MtnGoat

"OK, we're going to call the above "Exhibit A." " Sorry, a self constructed proof of what "would" happen simply is not equivalent to actual evidence. You may as well claim an episode of West Wing is equivalent to actual evidence. "Now, everyone on that list has done at least a dozen hit pieces on Clinton." Are the "hit pieces" factual? I've seen many folks defending Gores lying call actually looking up his lies, smearing or "attacking" gore. "When those 38 people attack Clinton and his cock, who does the rebuttal?" Who can defend a chief executive who signs sexual harassment legislature, the favorite darling of the feminist establishment, for doing what in every other case the same people mercilessly attack? Packwood was crucified for far less, feminists have claimed any "relationship" in which a power imbalance exists cannot be truly consensual.... and now, gee, it's one free grope, blowjobs aren't sex, and the meaning of "is" can't really be determined. If you want to defend this, have at it. That some others won't, says more about you than it does about them. "Even you ditto-sheep have to admit that nobody on that list has EVER defended a fabricated lie against the president." Show us some of the fabricated lies. "There is no "Exhibit B," because there are so few liberal voices on television. " There wasn't even an exhibit A, only a fictional list of what you claimed would happen, supposed to serve as evidence. "even though there are DOZENS of right-wing, Smirk-apologist shows whose livelyhood is lying about liberals." Lying? What a joke! How can you lie about people who think they are the smartest and nicest and therefore think other folks need to be taxed and told what to do for their own good in so, so many areas of life scarcely any escape notice? This isn't lying, it's bringing what you really believe to the fore. You just don't like the scrutiny.

"only if they truly are attempting to change. Just claiming to see the light at the last minute does not count." The last minute... years ago, years before his presidential campaign? How is it you figure *you* know wether someone else is truly attempting to change? "he is/was not challenged on substance. Please find multiple references in major news outlets that truly challenge Bush on major issues (prior to ~a month ago). Until then I'll consider the discussion closed." Of course you will, your favorite tactic. Dodge and run. I supply numerous examples of his being challenged during the campaign, which you said "never" happened, you ignore it all and come up with a new claim, never once acknowledging the comments on precisely what you claimed before. Krugman isn't major? Comments published by Tom Daschle are't major? Just who counts as major to you? "cut the crap." Calling you on your assessments of others people's value, in what they choose to pursue, or buy, or value, is scarcely crap, in fact it defines many of the boundaries of your favorite issues. I'll pursue it without mercy.

"Now you are adding insult to injury. Coverage of this kind, if any, is minimal." What are they supposed to do, cover every single instance of these protestors? The same crowd every time, out on another streetcorner over some new injustice everyone else must be forced to address. If it's not animals, it's the po'. If it's not the po', it's the 'vironment. If it's not the 'vironment, it's "globalization", or peace, or healthcare, or..... The protestors are their own worst enemies IMO, by deciding nearly everything is an outrage, and by nearly always consisting of the very same kinds of people, and by constant continual protest, it all just becomes one big blur. You can only see sea turtle costumes and big banners with the earth painted on it along with flowers and peace symbols, so many times before yes, you get the picture, they're upset and they care. Fine. There is no need to cover every protest, IMO. We already know they're upset. We already know the "solutions", proposed by the same people, for the same reasons, for nearly every ill they stood on the corner for, last week. and last year, and the last decade. or three. A crowd of aging hippies and their new acolytes. Another chance, down with the selfish, everything for everyone, givce peace a chance, and another, ad nauseum. They have every right to do so, great. That doesn't mean they force themselves into relevance, because once you've seen them carry on 100 times, the next 500 look just the same!

