I still fail to understand...

... how a group of people who pretend to be against the government and suspicious of its activities are so loyal to bankrupt statist pseudo-philosophies like "liberals" and the "conservatives".

Both of these cults worship the state and extol a powerful government which has its hand in your pockets and its eyes in your private life.

The right-wing fascists are doing their best to destroy the Senate with their anti-debate propositions, are borrowing the nation into penury, insist on telling you how to live your private life, and so on.

The left-wing fascists, on the other hand, want to steal your money for their crackpot social schemes, and systematically try to disarm anyone who might disagree with them.

And you lap-dog excuses for citizens align yourselves on one meaningless side or the other and cheer on the thug of your choice...

...as if it made any difference.

[edit on 21-4-2005 by Off_The_Street]

Draft Ron Paul to run for President! (as long as he loses).

I admit I'm partial to thugs, but only of the opposition variety (not the fascist). And any opposition will do.

Ideally, a sort of non-partisan, non-fringe majority opinion should evolve on every issue with a little appropriate prodding and illumination from opposition thugs, but the advent of mass (and I mean MASS) media propaganda has made every variety of fascist wing nut in this country a majority of one (in his or her own mind). That's the fake fanatical divide of "fair & balanced" screaming heads.

It's pretty bad. Checks and balances are a good thing, even in opinion. But the false presentation of radicalism as mainstream is neither a check or balance. So the idea of a "Reform" Party (or any organized, default staist, pseudo revolt) is just as distasteful to me as making an eco-bully or theo-bully our next fascist King.

Ron Paul is a perfect example of the moderately partisan Libertarian Conservative opposition thug. He's brilliant to a point and invaluable always. But getting rid of all those "crackpot social schemes" (including the Department of Education) is a "crackpot social scheme."

I think America is a crackpot social scheme in and of itself worth defending, as I've grown quite fond of it. Same with the middle class. What a crackpot idea that was, but people seem to like it.

Another example (from my "liberal" side) of what I deem appropriate opposition: I really don't give a hoot about people having all the guns they want. Lock and load my friend. And as far as I can tell there's no majority opinion seeking to disarm anyone. Until of course, a Ted Nugent type demands Americans get "radical" in their rights to carry flamethrowers on airplanes, then I must oppose.

But I do applaud this bit of "social engineering" to remind us crackpots we're supposed to be crackpots for the opposition, not authority.


[edit on 22-4-2005 by RANT]

RANT says:

"Draft Ron Paul to run for President! (as long as he loses)."

Ron Paul left the US House in 1987 to take the 1988 Libertarian Party nomination for president. He ran a fifty-state campaign in 1988 and lost, despite the efforts of his supporters, inculding the Arizona Paul for President Committee vice-chairman (yours truly).

"I admit I'm partial to thugs, but only of the opposition variety (not the fascist). And any opposition will do."

That is exactly what both of the old parties want to see. A crushing majority of the people who are against "conservatives" would probably call themselves "progressioves" or "liberals", and vice versa.

But such opposition is, in the final analysis, meaningless. The voter who does so merely trades in a party that steals your rights and property for a party that steals your rights and your property. Look at the level of debate today:

"You can have my gun when you pry it..." and "abortion is murder!"

compete against

"Don't take away a woman's right to choose" and "...but what do you NEED a gun for, anyway?"

What kind of a choice is that? Both the "liberals" and the "conservatives" think that you and I are too stupid to make up our own minds and we need a big and intrusive government to do so for us.

The only rights they want to preserve are those that they personally approve of; any others are grist for the tyranny-mill.

The same "conservative" hypocrites who howl against the concept of fat welfare mothers have no problem at all in giving the same kind of welfare to corporations; and the same "liberal" hypocrites who rail against religious right-wing nuts conquering the airwaves have no problem at all cheering on any religionist who supports their agenda of liberation theology, gay marriage, and moral relativism.

"Ideally, a sort of non-partisan, non-fringe majority opinion should evolve on every issue with a little appropriate prodding and illumination from opposition thugs, but the advent of mass (and I mean MASS) media propaganda has made every variety of fascist wing nut in this country a majority of one (in his or her own mind). That's the fake fanatical divide of "fair & balanced" screaming heads."

Yes, and every partisan "liberal" and "conservative" I meet seems to buy into that divide.

But the concept of a "majority opinion" itself is a dangerous one. There is no tyranny worse than a democracy; it's ever so much easier to run rampant over a few nut-burgs than it is to oppress a proletarian mass.

"... the false presentation of radicalism as mainstream is neither a check or balance."

It seemed a pretty good check and balance to George Hanover and Lord North in the late seventeen hundreds!

Let's face it: today's "radical" is tomorow's "common sense". Indeed, if we look back to the founding fathers, today's "radical" was yesterday's common sense! An overweening militaristic state and a hyperbureaucratic socialist Mary Poppins are our heritage from two of the most radical fascists (one right-wing, one left-wing) in the Republic's history. It is a testimony to their claque of cheerleaders -- and the ability of us to forget the lessons of history -- that we now considers Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln as two of the greatest Presidents in history.

Yeah, right; and Robespierre was a great defender of democracy, too.

"So the idea of a "Reform" Party (or any organized, default staist, pseudo revolt) is just as distasteful to me as making an eco-bully or theo-bully our next fascist King."

