NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, so y'all know I'm a libertarian to the end. You'd suppose that I hate the Republican Party and Democratic Party equally, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I have a personal hate of the Republican Party due to the actions of some certain asshat town council Republicans. However, I seem to hate Democratic Party (or at least far left) ideology with a passion, not to mention the smarter-than-thou attitude of many of my liberal ex-friends....

Then again my mother is an arch-conservative, so she may be brainwashing me :D

Politicians who act on principles of left or right are unworthy of your vote, you want to vote for someone who acts in the best interests of the nation not someone who makes decisions based upon ideologies.

Ok, so y'all know I'm a libertarian to the end. You'd suppose that I hate the Republican Party and Democratic Party equally, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I have a personal hate of the Republican Party due to the actions of some certain asshat town council Republicans. However, I seem to hate Democratic Party (or at least far left) ideology with a passion, not to mention the smarter-than-thou attitude of many of my liberal ex-friends....

Then again my mother is an arch-conservative, so she may be brainwashing me :D
Don't decide if you hate this or that, base every issue on merit.

Hmm...Ideals or pragmatic assessment of induvidual abilities. I would gladly take someone who was the "best person for the job" over "someone who's ideals closer fit my own" any day of the week. Doing one's duty within a job should take priority over furthering one's own agenda and ideals.

Trouble is, not only is figuring out who that "best person" is can be difficult, if not impossible in any given race; some truly capable people throughout history have proven themselves capable only of self-promotion.

Such is the difficulty of allowing people to give power to others. There is no cure, no solution, no quick fix. Only investigation, assessment and judgment of each induvidual based on performance will allow the system to function smoothly.

Of course, all of these statements take place in a fantasy world where incorrupt officials are carefully monitered by a concerned and active population. Where the system is not mired in years of corruption, human fallacy, and pointless idealism.

Politicians who act on principles of left or right are unworthy of your vote, you want to vote for someone who acts in the best interests of the nation not someone who makes decisions based upon ideologies.

I fully agree.

Politicians who act on principles of left or right are unworthy of your vote, you want to vote for someone who acts in the best interests of the nation not someone who makes decisions based upon ideologies.

Definitely. Sometimes I hate these stupid parties just because people are naturally biased toward one or the other. It's intrinsic.

Can't we just have some sort of physical challenge?

Defeat this dragon!

:rolleyes:

Politicians who act on principles of left or right are unworthy of your vote, you want to vote for someone who acts in the best interests of the nation not someone who makes decisions based upon ideologies.
Sooo, Zell Miller?

Sooo, Zell Miller?

... is a nutcase and a menace.

If only he and Chris Matthews had dueled ... to a fatal draw.

Sooo, Zell Miller?

I'm sorry, you have me at a loss... :confused: Who is Zell Miller are what does s/he have to do with this? Is s/he a person you think is less about ideology and more about pragmatism?

Sooo, Zell Miller?


Zell Miller turns invisible under black light.

You know, I hate thinking about politics outside NS.

I'm sorry, you have me at a loss... :confused: Who is Zell Miller are what does s/he have to do with this? Is s/he a person you think is less about ideology and more about pragmatism?

Zell Miller is a politician in the US who more or less changed his party affiliation during the presidential election. His speech at the Republican national convention was aggressive and violently worded, making him seem less like an outspoken advocate of Bush's policies and more of a shrill shill. He did very little to bring his former party to support Bush, instead he simply fired up the crowd with some firey diatribe.

He proceeded to make a name for himself as something of a loose cannon when he said on national TV that he wished he could challange Chris Mathews (a reporter/commentator) to a duel, because Mathews was questioning him and some of his statements.

I don't know what the purpose of bringing up Zell Miller is though. The man quickly earned himself considerable disrepute, his use as a political tool was used up almost immediately. He still is in office though, but only shows up occasionally on Fox for quick interview blurbs; it seems that no news program will risk their reporters on him again.

I hope I can make this clear - I consider myself to be a libertarian and I believe that beyond the ideaologies of the left or right, and even beyond what is "best for the country" as a pragmatic matter, the rule of law should prevail and that which is permitted or prohibited by the Consitution should prevail. If something is wrong with what the constitution allows or prohibits, the constitution should be fixed to deal with the issue. Neither left/right ideaologies should prevail, nor should blind pragmatism rule the day.

