WashingtonTimes: Voight: Is Obama creating a civil war in America?

[Mad Mike]

So our Founding Fathers were insane? :no:

No. The Libertarian interpretation of their vision is insane.

[Hubbs]

You know what's so weird about this, for 8 years while democrats felt like the company was going down the ****ter, the rally cry was "I'm gonna have to leave this country." They got bashed for it, but it was definitely mentioned. I said it once or twice... at least in my mind.

However, now that Republicans or Libertarians or anything on the right of the "spectrum" is pissed off and they are talking about "taking it back." Or the really crazy ones talk about Civil War. I just think its weird how the two sides had totally different reactions to being in a position of minority/inferiority in U.S. politics.

Just noting.

...or there are a few of us libertarians (notice the small L) who feel that this is simply the result of decades of government expansion, that Obama really doesn't have a lot to do with it, and that those who compare Obama to a Nazi are, in fact, bat**** crazy.

I just think that the Founding Fathers did a pretty good job overall. I don't think that it solves anything to call President Obama, a man who has some good ideals and simply believes in some flawed macroeconomic theory, a Nazi. He's a good, smart man, better than the previous Leader of the Free World. But that doesn't mean that he can't be wrong. And I happen to think that he's wrong about economic principles. That doesn't mean that I think he wants to put Jews in gas chambers or that I think he wants to invade France.

[Burgold]

...

A Rasmussen poll from April showed that 77% of Americans preferred a "free market" economy over a "government managed" economy, up seven percentage points from just last December. A July CBS poll found that 52% of Americans think that Obama is trying to do "too much."

This is one of those incredibly untrue things that people think they believe. It's like the people who scream, "I hate government managed healthcare" and then in the same breath yell, "Don't you dare change my Medicare! I like it just as it is!"

or over the last ten years how many Congressmen have rejected their government run health plan? How many of even the most ridiculously conservative Senators and Reps said, "You know what... the government paying for my health plan is infringing on my rights! And they're doing a lousy job to boot I wish I had a choice and could go back to my private plan"

In the abstract, people like free market over government run, however, in specific... a vast majority want it. Just try getting any votes to abolish Social Security and Medicare and you'll see what I mean.

[twa]

This is one of those incredibly untrue things that people think they believe. .

Is It?...Or are they simply hooked on the benefits like a crack whore?

[Thiebear]

No. The Libertarian interpretation of their vision is insane.

No, its not. It's rather simple really.

Allow individual freedom at the most basic level.

That way you don't have to do 3 gymnast moves to somehow justify what you are attempting to do politically that you condemned 3 months earlier.

[Henry]

That way you don't have to do 3 gymnast moves to somehow justify what you are attempting to do politically that you condemned 3 months earlier.

Actually that's the luxury one has when one is never in power.

[Thiebear]

Actually that's the luxury one has when one is never in power.

or one doesnt have when the average is 30years in power. Being consistent shouldn't be that hard.

1 1 Carl Hayden (H,S) 56 years, 319 days

2 2 Robert Byrd (H,S) 56 years, 231 days

3 3 John Dingell (H) 53 years, 252 days +

4 4 Jamie L. Whitten (H) 53 years, 60 days

5 5 Carl Vinson (H) 50 years, 61 days

6 6 Daniel Inouye (H,S) 50 years, 1 day

7 7 Emanuel Celler (H) 49 years, 305 days

8 8 Sam Rayburn (H) 48 years, 257 days

Some of them darn near served with the founding fathers.

[Kilmer17]

It's funny that all of sudden its wrong to compare the President to Hitler. Ive read numerous Op/Eds/columns/blogs or seen talking heads feign shock and dismay over it.

As if they were completely asleep from 2000-2008.

[ACW]

It's funny that all of sudden its wrong to compare the President to Hitler. Ive read numerous Op/Eds/columns/blogs or seen talking heads feign shock and dismay over it.

As if they were completely asleep from 2000-2008.

I hated it then too.

[Kilmer17]

I hated it then too.

Sure. So did all of the columnists. It was a silent protest.

[Henry]

It's funny that all of sudden its wrong to compare the President to Hitler. Ive read numerous Op/Eds/columns/blogs or seen talking heads feign shock and dismay over it.

As if they were completely asleep from 2000-2008.

It's funny that all of a sudden a Hollywood actor can have a valid opinion when he or she criticizes the President. Or that conspiracy theory-induced rage is automatically legitimate.

