[finchfeeder]

Originally Posted by Hopeful

finchfeeder, I like you because you, like me, are old.

I agree on most of your thoughts.

Thank you for your support!

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Then stop harrassing people.

Jerry, you promised not to talk to me.

I do, though, appreciate your input in this post and I was able to understand most of it.

I am not harrassing anyone.
Does anyone else here think that I am harrassing anyone?
I am only trying to enter into a conversation with others here in the CGR.

Why don't you just skip over my posts and I will skip over yours. How about that idea?

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I appreciate your posts.

Here are my thoughts:

I am politically a Rothbardian free market anarchist with sympathies to minarchism in theory, a longing for benevolent monarchy somewhere in my heart (Jerry, would you be King of America for me?), an admirer of Athenian democracy in theory but not practice, an appreciation of Confucian monarchist principles, a Daoist/Foucaltian take on power and social order, and an appreciation for mid-20th century New Left principles of social freedom.

I understand this, boiling it down to "anarchism" is not an easy-to-defend view.

However, my issue in this thread is mainly philosophical in terms of language and definitions as opposed to political philosophy. I am taking issue with Republicans and their continued hijacking of the term "conservatism," which once took up the elements "classical liberalism" before the term "liberal" changed its meaning.

If you look at Republicans and conservatives in the early-to-mid 20th century, they were most often and clearly against federally-organized education, federal dole systems, and interventionism in world politics, and supported governmental restraint in economic affairs and personal liberties, and states' rights.

In the 60's, Republicans allowed many of the malcontents of the Democrats (the racist Dixiecrats, for one, whose views in the 50's and 60's were increasingly at odds with the Democrats) to join the GOP, weakening the Republican view of civil liberties in many circles.

I do not agree with socialism. I think appraisals of its performance in other nations are often stilted or misrepresented, and I think history has shown the Keynesian economic model favored by Democrats (and by Republicans of recent decades, when they haven't been supporting half-assed, half-baked Reaganomic marring of free market principles) is fundamentally flawed, leading to dangerous fluctuations in the business cycle and devaluation of currency and labor.

That said, I think Democrats, while straying in some areas from their stated plans, have generally been consistent in both their rhetoric (the characterization of Democrats as anti-war is not very accurate, but it's held by folks who vote Democrat while not being a part of the Democratic rhetoric) and goals.

Republicans, meanwhile, have claimed to be against Big Government, yet have consistently aided its expansion.

Thus, my complaint against Republicans is ideological. I feel Democrats are currently much more honest about their views, whereas Republicans claim a desire for personal liberty (yet didn't blink at Bush's "Patriotic" measures), free market economics (yet support many government-run services and also corporate subsidies and tax shelters), and social privacy (yet continue to work to keep consenting adults from ingesting what they want, or investing time in who they want).

Democrats, on the other hand, generally speak for what they want: a well-managed spectrum of state-run and state-monitored services that involve a redistribution of wealth while allowing for a private market.

Republicans rail against abortion, but have missed many opportunities to truly curtail it, wheras Clinton was able to reduce abortions while holding that women have a right to them.

So, my issue is that GOP folks who decry Big Government are being ultimately inconsistent. They don't seem to understand that much of what they advocate and have allowed from their party for the past half-century has been very much in line with the expansion of government principles they claim are so dangerous.

Thank you Jeffrey. You have given me a lot to think about and much of it I do not understand. Maybe I will get back to you on some of this after I read and think about it with my poor, old brain.

I have a lot of respect for you.

Sincerely,
ff

.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Thus, my complaint against Republicans is ideological. I feel Democrats are currently much more honest about their views, whereas Republicans claim a desire for personal liberty (yet didn't blink at Bush's "Patriotic" measures), free market economics (yet support many government-run services and also corporate subsidies and tax shelters), and social privacy (yet continue to work to keep consenting adults from ingesting what they want, or investing time in who they want).

Democrats, on the other hand, generally speak for what they want: a well-managed spectrum of state-run and state-monitored services that involve a redistribution of wealth while allowing for a private market.

This is why I have 0 respect for the GOP. They're basically Democrats-lite only without any semblance of integrity. Of course there are good Republicans. I am seriously considering voting for Rand Paul for KY state senator in Nov.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by slap_j

This is why I have 0 respect for the GOP. They're basically Democrats-lite only without any semblance of integrity. Of course there are good Republicans. I am seriously considering voting for Rand Paul for KY state senator in Nov.

Slap J you and I agree!!! That is why I would prefer teh T.E.A. party movemnet to become a poltiical party. Ron Paul would be a good start.

Jefrey writes: Dear Heavens. This is why I'm not a Republican. What's scary, is in basic principle I agree with you. But I can't chant "Go right," because:

- the Republican sponsored tax dollar corporate subsidies
- the expansion of the warfare state and the use of American soldiers in illegal wars
- the Patriot Act and other measures forcing members of a democracy to submit to government intervention
- the TSA debacles that show that no matter how much Bush built up "airport security," bombs can still get through and all that happens is pregnant ladies and political enemies are harassed
- Bush's expansion of Medicare
- Bush's "No Child Left Behind"
- the Republican love affair with deriding abortion laws but allowing them to remain enshrined

Well these are reasons why I am not a Gop'er as well. BUT:

Obama has outdone the gop for corporate welfare.
The warfare statre has been in expansion in almost presidencies. Even Eisenhower wartned about teh military industrial complex. (the war was legal though- not popular but approved by congress).

Patriot Act- if they were just temporary as designed it would have been good. From a historical perspective, th ePatriot Act is very mild comapred to other laws enacted in times of conflict.

Yeah the RX program was poorly planned and no has an $18 trillion unfunded liability.

Bush had Kennedy help him craft the no child bill. It was the house and senate who approved them.

Yeah abortion is this nations biggest stain. We decry Hitler, Pol pot, Stalin and Mao (and they are mass murderers) but destroying over 50,000,000 children in the name of convenience is hideous.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by finchfeeder

I am not harrassing anyone.
Does anyone else here think that I am harrassing anyone?
I am only trying to enter into a conversation with others here in the CGR.

I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the TSA.

If depriving us of our time, freedom, and privacy won't make us safe: then don't do it.

Why don't you just skip over my posts and I will skip over yours. How about that idea?

You can skip over mine if you like.

[finchfeeder]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the TSA.

If depriving us of our time, freedom, and privacy won't make us safe: then don't do it.

You can skip over mine if you like.

Thank you for explaining that.

.