No argument there, RANT; why trade one anti-freedom pig for another?

"...getting rid of all those "crackpot social schemes" (including the Department of Education) is a 'crackpot social scheme.' "

There was no Department of Education until Jimmy Carter paid back the teacher-unions for their support in 1976. And in their thirty years, the Depeartment of Eduation has been responsible for such advances in education and the state of our citizen's competitiveness and intellect as ... as....

Can I get back to you on that?

"I think America is a crackpot social scheme in and of itself worth defending, as I've grown quite fond of it. Same with the middle class. What a crackpot idea that was, but people seem to like it."

There's a big difference between a crackpot social scheme of offering everyone an equal opportunity, regardless of their sex, race, religion, etc; and a crackpot scheme which equates "equality" with "equality of results".

One expands liberties, the other constrains it.

"....Until of course, a Ted Nugent type demands Americans get "radical" in their rights to carry flamethrowers on airplanes, then I must oppose."

I can live with that. Fortunately, there are a vanishingly small number of people so twisted that they demand things like partial birth abortions or flamethrowers on aircraft (thank God).

"But I do applaud this bit of "social engineering" to remind us crackpots we're supposed to be crackpots for the opposition, not authority."

Not me, RANT. I'm a crackpot for freedom.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Ron Paul left the US House in 1987 to take the 1988 Libertarian Party nomination for president. He ran a fifty-state campaign in 1988 and lost, despite the efforts of his supporters, inculding the Arizona Paul for President Committee vice-chairman (yours truly).

That's awesome O_T_S! The part about working for a Paul Presidency I mean. I've read about it in the past few years, but didn't know a thing about him in '88. I was partial to the fornicator Gary Hart in the primaries. Sure glad we got the fornicator lobby together by '92.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
That is exactly what both of the old parties want to see. A crushing majority of the people who are against "conservatives" would probably call themselves "progressioves" or "liberals", and vice versa.

But such opposition is, in the final analysis, meaningless. The voter who does so merely trades in a party that steals your rights and property for a party that steals your rights and your property. Look at the level of debate today:

"You can have my gun when you pry it..." and "abortion is murder!"

compete against

"Don't take away a woman's right to choose" and "...but what do you NEED a gun for, anyway?"

What kind of a choice is that? Both the "liberals" and the "conservatives" think that you and I are too stupid to make up our own minds and we need a big and intrusive government to do so for us.

The only rights they want to preserve are those that they personally approve of; any others are grist for the tyranny-mill.

I'm both an advocate of correctly framed, single issue, uncomplicated debate (with a healthy dose of public opinion polls) and optimized, logically consistent platform packaging. Yeah, I'm part of the problem. Used to be anyway, and have much atonement to do for all those years of political polling for Georgia Republicans (boy they love to push). It was actually a pleasure to occasionally work for a commie like the Atlanta-Journal Constitution or those marxist bastards at CNN. They give people options: Should Clinton be Tarred and Feathered, Drawn and Quartered, Hung, or All of the Above?

This is the "opposition" theory again, to support I'll now quote Karl Rove (shame on me):

Washington Post (4/20/05)

"I'm not sure I've talked about the liberal media," Rove said when a student inquired -- a decision he said he made "consciously." The press is generally liberal, he argued, but "I think it's less liberal than it is oppositional."

And the press should be oppositional to a certain extent in my mind, as should the people. I'm not saying commit treason or don't defend your country, but "support" your oppressors? Hogwash. Question them.

Rove goes on though to lament the press is antogonistic to the exlcusion of facts...

The argument -- similar to the one that former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer made in his recent book -- is nuanced, nonpartisan and, to the ears of many journalists, right on target. "Reporters now see their role less as discovering facts and fair-mindedly reporting the truth and more as being put on the earth to afflict the comfortable, to be a constant thorn of those in power, whether they are Republican or Democrat," Rove said.

His indictment of the media -- delivered as part of Washington College's Harwood Lecture Series, named for the late Washington Post editor and writer Richard Harwood -- had four parts: that there's been an explosion in the number of media outlets; that these outlets have an insatiable demand for content; that these changes create enormous competitive pressure; and that journalists have increasingly adopted an antagonistic attitude toward public officials. Beyond that, Rove argued that the press pays too much attention to polls and "horse-race" politics, and covers governing as if it were a campaign.

But that man is living in a fantasy world if he wants more facts about his policies in the media, though I'm happy to provide the off topic context of his statement to not exclude any "facts" myself.

Back on topic, I pretty much agree with everything you've said O_T_S, so I'll just hit where maybe I don't or especially do.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
But the concept of a "majority opinion" itself is a dangerous one. There is no tyranny worse than a democracy; it's ever so much easier to run rampant over a few nut-burgs than it is to oppress a proletarian mass.

I agree. Which is why I'll always reserve the right to be more "liberal" fascist than "libertarian" fascist. But it's so nice when the majority is "right" (and agree with me). I just dislike fake "majorities" wedged together on false frames... back to the platform concept. If it's not logically consistent, get it out of there.

I also agree America is radical, common sense is radical and most of our "heros" were much more complicated cases than the legacies make out. Which is why I'd never insult Robespierre with any alignment to that Imperialist tyrant Lincoln.

[edit on 22-4-2005 by RANT]