Someone should tell Rosie O'Donnell.

[Kilmer17]

It's funny that all of a sudden a Hollywood actor can have a valid opinion when he or she criticizes the President. Or that conspiracy theory-induced rage is automatically legitimate.

Someone should tell Rosie O'Donnell.

your key word is "valid".

Show me where Rosie said something valid and received the treatment that Voigt is receiving. She was too busy shouting down anyone who called her out on her idiocy or taking her ball and leaving.

[Henry]

your key word is "valid".

Show me where Rosie said something valid and received the treatment that Voigt is receiving. She was too busy shouting down anyone who called her out on her idiocy or taking her ball and leaving.

In other words, you think it's ok if you agree with what the Hollywood type is saying.

That's great. However, if we are taking columnists to task for consistency, you should be all over the Times, which has spent years raking Dems over the coals for consorting with Hollywood elites.

[Larry]

Actually that's the luxury one has when one is never in power.

While I will admit that it's impossible to be caught in a situation in which your actions conflict with your rhetoric when you've never actually performed any actions, I'll observe that there's another possibly way to avoid that conflict, too.

[Kilmer17]

In other words, you think it's ok if you agree with what the Hollywood type is saying.

That's great. However, if we are taking columnists to task for consistency, you should be all over the Times, which has spent years raking Dems over the coals for consorting with Hollywood elites.

I think it's okay if they offer an actual original thought or at least a valid criticism. Both sides have loons. That doesnt mean they all are.

[Henry]

While I will admit that it's impossible to be caught in a situation in which your actions conflict with your rhetoric when you've never actually performed any actions, I'll observe that there's another possibly way to avoid that conflict, too.

Indeed.

I would like to point out, however, that "Allow individual freedom at the most basic level" is about as specific as "Hope and Change."

Makes a hell of a soundbite.

[alexey]

A Rasmussen poll from April showed that 77% of Americans preferred a "free market" economy over a "government managed" economy, up seven percentage points from just last December.

:hysterical: what a valuable poll

[Henry]

I think it's okay if they offer an actual original thought or at least a valid criticism. Both sides have loons. That doesnt mean they all are.

In other words, publications don't have to be consistent in their criticisms if you personally agree with them.

Well, that makes sense.

[Kilmer17]

In other words, publications don't have to be consistent in their criticisms if you personally agree with them.

Well, that makes sense.

???

What publication? I thought we're talking about Hollywood types and journalists?

[Kilmer17]

Nevermind. Original post. Duh.

Yes, the Times SHOULD get raked over the coals if they made fun of every Dem Actors opinions, then published Voigts.

[Thiebear]

Indeed.

I would like to point out, however, that "Allow individual freedom at the most basic level" is about as specific as "Hope and Change."

Makes a hell of a soundbite.

I've seen quite a bit of hope and a ton of change. therefore, based on your comment i'm feeling the basic freedoms making a comeback anytime now.

[Henry]

I've seen quite a bit of hope and a ton of change. therefore, based on your comment i'm feeling the basic freedoms making a comeback anytime now.

I give up.

[Prosperity]

The thing that worries me is some right wing nut doing something stupid and starting up terrorism fears all over again. Our rights will be further eroded at that point.

I had a friend in college who was virulently pro-gun control. He used to insist that one day there would be a civil war over gun rights.

Finally, I looked at him and said "Oh really? And just which side do you think would win that one?"

Stopped him dead in his tracks.

If it comes down to it, we do have an army that's been fighting armed insurgent guerrillas from places a lot more rough than anything in the US

of course, it won't come to that for a few hundred years

[Larry]

:hysterical: what a valuable poll

I was thinking the same thing.

"A sizable majority of people who have no idea what either term actually means agreed that one term is better".

[Larry]

The thing that worries me is some right wing nut doing something stupid and starting up terrorism fears all over again. Our rights will be further eroded at that point.

Yeah, I remember shortly after the Oklahoma City Bombing, listening to all kinds of people, including a lot of Congressmen, loudly demanding to know why the FBI hadn't infiltrated, wiretapped, and GPS'd every dissident political group in the country, and prevented this.

I kept wondering, weren't any of these Democrat politicians anti-war protesters in the 60's? Don't they remember being outraged at the thought that their government was unconstitutionally monitoring it's own citizens, simply because they were expressing a political view different from the government's position?