Cynical Nation

Of course what Barry means is "stop being pussies about sending OTHER GUYS into war" because we all know it was Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the chickenhawks who hid from combat.

Republicans need to stop being pussies when it comes to the ACTUAL fighting, not hiding under mountains like coward Bush.

just makin the rounds too are we?

big lib

pussy

haha!

feels great!

Barry,
I think your advise to the republicans makes absolute sense. Especially #3. I agree with you completely on that.

Regarding the democrats, I disagree (of course). But, I am biased as a I am a card carrying member of the ACLU :) and a supporter of MoveOn. We, liberals, love MoveOn.

If you are curious, here is how I feel about certain republican and democratic senators.

Three resolutions for the Libertarians:
1. Get on board with controlling illegal immigration
2 Get on board with the war in Iraq.
3 Repudiate the drug pushers. You will gain more than you lose.

I couldn't agree more Paul!

The Libertarian Party's biggest problem has always been an image problem. For any number of reasons, it's too often seen as a collection of kooks and weirdos, from the drug legalization crowd to groups like PONY (a women's group seeking to legalize prostitution) and pornographers (once led by Screw Magazine's Al Goldstein) masquerading as "First Amendment advocates."

The border issue is key.

Both major Parties have fallen down on that issue - the GOP because it has always supported cheaper labor and the Dems, ostensibly because they've always supported that maple syrup swilling, birkenstock wearer's mantra, "diversity is best."

One can vehemently disagree with the core GOP's viewpoint on cheaper labor, as I do, BUT there is no defending the Democrat's smug and smarmy cynicism. For starters, they don't really care about diversity at all, as they erroneously believe that the bulk of the new immigrants will be predisposed to vote Democratic (yeah, throngs of Russian and Chinese immigrants who've seen the horrors of socialism/state control up close and personal and millions of Mexicans who are devoutly Roman Catholic seem like a lock to become part of the Liberal Left....NOT) and this is proven by the fact that they don't even seek to diversify the upper ranks of their own Party.

That's why they try and steer new immigrants into an array of social programs designed to foster dependence.

Massive immigration, both legal and illegal (1) creates a persistent and profound downward pressure on all wage rates and (2) our porous borders and lax immigration rules create a huge national security gap, that cannot be ignored at this point.

Before 9/11 I would've joined most Libertarians in excoriating the "WELFARE/WARFARE STATE." But since that day, it's become obvious that our domestic security apparatus must be vastly improved (both streamlined and strengthened) and that our Military will also ALWAYS be needed as a last option diplomatic tool ("gunboat diplomacy").

The Military too, must be streamlined and made much more cost effective, but with these two needs looming so large, the scarce social sector dollars will have to be used most effectively. We should seek to end immediately all vestiges of those dependancy based social programs and move toward job re-training and placement services and really reform welfare/public assistance to where those in need are required to forge a contract with their benefactors (the taxpayers) and (1) engage in the mandated, work-fare, job training and placement services and (2) refrain from bringing children into the world while unable to care for themselves (mandated contraception, ie. Norplant, while on public assistance).

Since 9/11 I've seen that we are engaged in a worldwide conflict with the forces of Islamo-cultism (perhaps 10% to 15% of the Islamic world) and the rogue, laregly Mid-East states that have sponsored and supported them.

I can respectfully disagree with the likes of Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul who've opposed American foreign intervention at nearly every turn, but the likes of Moore, Sheehan, Rhodes and much of the rest of the Liberal-Left have no such principles. They didn't oppose our involvement in another recent war (the Balkans) for naked American interests (the Albanian oil pipeline), nor did most of them oppose our involvement in Gulf War I and there tact of calling America/the Bush administration "the world's biggest terrorist" and comparing contemporary America to the Third Reich is not mere dissent, but vehemently anti-Americanism, intended to undermine the current war effort abroad and erode our Civil Defenses at home.

I believe the mistake that some Libertarians have made is believing that with the "Welfare State" (the social service bureaucracy) relatively under control, that the Military or Security/"Warfare State" is now the largest threat to liberty.

One basic problem with that view is that while there is no Constitutional provisions for any social spending. Even Alexander Hamilton, one of the leading federalists, who fought for a larger, more powerful federal government, acknowledged that the American government was barred from giving assistance to a MA town detroyed by a flood, on the grounds that it's morally wrong to force the many to pay for the travails of the few. He advocated leaving that up to individual charity.

There is, however, a Constitutional provision for both "providing for the common defense (Military appropriations) and "ensuring domestic tranquility" (police powers). To be sure, all those expenditures must be streamlined and kept as low cost-effective as humanly possible, but denying their necessity is to deny the viability of America's Founders design.

The drug legalization issue is another tough crusade in an era when tobacco is being eliminated from most public places and alcohol use is being strongly discouraged via a various DUI enforcements. Rightly, or not, drug use is associated, in many people's minds with criminal behavior. Certainly it leads to lapses in judgment and it is clearly unpopular with most of the voting public.

Acknowledging that open immigration is impractical within the confines of even the most cursory of welfare states, accepting the validity and necessity of fighting this global war on terrorism (the forces of Islamo-cultism/Islamo-fascism & the rogue states that sponsor and support it) and abandoning the drug legalization crusade would go a long way toward repairing the LP's public image and making it a lot easier for them to communicate their core message - Constitutionalism/Libery as "personal responsibility.

I'll go back to Bailey since you sissies won't stop crying.

Anyway, for once I generally agree with JMK. I know, I can't believe it myself.

The Republicans support porous borders because it provides cheap labor which only hurts average Americans, and helps the wealthy get richer.

The Democrats support porous borders so that they can greet each new illegal with a red, white and blue sombrero, a welfare check from the average American taxpayer's pocket, and a registration form to the Democratic Party.

A good case can be made that both parties, and therefore the entire government, is actively working day and night to suck the blood of the average American, who does all the work, and all the fighting and dying while the rich get doctor's excuses (Rush Limbaugh) and education deferments (Cheney), or hide out stateside getting drunk and going AWOL as alleged members of the National Guard (Bush). Most of the welfare cases are either criminals or victims of something, some disability, or are just too dumb to pass even an Army IQ test, which I believe is being able to drink a glass of water without drowning.