"most, if not all of these stories are just plain not true and on the contrary show how anti-Gore the press was." What about the example I've just presented? Did that happen or did it not? You're telling me investigating Gore to verify his statements is "anti Gore"? "neither is being a heavy substance abuser or not having done anything valuable with oneself by the age of ~50." And here I thought the core of liberal philosophy was the capacity of people to change. Seems now they're being held to task for what they have done in the past and since changed and repudiated. Is this one of the issues of substance you claim never came out? If not, why do you bring it up? I thought you were concerned about substantive issues. And who are you to go around deciding what is valuable for someone else? This of course is a constant issue (and problem IMO) for liberals, the determination of what is valuable for others.

"What are you talking about, Goat? Perhaps during the election," That is specifically what I was referring to in that post. j-b claimed he had "never" been challenged on substance. He was continually and loudly challenged on substance. "but Mr. Bush has not been challenged by the press on anything since he has become president." I disagree with this too. You don't call endless editorials on his policies, unchallenging? The Nation, the American Prospect, and all their stuff? Numerous comments from McGregory, Krugman, et al? Articles about the bush "turning back the clock" on the environment? Coverage of demonstrations? What about the article that began the tree cutting thread? Doesn't that count?

hey matt, takes more than that to bug me! I'm not going to claim Bush is a genius, because I don't think he is, few people are. But I don't think being the smartest man in the world is necessary to make good decisions. Picking good people to delegate to is every bit as important as any amount of brain power, because it shows good judgement. Gore and his supporters figure he's pretty smart, and yet he wasn't smart enough to not tell whoppers that could be easily checked on. And that doesn't take a brain surgeon.

"Bush's problem is that his shortcomings are very 'graphic' which is the most important mode of conveying a message today." That may be true, but regardless of that he connects with a lot of folks who can look beyond a episode of nervous sentence mangling every so often, and see someone they trust, even if his opponents do not. In contrast, Gore didn't just slip up with words, he fabricated stories from whole cloth. My favorite was during one of the debates ( I think that's right) where he went on a name dropping tale about visiting a disaster area with some official or another, then it turned out he'd never done it, and I believe he'd never met that person either. That's not a slipup. "And he never was challenged on substance anyway. " Never is a pretty strong word, especially when I don't think it's true. He was challenged on his foreign policy experience, his states education and budgeting, the environment of Texas, his supposed lack of "gravitas", the liberal's new favorite 10 cent word for a week or two. God I got tired of hearing that word, as if listening to Gore's monotone patiently explaining how everyone needs his help meant he had it. Bush was critiqued up one side and down the other on his performance, ideas, family, policies for Texas, and all the rest, which is what one expects from a race for president. I think saying he was never challenged on substance is a dog that won't hunt.

"Even supporters of the cabinet know that he isn't making the calls at Penn Ave. I refuse to call him cunning, by any stretch. " Which supporters?

I think it's great the left thinks Bush is dumb. It means they make mistake after mistake in dealing with him, and he walks right over them and keeps on going while they rage in confusion, never quite figuring out the obvious. If they are right and Bush is so stupid, as they keep maintaining, what does being beat, and beat again, and beat a third time, by El Dubya Stupido, what does that make them? Oh, I forgot, all the selfish mean people are helping him.

"I actually agree with you for once, Mr. Goat." I think I just saw a pig fly by my window!

"Does anybody have an example of how an issue has been consistently portrayed - in news stories and in headlines - with a "liberal slant" in major newspapers or on national TV? " Sure. More gun control will work, when the thousands of gun laws we already have, are already broken in nearly every gun crime. Tax cuts "cost" the govt a static amount of money because tax rates are fixed to revenue by an unshakable linear progression. That should be good for starters. What cracks me up the most about the recent complaints about a "right wing" media bias is the dems screaming about talk radio. Apparently some are in favor of trying to build some kind of liberal talk network or pick out a new liberal host who can pull the numbers major conservatives do. The thing is, they actually seem to think there aren't any liberal hosts, when they do exist, they just don't get ratings. They seem to be assuming their message isn't getting out, while the real problem is their message is already out and the ratings of those hosts they don't like are the result of people wanting to hear something else.