For example: There is no "right of privacy" in the U.S. Constitution anywhere. Sure, certain elements of privacy are protected by certain provisions of the Constitution, but there is no express right of privacy that acts as a "blanket" protection on all government intrusion. Only small bits of protection for certain elements of privacy. However, 4th Amendment search and seizure law and the right to an abortion under Roe v. Wade are premised on the protection of the right to privacy that is "enshrined" in "penumbras" of the Constitution. As a pragmatic matter, the right to privacy should innure to the benefit of those who want an abortion or those who seek to suppress illegally seized evidence. However, since the right to privacy doesn't exist in the Constitution, as a libertarian, I say that affording constitutional protection to these people should not be permitted. Abortion is a matter of state law left up to the states to decide legislatively for their people in their quest to protect the health and welfare of their people. Search and seizure law should be premised on the idea of the place being searched and the items being seized, not the "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a certain area.

From a pragmatic stand point, abortion on demand is probably preferrable and good for the country as a whole for various reasons. From a "right wing" stand point, it is abhorrent as an invasion on the sanctity of life. From a "left wing" stand point, it is a right to be cherished and protected at all costs. From a libertarian stand point, since it is neither protected nor permitted under the national constitution, it should be left up to the individual states unless and until it is permtted or banned by a national constituitional ammendment.

Dang, I hope that makes sense.

More Importantly....The Mighty Confederacy Of Jandonia will stamp out your worthless prattled mutterings about "doing the right thingnyehnyeh"

All your countries will be slaughtered in a concentrated wave of total drugabuse and contridicaty laws........

GReAT DaYS BROTHERS! Their will be such a Wailing and Gnashing of teeth like has not been heard for centuries

and i might take all you women to be my wife......not plural you understand....just one entity....mergedddddddd...........and highly impractical



Long Live Jandonia.........."!The Heady joy of a nation
embellished in self destruction!"

More Importantly....The Mighty Confederacy Of Jandonia will stamp out your worthless prattled mutterings about "doing the right thingnyehnyeh"

All your countries will be slaughtered in a concentrated wave of total drugabuse and contridicaty laws........

GReAT DaYS BROTHERS! Their will be such a Wailing and Gnashing of teeth like has not been heard for centuries

and i might take all you women to be my wife......not plural you understand....just one entity....mergedddddddd...........and highly impractical



Long Live Jandonia.........."!The Heady joy of a nation
embellished in self destruction!"


pssst wrong forum... we may role play a bit here but not like that...

From a libertarian stand point, since it is neither protected nor permitted under the national constitution, it should be left up to the individual states unless and until it is permtted or banned by a national constituitional ammendment.

not a fan of the 9th amendment then, i take it

pssst wrong forum... we may role play a bit here but not like that...
I do like the wailing and gnashing of teeth, though.

Ok, so y'all know I'm a libertarian to the end. You'd suppose that I hate the Republican Party and Democratic Party equally, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I have a personal hate of the Republican Party due to the actions of some certain asshat town council Republicans. However, I seem to hate Democratic Party (or at least far left) ideology with a passion, not to mention the smarter-than-thou attitude of many of my liberal ex-friends....

Then again my mother is an arch-conservative, so she may be brainwashing me :D

I sincerely hope that the "smarter-than-thou" attitude of your ex-friends extended beyond politics, and was also the main reason why the are your ex-friends.

If they are your ex-friend simply because they are liberal, or because they have a "smarter-than-thou" attitude towards politics, then it's pretty sad that you let personal friendships be impacted or influenced by politics.

But then again, I'm making assumptions about your own life, and the assumptions are working in both directions...so I'll just shut up now.

Have a good one! :)

Politicians who act on principles of left or right are unworthy of your vote, you want to vote for someone who acts in the best interests of the nation not someone who makes decisions based upon ideologies.

Everyone has ideals, and the reason we have them are because we think they ARE in the best interest of the nation. They're not mutually exclusive except in rare cases and times of crisis.

