Op-Eds du jour

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,739
Reaction score
2,508
Points
113
Age
61
Location
Windsor, CT
Highly recommend going over to the burning platform for the Monday editorial. It is too long to copy and I can't find a link. here is one paragraph, the editorial is very long but well worth the read:

What difference does it make that the Federal government and the Federal Reserve created a combined $6 trillion out of thin air since March to supposedly help the average family, which equates to about $46,000 for every household in the country, but the average household received maybe $2,000 to $3,000 depending on their situation? A curious person might wonder where the other $5 trillion went. How about Wall Street banks, hedge funds, connected mega-corporations, and billionaire oligarchs as the recipients.

here
 
OP
tehmackdaddy

tehmackdaddy

post tenebras lux
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
19,200
Reaction score
1,989
Points
113
Location
IN the world, but not OF the world
I mean the Libertarian Party is anarchistic by nature.

I appreciate your response, but disagree with what I quoted.

Libertarians (only capitalized because it's the first word of this sentence) understand the need for government to enforce contracts, protect the inherent rights of people, and provide national defense.

I agree with you, and the article, in that too many lazily default to the NAP defense without considering the real world effects. Much like current advocates of socialism, they do not logically think out the secondary and tertiary effects of that policy strategy.

I consider myself a "country-club libertarian". Strong border control, but once you're "in the club" you get to enjoy the benefits (and suffer the consequences) of being left alone and free to make decisions for yourself.

I also fundamentally disagree with their stance on how people treat those who cannot defend themselves, mostly with regards to children. I acknowledge this creates a slope, and political slopes are always very slippery, but I believe in the defense of the defenseless.
 

foobahl

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
3,127
Reaction score
534
Points
113
Location
the only Henniker on earth
I appreciate your response, but disagree with what I quoted.

Libertarians (only capitalized because it's the first word of this sentence) understand the need for government to enforce contracts, protect the inherent rights of people, and provide national defense.

I agree with you, and the article, in that too many lazily default to the NAP defense without considering the real world effects. Much like current advocates of socialism, they do not logically think out the secondary and tertiary effects of that policy strategy.

I consider myself a "country-club libertarian". Strong border control, but once you're "in the club" you get to enjoy the benefits (and suffer the consequences) of being left alone and free to make decisions for yourself.

I also fundamentally disagree with their stance on how people treat those who cannot defend themselves, mostly with regards to children. I acknowledge this creates a slope, and political slopes are always very slippery, but I believe in the defense of the defenseless.

The problem with the last sentence is who defines defenseless. By liberal standards MS13 is defenseless.
 

foobahl

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
3,127
Reaction score
534
Points
113
Location
the only Henniker on earth
When I watch footage of the defenseless migrants crossing borders all across the globe the majority of the film I see is of healthy military aged young men demanding things. When President Trump says MS13 is coming across the border as refugees, he is ridiculed because MS13 doesn't really exist, kind of like Antifa. The media and progressives are calling these types of people defenseless with any pushback being buried as nationalistic or xenophobic.
 

Dwight Schrute

Deplorable #63174288
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
41,099
Reaction score
4,442
Points
113
Age
53
Location
America?s Hometown
When I watch footage of the defenseless migrants crossing borders all across the globe the majority of the film I see is of healthy military aged young men demanding things. When President Trump says MS13 is coming across the border as refugees, he is ridiculed because MS13 doesn't really exist, kind of like Antifa. The media and progressives are calling these types of people defenseless with any pushback being buried as nationalistic or xenophobic.

Sure.

Try sitting down publicly with the victims of Antifa or MS13 and telling them to their face those terroristic groups don’t exist.

These people are total assholes.
 

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
28,979
Reaction score
2,301
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
Way overdue to resurrect this fine thread...