"but will it sort out whether eating at McD is the appropriate response to an inner, fundamental want?" Maybe, maybe not. Since what is appropriate to any inner fundamental want is determined by each individual themselves, it may well be they're simply seeking a quick answer to one particular inner want.. hunger for a greasy snack!

"You mean that economic stimulation measure that just about ever economist there is says " which economists are these? The ones who don't understand tax revenue isn't static, or the role of tax avoidance in setting rediculous rates to begin with? Sounds like a bunch of Keynsian economists are crying in their beer again.

"If you don't climb then post something about hiking, or else just go away." Had a great time in the 'chants in August. How's that?

"For what ever reason (!), capitalism just isn't such a great word in many parts of the world." That's because they often do not have the required legal structures in place for capitalism to function, nor understand it's foundations. When titles to land are hard to get or unreliable, contract law unenforcable or unreliable, private property rights non existent, and widespread corruption in the legal system, capitalism won't work. "Might they be seeing the light?!?!?" OF the train heading right at them, they certainly are. The numerous proven flaws in collectivist economies are ignored in the hopes that if it's only done "right", by people who really really believe it will work, their economy will function... and they auger right in again and blame the nasty capitalists. "What many fail to understand about capital management and subsequent harvest is that without limiting the amount of the medium of exchange, capitalism fails." Of course it does. Without money having value because it's value is limited with respect to how much currency there is, the value of trading it is nil. Why would anyone trade their labor for a medium that has no value? This is part of what is happening in down south. "This limitation will always lead to the inequities we see globally" Limiting the value of currencies has nothing to do with limiting the number of people who use it, nor their personal value. "Capitalism will never lead to equitable cohabitation; why are so many so brainwashed?" Of course it won't. Who has ever claimed it will? All it means is you have the power to choose what to value, what to sell, what to buy, and what to try and do with your labor. Why in the world would anybody expect people to wind up equal, when people are not the same to begin with? Some work harder, some don't work at all, some are smarter, some are dumber, some value money, some don't, some value one type of labor, some another. This gurantees people will never wind up "equal", differing people with differing values, goals, and abilities will not have the same outcomes. "It's funny how people were trumpeting the fall of communism, exclaiming victory for capitalism. Hah!" Capitalism has won, even China is becoming more capitalist, and Castro is allowing markets to operate in Cuba.

"Well get ready my friend, because I personally think the Latin world has had enough of neoliberal capitalist policy, and soon will be joining his ranks!" Runaway inflation, collapsing currencies, epic instability, and the shooting oneself in the foot attempts at collectivist economies? Probably so.

"I continually read the liberal-bashing posts on this board that accuse the liberals of trying to impose their philosophies upon the rest of society." Accusation it may be, but it's also *true*. I cannot say everyone isn't trying to do this, it's the nature of the beast. But what can be said is that A) the philosophies themselves are very different and B) different philosophies lead to different outcomes. All that's left for each of us is to make our case. "I have a different philosophical viewpoint on social interaction and common governance, whose to say that your philosophy should rule the day ... isn't that dogmatic?" Of course it is. Are you claiming yours isn't? I think *everyone's* viewpoint is dogmatic, and devil is making the case for any particular one. The difference between our viewpoints IMO, is that when I intend to "impose" freedom on people, they are still able to carry out their own feelings and dogmas for *themselves*, and other willing participants. When you do so, you limit all other people not only by prohibition against violence and fraud, which we both agree on I think, but then just keep on going, deciding who shall hire in ways you find acceptable, who shall educate in ways you find acceptable, who shall sell to willing consumers products you find acceptable, and on and on. And yet you are not the one hiring, or the one being hired. You are not the one selling a house or the one buying it. If you are, you have a right to set your own terms in any of these cases. If you are not, it's none of your buisness, it's *theirs*. The continual liberal insistence that you have more of a moral right to determine what goes on between other free individuals, than the people involved for their reasons, not yours, is the problem here. Whereas my "imposition" limits only violence and other narrowly defined violations of personal rights, you intend to reshape *all* of society to meet your *specific* end goals, regardless of who disagrees. The bottom line IMO, is my "dogma" is more inclusive of varying viewpoints and goals than yours, unless these goals can only be met using force. Under my dogma, you are entirely free to view society any way you choose and take personal action with *your* life to live as you think life should be lived, with only one exception... the prohibition of forcing others to live for your numerous goals. Under your system, this cannot be permitted because you cannot have what you seek *unless* you compel others in many, many ways to get where you want to go. My "dogma" is served as long as people are not defrauded or violently harmed. That's about it. Yours is not served without the servitude to a huge number of moral ends, each of which denies a persons right to make their own choices and live their irretrievable lifespans in the service of their morals, not yours. "it ain't just the liberals that have cornered the imperfect market on dogmatism." There may be others here who claim only liberals have dogma, I do not think I am one of those. "To dogmaitcally assert that your philosophies are somehow "right" is far more dogmatic than any liberal policy on environmental protection or social welfare. " I dogmatically assert that my philosophies preserve their right to their bodies, minds, and labor more than yours, not that I am right on an absolute scale. My philosophy is served when people serve themselves without violence or fraud, yours isn't served until they serve your specific ends by using threats until they do so. You certainly have a right to imagine a society you'd like to see, I very much disagree you have a right to detail so very much of other people's lives in order to make them serve it.

