quote:

Originally posted by Buck "Sweetie" McGuck:
If Kerry were the one who wanted to cut taxes and Bush were the one proposing socialized medicine, I'd want Kerry to win, but I'd feel bad that we'd have a "Giant Douche" be president instead of a "Turd Sandwich".

I get the feeling that you wouldn't feel that bad!

I didn't say that I'm impossible to describe, exactly. I just didn't want to bring out the word libertarian. It's like the economist political party. Take a republican's desire to cut taxes and government spending, multiply it by a hundred, legalize drugs, abolish the minimum wage, cut all import tariffs, and you've got the libertarian ideal.

I actually got into indie music because I stopped finding enjoyment in arguing about politics. Musicians and music lovers tend to have political beliefs, so I often will lapse back into doing it.

quote:

Originally posted by Buck "Sweetie" McGuck:
I didn't say that I'm impossible to describe, exactly. I just didn't want to bring out the word libertarian. It's like the economist political party. Take a republican's desire to cut taxes and government spending, multiply it by a hundred, legalize drugs, abolish the minimum wage, cut all import tariffs, and you've got the libertarian ideal.

I've got a lot of sympathies with libertarians. I'm not as enamored with the free market as they are...which isn't to say I'm anti-market, I just don't think the market is the answer to all the world's problems. I hang out with a lot of economists, and their faith in the market is pretty amazing.

What's the deal with the new breed of social conservative libertarians, though? Rabid free market libertarians who seem to drop the libertarian line when it comes to drugs, sex, religion, etc.? There are a bunch of them on our campus, and I can't figure them out.

pE, there are a "bunch of free-market libertarians" at your campus who DON'T believe in the legalization of drugs???

If you drop the drugs and sex part of libertarianism, you're just a big Reagan fan.

By the way, I have a 3-photo frame with pictures of Reagan. I had the frame, but no photos to put in it. Reagan had just died, and Newsweek had a long article on his life. I cut out the pictures from the magazine. I was like, "These will do until I get some real photos." I haven't taken any photos since then.

EDIT: The word for stuff that can't be dealt with market transactions is called externalities. Externalities are things that happen to a third party when a normal transaction occurs. An extreme case is the externality I impose on you when I hire a hitman to shoot you. A more typical example is when I use the stereo I legally bought from Best Buy to keep my neighbors from sleeping at 3AM.

There is lots of writing on this subject. When you get into this stuff, you take a step out of economics and market transactions and into law and legal rules.

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
pE, there are a "bunch of free-market libertarians" at your campus who DON'T believe in the legalization of drugs???

Yep. They love the market, but they're also religious conservatives who are opposed to drugs, homosexuality, gay marriage, et al. I just don't see the position having any consistency.

And, as far the externalities go, Sweetie, I'm on board. I have worked with a Nobel Prize winning economist whose career was built on the exploration of externalities and instituion (Douglass North), and I realize the frictionless market models are just that...models! But what kills me is the failure to recognize that all decisions aren't merely economic ones. I understand why people like the law and economics movement...I just don't think it offers all of the answers they claim it does. But, to be honest, I haven't spent that much time with it. I'm teaching Philosophy of Law next fall for the first time...maybe I'll get a better handle on it there.

quote:

Originally posted by RayRay:
PE, the "pull you head out of your ass" comment was not meant to be a diss...that's an informal kind of "wake up" expression we use out here. The key difference is this: The right to free speech must be preserved. I agree to this and so does O'Reilly (based on his coverage of this Churchhill story). At the same time, responding to somebody else's hateful speech is also to be encouraged. That's called the marketplace of ideas - free exchange of thought.

I don't belong to either party, and have views which are extremely unpopular with both parties. I watch CNN, MSNBC, AND Fox News. Independent thought, my friends!

Fair enough. RayRay. I don't see O'Reilly as a staunch defender of the freedom of speech, given that he rarely lets people actually speak. And the tone of the whole series on the anti-American professors was pretty inflammatory.

I think you can EASILY take apart Churchill's essay on non-emotive grounds. It's certainly inflammatory and unpleasant...but it's also flat-out wrong. Churchill completely misunderstands just war theory and that sinks his whole project.