‘Killing for optics’? Obama claims he ‘took no joy’ in drone strikes, but ordered them to avoid looking ‘soft on terrorism’​


Former US President Barack Obama has sparked an anti-war backlash after saying in his new memoir he “took no joy” in ordering deadly drone strikes, reasoning that his administration “couldn't afford to look soft on terrorism.”
The ex-president’s new book ‘A Promised Land’ sheds some light on the Obama administration’s controversial expansion of the US drone program, which was launched under his predecessor George W. Bush.
One of Obama’s original campaign promises was for US withdrawal from middle-eastern conflicts. However, that promise was not fulfilled during his eight years in office, and the Democrat is now often accused of having further escalated violence in the region through his policies in Libya, Syria, and elsewhere.

View: https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/1329172221844066305?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1329172221844066305%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F507180-obama-drone-strikes-book-emanuel%2F


In excerpts from the memoir published by Business Insider, Obama claims that his first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was “obsessed” with the administration’s infamous terrorist “kill list.” Rahm had “spent enough time in Washington to know that his new, liberal president couldn't afford to look soft on terrorism,” Obama writes.

Despite his willingness to ramp up the drone program, Obama confessed he “took no joy in any of this” and that it did not make him feel “powerful.” However, he adds that the work was “necessary” and that it was his responsibility “to make sure our operations were as effective as possible.”

However, the liberal political icon’s anti-war critics don’t typically argue that the drone program was ineffective, rather that it was more often than not imprecise, killing many civilians in the process. The ‘Drone Papers’ leak in 2015 revealed that, at least during one period, 90 percent of US drone strike victims were“not the intended targets.”

Obama infamously joked about the supposedly joyless drone strikes during a well-remembered White House Correspondents’ Dinner in 2010. The then-president jokingly threatened boyband the Jonas Brothers with assassination should they make a move on one of his daughters. “Boys, don't get any ideas,” he said, “I have two words for you: predator drones.”

It did not take long for Obama’s critics to express their outrage over the new book excerpt. He was accused of being “Machiavellian” for signing off on drone strikes “for optics.” Others were appalled by the idea that he would kill “to look tough.”


View: https://twitter.com/shaun_vids/status/1329349294093180928?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1329349294093180928%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F507180-obama-drone-strikes-book-emanuel%2F


View: https://twitter.com/Hector_E_Alcala/status/1329226732965154817?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1329226732965154817%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F507180-obama-drone-strikes-book-emanuel%2F


“I'm sure [his comments] makes the families of innocent civilian casualties feel better,”
another person wrote.

One person quipped that he had only “pretended to be into drone assassinations” so he would “have something to talk about with the generals.”

View: https://twitter.com/derrickokeefe/status/1329226720222724096?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1329226720222724096%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F507180-obama-drone-strikes-book-emanuel%2F


View: https://twitter.com/BuildingOrderFC/status/1329238870899240961?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1329238870899240961%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F507180-obama-drone-strikes-book-emanuel%2F



I believe every word of this. I believe Obama did not take any joy in his conversion of the Drone program from a small, limited target program to a global assassination juggernaught that it became. I believe it because I actually do not believe Obama enjoys murder the way many others in Washington do, but everything he said in his book that I have seen so far proves that he is exactly who I thought he was the whole time...not the man in charge, just a figurehead, never defying the advice he got from anyone and standing on his own principles, but instead sacrificing whatever will and principles he had in obeyance to the pressures of the swamp. He was, is, and always will be, "the community organizer", not "the man in charge".

I have to say, though, that he deserves credit for coming clean, at least on the drone strikes, and admitting that he wasn't really making his own decisions there, but instead was doing what he was told. All those dead women at least got some small justice in that.
 

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,740
Reaction score
1,838
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH


Excerpt:

"In “The Assault on Corporations” (TOS, Fall 2020), I showed that the economic power of a corporation is fundamentally different from the political power of government. Whereas economic power is the ability to produce and trade, political power is the legal authority to use physical force against people. Government acts legitimately when it uses force to protect people from criminals and hostile nations. But it often acts illegitimately, using force to violate people’s rights. A corporation can have vast economic power, but unlike government, it has no legal authority to force anyone to do anything. Despite this, people often conflate economic power with political power, incorrectly ascribing political power to corporations.