"So, it appears you were in fact arguing that the economy and commerce DO NOT NEED A STRONG FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. YOU EQUATED LANDS AND COMMERCE. " It appears we have a confusion in terms here, and it is my fault for making assumptions about how we view the same set of issues from drastically different perspectives. From my perspective, rule of law and enforcement are not the same as directing *outcomes* of commerce, such as interest rates, monopoly regulation (and creation) for example, which are examples of how some people expect a strong govt to fix desired outcomes of a free market, rather than upholding self determination and rule of law. When I say I expect an economy to not need a strong federal govt, that means I do not expect the federal govt to pick winners and losers, create "incentives" for one industry over another, pay subsidies, or any other number of marketplace manipulations which have nothing whatsoever to do with maintaining a currency or enforcing contract law between consenting parties. It's my fault for not making clear that I do not see a need for a strong federal govt in manipulating outcomes of a marketplace as the examples I have provided, but I do see a need (and a mandate) for one that preserves law that creates stable commerce due to reliable prohibition agaisnt fraud, and theft. My bad. I hope I've cleared it up a bit. "So, should each bank set its own interest rate?" Of course. "Should the government be left simply to enforce contracts?" Yes. "Where is the line that you draw?" The govt is mandated (IMO) to maintain a legal structure that preserves self determination, private property, enforcement of contracts, anti fraud, and other basic elements law. "Should the government encourage specific behaviors, such as buying an efificent car, with tax rebates?" No. Subsidies distort the market. "Should the government mandate fuel efficiency?" No. "Should the government tax dividends?" Not if they are already taxed elsewhere. "Should the government regulate accounting practices?" As relates to fraud prevention, yes. "Should the government regulate production processes to prevent externalized costs?" No. If market costs externalized from production can be assessed to the consumer, such as disposal of what they use, in a free market manner free of manipulation, that's perfectly acceptable. Having someone just decide what they think external costs "should" be, free of market forces, is not valid, because costs only apply if there is a market in the first place to determine them. "Should the government regulate consumption of our shared natural resources?" No. Free market prices regulate consumption in direct proportion to the cost of producing the resource. This is why subsidies for production should not be in place, it creates resources that are priced lower than actual production cost and in turn consumption rises to an artificially high level due to the unnaturally low price. "Should the government make it illegal to prevent women from voting?" Yes. "Should the government make it illegal to prevent a poll tax of $100?" Yes. "You seem to have this clear picture of exactly what the federal government should do. What is your principle and how do you apply it to specific policy issues?" The federal govt is to take care of national defense, foreign policy, currency maintaince, interpretation of the constitution, and other extremely high level issues. Not education. Not arts. Not a space program. Not retirement. Not medical care. Only the barest minimum of national, non social, issues that are delegated by the constitution. "It may be a matter of interpretation, but the document is written to GIVE authority to the government not take it away. The Tenth Amendment is actually the limiting clause of the constitution, but the framers viewed the Constitution as a GRANT of authority, which is why it was such a big deal to give up the power of self-determination." I agree it is a matter of interpretation, but in the end it works out the same, grant or limit, the powers not specifically vested in the fed by the constitution are reserved to the states or the people. This covers the areas I detailed above as having no federal mandate. "I don't quite get your point when you allege I think the Constitution makes what I want "convenient" or "efficient." " My mistake. Often I have been told that my gosh, if every state has to do the same thing, it won't be as efficient as one big body doing it all. I apologize if I was appearing to put words in your mouth, or did so. "You may not agree with many federal policies, but you are way off base (according to the Supreme Court) if you think the federal government has overstepped its constitutional authority in most of those cases. Your constitutional arguments fail in almost all cases. " That even the supreme court ignores the explicit instructions in the 10th as to jurisdiction over non mentioned powers is something I cannot explain other than a desire not to upset many applecarts, in favor of ignoring a very explicit amendment. The amendment specifically says those powers not delegated, or granted to use your terms, are not federal ones. This necessarily includes the issues I mentioned. "You would be better off arguing the policy issues and not some pie in the sky concept of what the federal government's roll in life should be." I do argue the policy issues, but without a pie in the sky goal no issues have direction or meaning. You asked above for principles, which are impossible to follow perfectly in practice, yet they provide direction and goals, so I submit pie in the sky ideas are vital and relevant to defining direction. "Where exactly do these rights come from?" Innately yours by right of birth. A secular but religious viewpoint. "Are you refering to a Constitutional "right" to control one's own resources - i.e. private property - however one wants without regard to the interests of other individuals or the common good?" No. Each of us judges the state of our constitution and our nation by our own principles, outside of any constitution, and applies them to what change we think is needed. "Is there some other source for the rights you hold so central to individual existence? What is the source of your basic guiding principles?" Your self ownership of your body and mind, and your labor and life. And others self ownership of their bodies and minds, and their labor. For all intents and purposes, the closest philosophy is Objectivism. The guiding principle is that save for using violence against others, taking their self determination via fraud, or other likewise crimes of person or property, your life and values are your own to live and determine. Any person with even a smattering of understanding realizes cooperation is extremely valuable, so these principles do not mean isolation, but it does mean giving up on "cooperation" at gunpoint, as a social tool. Thanks for the fun, great to have a principled opponent not given to personal attacks and a serious discussion. I apologize for my role in any confusion as I stated above.

