked out so well for the UK. I wish your country nothing but the best regarding what you see as a strong government. I truly acknowledge that may be the best way to go, for your country.

The Libertarian way leads to anarchy. It is anti-social in the extreme, and it was our LEFT that originated all that chaos. As Reagan said, "There he goes again." You admitted that there never was a libertarian bent to the socialist collectives, which remained the same collectives after all was said and done. You acknowledged to using the term simply as your understanding of libertarianism, which was actually socialism.

Now, Kathianne, you can keep on saying that 'America is different, you can't compare the two' to your hearts' content, and think of UK history as an irrelevance. But none of that gives you any guarantee that, in future, you aren't destined to repeat our mistakes, and one day see our history, played out in the US. Well except for the fact that I never said any such things. What I did say is that both the LEFT in this country and the GOP in this country ARE repeating the European model of socialism or BIG GOVERNMENT. Those 'in power' have your model down pat.

I have one simple remedy for you. It may be enough. JUST KEEP YOUR LEFT LOCKED OUT OF POSITIONS OF POWER. I prefer to use my votes and influence where I can to reduce the size of the power elite in the central government, leaving the lower levels of government to be more accountable, responsive, and efficient in addressing the citizens. I'll keep doing what I've done in encouraging local charities to respond to needs.

If you can somehow do this, I'll make you a prediction. 'Somehow', your Libertarians will suffer. Libertarianism will not gain the traction it needs to thrive as a workable philosophy. Why ? BECAUSE AT HEART IT IS LEFT WING. One last attempt to 'win' something that's not a contest. ... and, sad to say, FJ will not be a happy man !!

Feel better knocking someone out of your gang? Or is this just an attempt to say that if one doesn't agree wholly with your positions, they are *gasp* a liberal?

Well, Kathianne, the sun WILL come up tomorrow. Thank you for admitting that what you have been advocating IS socialism. That is a big step, I know.

No one Libertarian can make any difference to anything. It's the equivalent of 'tilting at windmills', doing a Don Quixote. Only libertarians are individuals that cannot make a difference as an individual? Really? Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan too were individuals that acted contrary to the 'bands' they were part of, no? At least for a time. I can't believe that you then segue into the following:

So, what's their answer ? EASY. They band together. In the UK, they formed Unions, to fight for what they regarded as their individual rights. In so doing, they repeatedly became an antisocial force, possessing such monumental arrogance that they EVEN throught it 'right' to defeat entire Governments.

Who are, by far, the biggest paymasters of our Labour Party, the UK's Socialists ? TRADE UNIONS. Again you make use of your own definition regarding libertarianism, which you fail to share in x number of posts. Then you follow up with a conclusion that has nothing to shore it up-claiming all the while to see into the future of a country regarding which, you don't understand the nuances of. Again with the 'win' hoping for lots of groups smilies and claps, though for what?

Margaret Thatcher, as Conservative Leader and Prime Minister, dedicated herself to fighting that antisocial and anti-Governmental force, and she did it through MEANINGFUL, EFFECTIVE methodology. And she remained recognisable as a CONSERVATIVE in doing so.

Ronald Reagan (apparently, NOT your favourite President ?) recognised her as a great Conservative leader without the smallest hesitation.

How come ... if she wasn't acting as a Conservative ?

Perhaps because when she spoke, she addressed many of the assumed 'truths' of socialism, breaking many of the confines of what had been assumed 'facts' of the European movement towards socialism since Bismarck? Many of her speeches sounded much more 'American' in their thinking than European. As you've repeated emphasized though, she was confined to dealing with the system that laid before, she still had to address the problem through the BIG government solution, at that point in time, she couldn't do what Reagan did with PATCO. She was as 'Conservative' as the system would allow in her actions.

Deeds are more important than words. Libertarian candidates help Republicans lose close elections.

Feel better for chiming in?

I'm sure they do.

Perhaps they're permanently 'blind' to that effect ?

Somehow, I don't think so. You do realize that TF comments are really not agreeing with you, but are rather the elite response in US for those they want to shut up and join in group think?