As for your last point, I could read that in one of two ways:

1. That you are merely pointing out that your balance of views leads you to be a free thinker.

2. That you're accusing me of NOT being a free thinker because you don't like my accusations about Fox News.

I trust you're doing the former, because you know nothing about how I make my decisions. I've had a debate on this topic with a good friend lately, and he's constantly accusing me of buying some liberal "agenda" without considering all sides of the story. He knows me very well, and he's flat wrong. I listen to and read media from the Left and the Right regularly. I voted for Kerry, but I also voted for Kit Bond. There's been a lot of noise made (on both sides) about people simply buying what their party is selling, and I'm sure that it's the case with MANY people. But I don't like those on the Right who accuse me of being athoughtless puppet of some mythical left media merely because I hold some views they don't like. And the same can be said for those on the Right who are being blasted by those on the Left.

quote:

Originally posted by philosopherEric:


As for your last point, I could read that in one of two ways:

1. That you are merely pointing out that your balance of views leads you to be a free thinker.

2. That you're accusing me of NOT being a free thinker because you don't like my accusations about Fox News.

I trust you're doing the former

Yes, I was doing the former. Whenever I mention something that I saw on Fox, I get that awkward glance, like I'm an indoctrinated Roger Ailes-Head. Was merely showing that I do get at least some balance in my cable TV coverage. Of course I don't know anything about your decision-making, other than what you say on these boards.

Off the topic: Just saw Hillary on Meet the Press today with John McCain. If Hillary is sincere in the positions she's taking these days, she'd make a darned good candidate for President in my opinion. However, if you're like many and believe that she runs to the center and intends to govern from the left, it may take some time to flesh that out. The centrist days of Bill may be a thing of the past.

Also, did anyone catch the Harry Reed interview with Alan Colmes last week? I had no idea that he was pro-life. That takes a lot of guts for the Democrats to pick a leader who is pro life. I never would have thought in a million years that the current makeup of the Dems would have allowed that. However, when pinned down on whether he'd prefer to make abortion illegal by Colmes, he balked and literally answered: "I'm not sure exactly what Legal means in this context" Comedy.

quote:

Originally posted by RayRay:


Off the topic: Just saw Hillary on Meet the Press today with John McCain. If Hillary is sincere in the positions she's taking these days, she'd make a darned good candidate for President in my opinion. However, if you're like many and believe that she runs to the center and intends to govern from the left, it may take some time to flesh that out. The centrist days of Bill may be a thing of the past.

Hilary might the best of a weak pool of candidates. The Democrats haven't had anyone with any real charisma since 'ol Bill. I'm not sure whether or not to believe Hilary's sincerity, but I guess I'll have to take her on her word.

Honestly, I'd be just as happy with McCain in office as I would Hilary.

The joke from SNL a few weeks ago is a propos: (roughly paraphrased)
"Hilary Clinton is considering running for President in 2008. The Democratic party has supported this idea in an effort to find new and different ways of getting their asses handed to them."

Alright guys...I didn't want to get into this, and probably shouldn't, but I just felt the need to say a few things. Just take it easy on me (which you probably won't).

Honestly pE, I did catch O'Reilly on Churchhill and, at least on the show I saw, did in fact state that he should not be fired. No need to go into O'Reilly's opinions any further.
I guess, when it comes to the issues, I feel passionately about many things, some because of personal beliefs and others because I think it just makes sense. Let me disclaim: Most of you know my opinions, but we MUST be free thinkers and I believe it our civil duty to look at all sides of every issue. That being said, I don't agree with everything Bush has done, mainly in regards to his initial approach to the invasion of Iraq. I would never go there and tell the people that I wish we never would have been there and they never would have had a chance to vote. I deal with strategy every day and know how important it is to the success of a business. Even more so to the success of a military campaign. We needed a better strategy on how we planned to deal with guerilla fighting in the cities and how we planned to get out. Now, moving on. In this next segment, I may say some ridiculous things, only to make a point.

Is it silly to think that something with 10 fingers, 10 toes, a beating heart and a learning brain is living? (now here's where it gets crazy, but just stop and think about all this for a second). As long as we are talking about rights and freedoms and "convenience" and choice, why not get serious. For sake of the illustration, I've got a 1 year old daughter. I have decided I really don't have the time to deal with her in my life right now. She can not live on her own. She needs me just as much as when she was inside my wife. But, she has become a burden and an inconvenience now, so I think I'll just take her out back to the wood shed and put my 12 gauge to her head. I mean, it's my life, right? I come first. It is my CHOICE. Now, as ridiculous as that sounds, stop a second. All of you that have children, think about them. Whatever it is they are doing right now...Playing in the living room, coloring in a coloring book (do kids still do that?). What would you do without them? Now, think about all the kids in the world that never had a chance to have a mom and dad. They never had the chance to learn how to play ball or tie their shoes or count to ten. Is it silly to care about them?