"since when ours not being a parliamentary democracy is a good excuse for small interest groups dictating policy to the majority?" I can't really answer that for you, since I don't think it's an excuse, I believe it is a reason, and a good one. What I'm interested in is how you intend to justify any action you propose or support, since the same standard you propose for measuring majority, likewise will show a small number of people imposing their will on a majority.

"Whatever the reason for not voting may be, poor roads and lots of rain on election day, population disenfranchised from the political process (and often for good reasons), people drunk on hamburger and cable tv, etc ..." So what you are telling me is people not interested enough to vote, should be considered as having no say in the process when being drunk on hamburgers or cable TV is apparently trumping their desire to serve their own political goals, as they see them. Interesting. "In the end, the bottom line is: this society does not give itself the means to have a large fraction of its population going to the box, which results in specific social/interest groups controlling policy." The means are this. Any non felon of age is eligible to vote. Anyone interested in voting need merely register, then show up a few times a year *or* get an absentee ballot. Anyone so disinterested that they cannot make these very basic efforts to "franchise" themselves, is not exacly showing evidence of a commitment to saying their piece by vote, IMO. "So one last time since it apparently did not sink in: 18% of the potential vote is no mandate for radically changing policy. " Oh, it sinks in all right. Problem is we are not in a parliamentary system.

nothing as boring as a continuing saga of one liners, complaints about other posters, personal attacks, etc.

that just chokes me up, you can't imagine how much.