"Although corporations lack direct political power, some critics retort, this misses the point. They use their economic power to unduly influence government. Corporations thus wield political power, the argument goes, because they gain control over those who have it. “These massive concentrations of economic power,” says former secretary of labor Robert Reich, “generate political clout that’s easily abused.”1 Liz Kennedy from the Center for American Progress says, “America faces a crisis of corporate capture of democratic government, where the economic power of corporations has been translated into political power with disastrous effects for people’s lives.”2 Or as Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Noam Chomsky puts it, “The corporations set the conditions within which the government operates, and control it to a large extent.”3 This control encompasses both parties. “The corporate political machines,” journalist Chris Hedges writes, “control the Republicans and Democrats.”4"
 

foobahl

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
3,127
Reaction score
534
Points
113
Location
the only Henniker on earth
 

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,740
Reaction score
1,838
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
Because today is William F. Buckley’s birthday, conservatives will celebrate and pretend that he was a man of principle, civility, dignity.

He was not.

William F. Buckley was cowardly, dishonest, unjust, and racist.

Set aside the trivia that he occasionally challenged communists. So do fascists, theocrats, and anarchists. Saying “down with communism” is not what matters in the moral-political sphere. What matters is being able and willing to defend freedom and capitalism on solid moral and philosophic ground.

Who showed the world how to do that? Ayn Rand did.

How did Buckley treat Rand—the one philosopher in all of history who identified the objective moral foundation for individual rights? He treated her horribly. He misrepresented her ideas, mocked the straw men he fabricated, and made this the MO of his magazine, National Review.

Why? Because Rand required evidence in support of the ideas she accepted as true; consequently, she was an atheist. And Buckley couldn’t countenance an atheist—no matter her virtues—because his parents, priests, and fraternity brothers would disapprove.

Among other acts of injustice against Rand, in National Review, which he edited from 1955 to 1990, Buckley published a patently dishonest “review” of Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged…

[Continue reading » William F. Buckley: Cowardly, Dishonest, Unjust, Racist, and Loved by Conservatives - The Objective Standard]
 

HSanders

omitted out of respect to Mrs.Jastremski
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
25,537
Reaction score
3,605
Points
113
Location
on Pats Planet
LOVE Stossel.
This story, he wrote in one of his books. I have read all of them, and loved them all. We certainly were not taught this in school.
 
Last edited:

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,740
Reaction score
1,838
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
LOVE Stossel.
This story, he wrote in one of his books. I have read all of tbem, and loved them all. We certainly were not taught this in school.

Yeah, he's great. I remember a TV special he did in the 90's called, "Are We Scaring Ourselves To Death?" Been a fan ever since.
 

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,740
Reaction score
1,838
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
"It is widely known that the early Pilgrims came to the New World to escape religious persecution. What is lesser known is that their spiritual adventure was also a commercial enterprise. Today’s self-identified democratic socialists like to claim real socialism has never been tried in America, but they need to brush up on their history. The Pilgrims did try it — and it failed."
-- Helen Raleigh

 

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,740
Reaction score
1,838
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
This is too long to post but it's from my age long friend, economist and financial guy Richard Salsman. If you find this of of value give a click and a read. He and that site deserve it.

"The ten varieties of anti-capitalism are anarchism, medievalism, nationalism, socialism, communism, fascism, populism, racism, environmentalism, and subjectivism."

To defend capitalism one must uphold Reason, Objectivity Egoism, Individual Rights and Constitutionalism. To succeed in their opposition, the enemies of capitalism must undermine these core principles in whole or in part.

https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/.../ten-varieties-of.../
 
Top