I was in the theater department at UNI when I first started college. I had many gay friends there that I partied with alot and enjoyed hanging out with. Do I agree with their lifestyle? No. Maybe it's crazy, but I just have a hard time believing God created man and woman to procreate and then said to Adam, "oh, by the way, you can stick your penis in another mans anus if you want. I know I made it to be used to relieve one's self of waste, but hey, whatever." And I know this has become a horrible concept these days, but I believe the worst thing that can happen to a child is to not grow up with a mom and dad.

Now, if the average American would just spend all of 10 minutes with a little research (which I have done plenty of) and find a good fund (I highly recommend American Funds), they would be good to go. I would MUCH rather take my chances than leave my money to the government and get a few pennies when I retire. But that leads us to the next problem (and here's where I get in trouble)...the modern liberal has done more to hurt the great people of this nation that any government in history. Instead of empowering and educating, they say "oh, you don't want to get off your ass and find a job? That's ok, just continue to rot away in your house and we'll PAY YOU FOR IT!!!! WOOHOO!!! HOW DOES THAT SOUND?!!!" It is not too hard to figure out that tax-and-spend legislation hurts the economy. It also doesn't take half a brain to see that no socialistic society in history has EVER worked. Just think about this for a second: Rich is a political term. What it really means is hard working. So, I have an idea...let's take from the people that have spent their whole lives working 80 hours a week trying and failing until they finally made it work and are now reaping the rewards...and give it to the people who would rather pass on an education...couldn't care less about a job (no, I'm not talking about the people that are really trying but can't find work)...until we are all...THE SAME...mindless drones just being content with our lives...taking government handouts to be content. And eventually driving this great experiment which is the United States, right into the ground...back to the stone age. Our founding fathers would weep.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't have a problem with our country defending itself, whatever the cost. pE, we have discussed 24 and, while it is fiction, I would think we would do whatever it takes to prevent something like that from happening. If our President has weighed ALL and I mean ALL options extensively and feels that another country is a danger to our nation, then I have no problem invading it. I know, it sucks. Trust me, I hate war. I have been very affected by films like "The Killing Fields". But, if we do nothing, we won't have a nation to defend much longer. This is not the Vietnam mess any more, where that nation might affect the one next to it, and who knows, it might eventually get back to us, so we better get in there and do something! I don't know what, besides get a lot of our boys killed, but hey...LOCK AND LOAD! No, this is real. They hate us with every fiber in their bodies and want our Nation destroyed. That's why they brought our towers down. That's the hard facts of the times we live in.

I better quit for now. I really enjoy these discussions with you guys. I think it makes us all better people.

quote:

Originally posted by JackietheBlade:


Is it silly to think that something with 10 fingers, 10 toes, a beating heart and a learning brain is living? (now here's where it gets crazy, but just stop and think about all this for a second). As long as we are talking about rights and freedoms and "convenience" and choice, why not get serious. For sake of the illustration, I've got a 1 year old daughter. I have decided I really don't have the time to deal with her in my life right now. She can not live on her own. She needs me just as much as when she was inside my wife. But, she has become a burden and an inconvenience now, so I think I'll just take her out back to the wood shed and put my 12 gauge to her head. I mean, it's my life, right? I come first. It is my CHOICE. Now, as ridiculous as that sounds, stop a second. All of you that have children, think about them. Whatever it is they are doing right now...Playing in the living room, coloring in a coloring book (do kids still do that?). What would you do without them? Now, think about all the kids in the world that never had a chance to have a mom and dad. They never had the chance to learn how to play ball or tie their shoes or count to ten. Is it silly to care about them?

