olyclimber

Wow, thanks for your post Dane. There is a ton of great information in there, thanks for sharing it.

Well said. It reminds me of a cold-war era joke: A Russian and an American were arguing about whose country was better, and the American claimed that he was more free: "I can go to Washington DC, stand in front of the White House and yell that the president of the US is a son of a bitch". To which the Russian replied: "So what? I can go to Moscow, and stand in front of the Kremlin and yell... that the president of the US is a son of a bitch." yes.....and?

Here is the dirt. He did not have sexual relations with that woman. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Dude....c'mon...are you really worried about food? Are you hungry? Can I make you a sammich? by the way, just saving this quote for when it turns out i'm right and we're all posting on cc.com in a post-apocalyptic era as cannibals. and i'll be here saying "I TOLD YOU SO!"

in the coming apocalypse, even a BLT will be hard to find.

it does beg the question: how does morality fit in with your undying commitment to the open market? does it have a price like everything else? It's derived from the same principles that define personal morality in a liberal society. "When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as "concessions" to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends. It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal. In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - bet he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others." From Hayek's "Why I am not a Conservative." I think that this is one of the more elegant and concise defenses of (classical) liberalism out there. Read it and you will have a substantial answer to your question. http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46 thanks will read when i get a moment

Do you really believe that statement? The best statement of the liberal moral code is that nothing that transpires between consenting mentally competent adults, or that adults who meet the same qualifications do to themselves can properly be called immoral. Protecting individuals from being forcibly deprived of their rights or liberties by the actions of others is thus the prime end of the state in a liberal society. This is not moral? Using force to compel people who are not harming anyone else to abide by a particular standard of conduct defined by a particular moral code represents a higher moral standard? tell that to the conservative party. you know the party of the moral majority? by the way, i didn't say "The liberal society doesn't have a sound moral basis?". I'm not sure what you mean by the term "liberal" here since it has been perverted into a negative meaning by a certain segment of society. i think there is a basis, i'm also surprised at times how narrow it can be.

it does beg the question: how does morality fit in with your undying commitment to the open market? does it have a price like everything else?

there will be other wars. 100 years. etc. take your pick and be happy. being a hater does not become you.

tea-bagging. is that the art of making tea bags or the art of using tea bags?

how much money do you have?

no...just that it considers morality. like...is it moral to kill someone in cold blood? should we let the open market decide that?

now there's an oxymoron! Have you gone over to the darkside? just another america hater.

obviously that isn't something that supports the idea of the end game of human development as an organism made optimally efficient by the open market! maybe it has something to do with morality?

Thank goodness for that. Lets hold hands and run through the fields of clover. That and go to some Mariners games before the world collapses around us.

Peter, lets hear who you're supporting. Is it that guy who is promising to continue the policies of that guy with the 19% approval rating?

The hell with that. Where's my f'in welfare check?!?!? dude, you forgot to pay the mail bill.

here is an uplifting story brought to you by THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23258104/

now up against the wall so that you can be protected by HLS.

its just a empty promise, a pipe dream...this hope you speak of will only disappoint.

http://xkcd.com/386/

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802200001

http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125077.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080215151215.htm