I've spent more time on this than I really meant to for two reasons:

1. I think that the US central government has become too big, too involved in our everyday lives, too expensive and inefficient. With the 'right leader' this country could fall into dictatorship. In many ways it has. If the executive powers in DC keep expanding, Congress will continue to diminish which was intended to be the voice of the People.

While the GOP tends more towards my priorities of the federal government, those in the positions of power are still much like the European right's version of socialism. I'm more in favor of our founders' vision for our country. I don't want 'a better' national health care or national education system. I want the individuals, the small shop owners, the corporations, the city halls, the state governments, the federal government all doing what they are supposed to do. For those individuals, the most vulnerable that are unable to care for themselves, whose families cannot or will not care for them, society must care for. The question remaining is from which level is the best care to be found? I don't think DC is the answer.

2. Speaking as a member, not staff, I've found the level of discussion on most issues over the past months or even years to have deteriorated to the point that there is really little to see here. It seems to me that most interactions between those that have ideas actually worth addressing have fallen to the level of name calling and other forms of derision. There's little or no depth to those that start off alright, someone will derail by jumping in to bring the tone back to divisiveness rather than discussion. Is there some hidden forum where tallies are being kept for derailed threads?

IMO much of the pitting of a group of posters against an individual has created what we now have. In the most recent case what's disturbing to me is that the 'group' and the 'individual' actually are not philosophically opposed on the big issues, but rather for the details and the presumed and projected differences of the individual by the group.

I've 'known' all the posters for a long time, most since they joined. All are good people from what I 'know' of them. All are capable of discussion, so why not try it?

I tried to keep my interactions in this thread respectful, wasn't hard for me to do, I like Drummond. I don't have to agree with all of his premises however. I don't have to agree or accept what I consider to be projections or 'all knowing statements,' indeed that is the point of discussions/debates, to defend one's own ideas. Sometimes both of us got snarky, but not to the point that the discussion was lost. As I think was demonstrated, he didn't agree with all of what I wrote either.

Jim tried to address this problem not so long ago, several times. He'd like a more interesting board with more posters. This cannot happen when visitors look upon thread after thread of name calling, 5 posts of smilies and claps for a post that says, "XXX, liberal or fascist" and that is all. Take the time please, to address a point, not the poster.

He has always tried to provide what members want, i.e. Tyr basically has his own forum for his poetry; Tailfins has the technology section that he is the most prolific; dmp and NT have the photography section that I for one wish they'd use even more often, (others too). Those that wish to mud wrestle should take it to the cage, leaving those that want to discuss/debate political or societal or world events the top of the board.

To say the board leans 'conservative' is hyperbole with the word 'leans,' even Gabby has a gun! She's our token liberal.

It's become a sad state when someone is called a 'liberal' or 'traitor' for questioning due process or any of a number of constitutional rights. I think what was once 'knee jerk' responses to the likes of a Maineman have become part of what is expected responses. I do wish/hope that some reasonable discussions will follow.

[jimnyc]

2. Speaking as a member, not staff, I've found the level of discussion on most issues over the past months or even years to have deteriorated to the point that there is really little to see here. It seems to me that most interactions between those that have ideas actually worth addressing have fallen to the level of name calling and other forms of derision. There's little or no depth to those that start off alright, someone will derail by jumping in to bring the tone back to divisiveness rather than discussion. Is there some hidden forum where tallies are being kept for derailed threads?

IMO much of the pitting of a group of posters against an individual has created what we now have. In the most recent case what's disturbing to me is that the 'group' and the 'individual' actually are not philosophically opposed on the big issues, but rather for the details and the presumed and projected differences of the individual by the group.

I've 'known' all the posters for a long time, most since they joined. All are good people from what I 'know' of them. All are capable of discussion, so why not try it?

I tried to keep my interactions in this thread respectful, wasn't hard for me to do, I like Drummond. I don't have to agree with all of his premises however. I don't have to agree or accept what I consider to be projections or 'all knowing statements,' indeed that is the point of discussions/debates, to defend one's own ideas. Sometimes both of us got snarky, but not to the point that the discussion was lost. As I think was demonstrated, he didn't agree with all of what I wrote either.