I like your sentiment, and your example...it's an argument that some prominent philosophers who have defended abortion (Mary Anne Warren, for one) have had to bite the bullet on. There's not a major substantive difference between a 9 month fetus in utero and a two day old baby, excepting the lack of the physical connection. The only problem is where we draw the line. You point to fingers, toes, a heart, and a brain, and I think that's what a lot of people (even pro-choicers) would agree with. But there are plenty of points BEFORE the fetus is even a fetus (when it's still a zygote or a conceptus) that it lacks those things. It fails to even RESEMBLE a human being...it's more like a lima bean. If you take a hard line, and deny abortion at any point (using your "all the kids in the world" argument), I think you're committed to claiming that very early abortion, the morning after pill, and even contraception deprives potential human beings of a future...and would seem to be immoral and/or impermissible. And that's a hard line to pull.

For the record, I'm pro-choice (not actively so) but I think there's something to be said for people who are pro-choice but admit they could never have an abortion themselves. There's a difference between endorsing a right and actually being willing to USE that right.

I also think that is Democrats want to play to middle, they should concede that abortion after 20 weeks (the standard point at which the fetus is REALLY like a person) should be done only to save the life of the mother.

I, too, like these debates. My initial anger at RayRay's rhetoric doesn't change the fact that I liked the discussion. And I agree with him more than I disagree with him.

Thanks for your comments pE. I really appreciate them. I do have a hard time with where to draw that line. The one decision that my wife and I have made (or rather, I made) is just what you mentioned. No matter what stage of pregnacy she is in, if the decision has to be made as to whether we take her life or the babies, as hard as it will be, I told her I will save her life. I told her we can have more babies, but I can't have another Elizabeth.

It's also really hard to contextualize the abstract when you're not faced with the REALITY. My wife is an OB-GYN nurse and is pretty strongly pro-choice, although she's never worked in a hospital where abortions were actually performed. And I've thought about (and taught) the issue a lot. But it's a totally different thing when it hits home...we've got a baby on the way, and the way I think about how I (or, more aptly, WE) would make a decision changes when you're thinking about an ACTUAL cluster of cells that shares your genetic material, and not just an idea of one.

I bet it does. We are waiting a few more years before we start having kids, but are getting more excited about it the more we are around my neices and nephew (not to mention that all her friends are pregnant right now). Congrats on the baby. When is she due? (I've got some stogies waiting!)

She's not due until mid-August. Still too early to know the gender or anything concrete, but there is an audible heartbeat.

The ultrasound looks like a bean.

I'm hoping for a child with some sort of superpowers...heat vision, walks through walls, prehensile tail...but my wife's not so keen on that!

Hey, that sounds like a reasonable request to me. She should just be glad you're not asking for it to be like the baby from The Incredibles! What a great movie by the way! Can't come out soon enough.

So recap. the political debates, then onto abortion, then onto pE's kid, and a new blooming friendship between Jackie and pE. Gee what great message boards!!

quote:

Originally posted by Nickel-Z:
So recap. the political debates, then onto abortion, then onto pE's kid, and a new blooming friendship between Jackie and pE. Gee what great message boards!!

It's a wild world, ain't it?

I think one of the real virtues of these boards is that everyone is pretty damn cool. All of the regulars here, even when they disagree, are good people. Even the people who I've had heated disagreements with are people I'd consider my friends, as far as you can consider people you've never met in person as friends.

While the Internet sometimes pushes people to be more aggressive and belligerent than they might have been in person (and breeds trollers and spammers), it also allows for so much contact with people who would have never met. I never had a pen pal as a kid...I've got over a thousand of them now!

Congrats on the child, PE, may it have all of its fingers and toes and a cute little nose.

Pardon me for interrupting the lovefest but I am going to have to get back to politics.

I really don't know how to think of the very large problems that we are having overseas. I see three countries as potential threats to America, Iran, Russia, and China. Unfortunately Bush only wants to get involved with the trading between Russia and Iran, but China is a serious threat. Of course, mentioning China would mean that we are willing to actual do something about it. China is hording weapons getting stronger and stronger but America had well over a 150 billion dollar trading deficit with them, so they are much more powerful than us. I am really looking for some other opinions on these issues, what is everybody's take on this?

Mike, I think an outstanding issue that is at the core of all of the politics is the fact that we are in a war that we don't necessarily feel anything for. I'd like to blame the media but its just a lack of knowledge of the country. Therefor we don't know the enemy, which makes it awkward. My friend has just enlisted, and he doesn't even know who hes fighting. AND THATS what pisses me off about Bush. He could DIE, and not even know why or what the purpose was. Bush is a dumbass to put us all through this.