"What are you talking about? Which Constitution are you reading? Section 8 specifically calls out roads and interstate commerce. How are we supposed to have public companies and functioning markets without federal regulation?" Did I not say maintainance of law enforcement, rule of law, and contract enforcement? Is this not regulation of interstate commerce among other things? This is specifically why I mentioned them. And you'll please note I also *specifically* mentioned transportation. I notice you make no reference to the issues you quoted me on. "Have you read Section 8? It also calls out interstate commerce." I have addressed that. "How do you reconcile the conservatives' wail for a smaller government with respect to commerce yet a stronger and larger government with respect to the military?" I already have. *YOU* are the one claiming conservatives want all govt functions reduced, your misinterpretation of their stance does not make it their stance. I very much doubt you'll find many conservatives calling for smaller govt when it comes to defense. The main place they call for less govt is in the social arena where those who would manipulate social issues *directly* impinge on personal rights to free association, private property, and the right to control ones own resources, such as hiring, trade, among other issues. "You decry the influence of the federal government, but our economy would fail to function properly without the central rule of law governing our markets. This is precisely the reason Bush jumped all over the Enron and Woldcom scandles in an effort to assure the American investor that the markets would function properly with FEDERAL oversight of accounting and reporting laws." You do not seem to grasp what I have posted. I specifically mentioned law and contract enforcement as the proper role of govt. How do you square your accusations with what I clearly posted only a few posts back, the very post you are using to attack my positions, when I clearly state the proper function of the Fed is precisely what you claim I do not support? This makes no sense. The federal govt is not needed to make parents in states support education for their kids. Neither is it needed to make people want to save for their retirement, especially using an inescapable ponzii system which people are *obligated* by force to contribute to in spite of the fact of fiscal insolvency and low returns. You can support these issues all you like, that does not mean they cannot be done at the state level as detailed in the amendment. Lest you forget, the constitution is a document to *LIMIT* federal govt, not the people and not the states. Wether or not some program you prefer may be more "efficient" in your eyes if it's huge and federal, is simply not the point. The limits on federal control contained in the constitution do not exist to make what you want convenient or efficient, because the founders recognized that limits are necessary as any convenience can be jusitified by someone. "We are left with the reality that the conservatives only stick to the "small government" crap when it suits their biased needs." All I can see is the reality that what you are doing is misquoting those you disagree with, taking a position they do not hold in the first place, the representing it as theirs so you can attack it. Just like you have done with my post, as a perfect example. I say rule of law and contract is necessary for an economy, and federally and consitutionally mandated, then you ask me why I can't see rule of law is necessary for an economy when thats exactly what I said in the first place. I can't think of a clearer example of the problem here.

great post! It probably won't satisfy j_b, who is using the *total* number of possible voters to establish that no "majority" legitimizes mandates. That not voting is as much of a choice as voting, doesn't seem to make any difference to him. But since we now know what standard he uses for a "majority", he has kindly provided the leverage for us to deny any mandate exists for programs and policies he supports, using his very own standard of how one calculates a legitimate majority.

I'm sorry, ignoring that all voters have the opportunity to vote, and don't choose to, doesn't magically make the 18% or whatever immaterial. 100% did not did not go and place votes only to be ruled by the mean old 18%. Whatever their reasons for voting, or not voting, they had the chance, and I for one am not qualified to second guess their choices or reasons for one simple reason.. I am not them and I do not know their reasons. They're adults, with free will, able to make their own choices. Everyone had their choices, and they made them. Wether or not you recognize that, something you have difficulty with elsewhere as well, it doesn't indicate anything unusual. Count on your chosen method of determining vote legitimacy (percentage of votes cast out of total possible voters) as the yardstick for your claims in the future!