Jim tried to address this problem not so long ago, several times. He'd like a more interesting board with more posters. This cannot happen when visitors look upon thread after thread of name calling, 5 posts of smilies and claps for a post that says, "XXX, liberal or fascist" and that is all. Take the time please, to address a point, not the poster.

He has always tried to provide what members want, i.e. Tyr basically has his own forum for his poetry; Tailfins has the technology section that he is the most prolific; dmp and NT have the photography section that I for one wish they'd use even more often, (others too). Those that wish to mud wrestle should take it to the cage, leaving those that want to discuss/debate political or societal or world events the top of the board.

To say the board leans 'conservative' is hyperbole with the word 'leans,' even Gabby has a gun! She's our token liberal.

It's become a sad state when someone is called a 'liberal' or 'traitor' for questioning due process or any of a number of constitutional rights. I think what was once 'knee jerk' responses to the likes of a Maineman have become part of what is expected responses. I do wish/hope that some reasonable discussions will follow.

Very well said. I often think that the threads degrading, and other persistent fights/debates, are more based on perception, and more often from personal dislike. Every single member here is quite capable of awesome input and good debate. Sadly, those smarts are far too often used for folks to 'fight' with one another. And yes, no blame, as I see the whole thing more or less as circular. What I mean by that is that it goes around to an extent. One day one person, the next day another. Sometimes I read the awesome input, then the next thread I see the degradation has already killed a thread. I would move the majority of threads to the cage, but that would be an awful lot of threads, and then within hours it starts again in good threads.

And please, before anyone thinks I'm pointing, laying the blame game and such, I'm not. Read again where I said ALL are capable of the great posts, I've seen it. But if anyone is honest, they can look at such threads and see that many stop responding or don't respond at all, as they don't want to get involved. This isn't blaming, that's just the reality of things. If we ALL want things to grow, and get more members posting, we have to offer a reason for folks to register and post.

Also before anyone gets upset, I once again take my own responsibility. For example, Revelarts and I often disagree. Sometimes I get a little off track and get a tad ornery with him. Just recently, AGAIN, I had to send a message along and have a discussion with him, to apologize for my wording and such. While I'll continue to disagree and debate with him, and likely say stupid stuff again, I try to keep things cool and respectful, even if I do fail here and there. It happens, then we get back on the bicycle and try again.

[Kathianne]

Thanks Jim. I don't want to derail this thread, I'm going to copy and paste my last post and yours and start a new thread in announcements, with a link back to this one.

If anyone wished to comment on my 2nd reason for for so many posts, I hope they will respond in the announcement section, leaving this thread for further discussion on the topic we were discussing.

[hjmick]

Deeds are more important than words. Libertarian candidates help Republicans lose close elections.

Perhaps Republicans should take a lesson from this.

[Gunny]

Not at all, as I've explained several times. Certainly not for a state of nature, just for what the people feel is needed, where they live. States and counties/parishes, townships, cities, and even neighborhoods differ in their needs. Government, community groups, police should be and mostly are aware of those differences-not the fed or even the state capitol.

Common Core is a prime example of government failing by intrusiveness.

Problem is, the left that huddle in the largest cities think the world revolves around them and there is no difference. Those same city dwellers don't even know what's going on in their own states. Their mega-city is "it". Everyone else is a hayseed redneck hugging their Bibles and guns.

Then there are regional differences they likewise refuse to admit to. Hell, West Texas culture is different than East Texas culture and South Texas culture is different than North Texas culture. That's just one state. New Mexico culture is nothing like Texas culture and Louisiana culture is nothing like Texas NOR Deep South culture.

The culture I have observed that is the "same" are lefties dwelling in their dirty cities like rats, believing their rules should be the only rules and apply to everyone.

Government should be localized as much as possible to fit the needs of its community. Not some God's in DC declaring what's good for Indiana as decided by a bunch of city dwelling rats in the Nation's 3-4 largest cities.