I hope I can make this clear - I consider myself to be a libertarian and I believe that beyond the ideaologies of the left or right, and even beyond what is "best for the country" as a pragmatic matter, the rule of law should prevail and that which is permitted or prohibited by the Consitution should prevail. If something is wrong with what the constitution allows or prohibits, the constitution should be fixed to deal with the issue. Neither left/right ideaologies should prevail, nor should blind pragmatism rule the day.

For example: There is no "right of privacy" in the U.S. Constitution anywhere. Sure, certain elements of privacy are protected by certain provisions of the Constitution, but there is no express right of privacy that acts as a "blanket" protection on all government intrusion. Only small bits of protection for certain elements of privacy. However, 4th Amendment search and seizure law and the right to an abortion under Roe v. Wade are premised on the protection of the right to privacy that is "enshrined" in "penumbras" of the Constitution. As a pragmatic matter, the right to privacy should innure to the benefit of those who want an abortion or those who seek to suppress illegally seized evidence. However, since the right to privacy doesn't exist in the Constitution, as a libertarian, I say that affording constitutional protection to these people should not be permitted. Abortion is a matter of state law left up to the states to decide legislatively for their people in their quest to protect the health and welfare of their people. Search and seizure law should be premised on the idea of the place being searched and the items being seized, not the "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a certain area.

From a pragmatic stand point, abortion on demand is probably preferrable and good for the country as a whole for various reasons. From a "right wing" stand point, it is abhorrent as an invasion on the sanctity of life. From a "left wing" stand point, it is a right to be cherished and protected at all costs. From a libertarian stand point, since it is neither protected nor permitted under the national constitution, it should be left up to the individual states unless and until it is permtted or banned by a national constituitional ammendment.

Dang, I hope that makes sense.

I would say you observe a strictly American definition of libertarianism, rather than the dictionary definition. If you feel that abortion should be decided by each state, then I would suggest you feel stronger about states rights than individual rights, which frankly makes me think "libertarian" isn't an apt description of you. If you simply want to abide by the consitution, that doesn't mean you're a libertarian. Some people interpret the constituion as a liberal doctrine, some people interpret it as conservative. That's part of the genius of it.

Ok, so y'all know I'm a libertarian to the end. You'd suppose that I hate the Republican Party and Democratic Party equally, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I have a personal hate of the Republican Party due to the actions of some certain asshat town council Republicans. However, I seem to hate Democratic Party (or at least far left) ideology with a passion, not to mention the smarter-than-thou attitude of many of my liberal ex-friends....

Then again my mother is an arch-conservative, so she may be brainwashing me :D
ROFLMFAO!!! Hahahahahaha! You nutcase! Damn, man! You're certifiable! LOL!

Somehow, I seriously doubt that anyone, including ( especially?? ) your mother, could brainwash you, or even come close to brainwashing you!

ROFLMFAO!!! Hahahahahaha! You nutcase! Damn, man! You're certifiable! LOL!

Somehow, I seriously doubt that anyone, including ( especially?? ) your mother, could brainwash you, or even come close to brainwashing you!

I don't know about that. If she's really an Arch-Conservative she can probably brainwash people with JesusTV while stomping on homeless people with her elephantine legs.

I would say you observe a strictly American definition of libertarianism, rather than the dictionary definition. If you feel that abortion should be decided by each state, then I would suggest you feel stronger about states rights than individual rights, which frankly makes me think "libertarian" isn't an apt description of you. If you simply want to abide by the consitution, that doesn't mean you're a libertarian. Some people interpret the constituion as a liberal doctrine, some people interpret it as conservative. That's part of the genius of it.

Yes and no. The constitution was meant as a curb on the federal gov. not the state's governance, that has changed since the adoption of the 14th Amendment though. My issue is that since the adoption of the14th Amendment, the Fed's, primarily via the courts, have gotten increased control over the rights of the states. While state's rights was the major issue (with slavery being the most important "sub-issue" of that debate) that resulted in the civil war, the fact the state's rights advocates lost, doesn't mean all state's rights issues were lost as well. States still have rights and so do their people. Those rights should be recognized. I don't denegrate the right of the people in favor of the right of the states anymore than I denograte the right of the states in favor of the rights of the feds.

Maybe I'm not a strict libertarian in the dictionary sense of the word and should be classified as a "strict constructionist." I can accept that. All I'm trying to do is say that the feds have taken power that they were not intended to take at the expense of the states and the people.