LGP Political Discussion Thread

[shafnutz05]

I do agree with Guinness on a lot of those questions...for example, the transnational corporation one. It makes it sound like you either side with your fellow man or team up with the evil corporations in their plot to take over the world. Why can't it benefit both?

[Guinness]

I took that quiz thing but closed out and didn't save it. I really hated how a lot of the statements/questions were worded but, then again, I did it pretty quickly.

Mine looked pretty similar to Guinness.

Me, you, bh, and slappy are forming a movement around here.

[Guinness]

Why is this country a joke? Seriously?

Liberals.

I like you. It's not just that you're simple, but that you are aggressively simple.

[Guinness]

Liberals.

Conservatives

[shafnutz05]

lololol

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100109/ap_ ... obama_reid

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada described in private then-Sen. Barack Obama as "light skinned" and "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

[slappybrown]

lololol

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100109/ap_ ... obama_reid

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada described in private then-Sen. Barack Obama as "light skinned" and "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

That is f'in amazing shaf.

[shafnutz05]

That is f'in amazing shaf.

haha I just can't imagine what these people are thinking making outrageous statements like this.

[shafnutz05]

In light of President Obama's decision to forgive Harry Reid's remarks about Obama's skin color and lack of a "Negro dialect," check out what Obama said about Trent Lott in 2002:
Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D-13th), who hosted WVON's Cliff Kelley Show, challenged the Republican Party to repudiate Lott's remarks and to call for his resignation as senate leader.

"It seems to be that we can forgive a 100-year-old senator for some of the indiscretion of his youth, but, what is more difficult to forgive is the current president of the U.S. Senate (Lott) suggesting we had been better off if we had followed a segregationist path in this country after all of the battles and fights for civil rights and all the work that we still have to do," said Obama.

He said: "The Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party."

[shafnutz05]

Reid's a stupid *******, but it's not hard to see the difference between what he said and what Lott said. Lott's said we should have elected a person president who ran on a pro-segregation platform. Reid's comments were saying that he thought Obama had a good chance at being elected despite his being half black because he was a lighter skinned black man and didn't speak in ebonics.

No way.

Lott was giving a tribute speech at the 100th birthday party of a senator that was on his deathbed practically.

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

Was this quote stupid considering Thurmond once supported segregation? Absolutely. Then again, so did most of the Democratic leadership of the 1950s and 60s. This quote was pretty obviously trying to say something sweet about a man that was about to die....again, probably not the best thing to say. However, you have to assume and interpret that Lott somehow supported segregation, when he could have been talking about any of the other dozens of platform principles Thurmond ran on.

What Reid said was overtly racist. He doesn't talk "like a negro"?! Are you kidding? It does not get any more blatant. What Lott said was dumb, but it requires drawing a lot more assumptions to presume that he was somehow supporting segregation. It's pretty cut and dry with Reid.

[doublem]

lololol

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100109/ap_ ... obama_reid

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada described in private then-Sen. Barack Obama as "light skinned" and "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

[doublem]

when he could have been talking about any of the other dozens of platform principles Thurmond ran on.

He didn't have any.

[tluke53]

I don't think what he said was all that racist. I don't think there was any intent there. My problem is that he should have known the media would jump all over it. This further demonstrates the lack of quality that we have in the field of politics.

Two words: Term Limits

[Hockeynut!]

I also don't think it was truly racist. Anyone should understand that "negro dialect" is an old man's way of saying ebonics or ghetto-speak. Listen to (most) rappers get interviewed. Heck, listen to 30 seconds of Flava Flav doing anything. You'll know what Reid meant by "negro dialect".

That said, I can't stand Reid for many other reasons and hope he loses the election.

[Geezer]

I don't think what he said was all that racist. I don't think there was any intent there. My problem is that he should have known the media would jump all over it. This further demonstrates the lack of quality that we have in the field of politics.

Two words: Term Limits

Reid's a jerk but he didn't say anything that should be insulting to blacks. It does show the hypocrisy on the left since they crucify non-lefties for any race card issue they can invent. Reid made an unbelievably ignorant remark equating those who oppose Dem healthcare as being pro-slavery.

His Obama remark is a racist insult against our country but not because he dissed the president in any way. Reid showed his own twisted view of our country that being "light-skinned" would make him more electable. Does anyone other than this moron think that if his skin tone were darker he would have lost or if he were lighter he would have won by a bigger margin? Reid considers the U.S. as basically racist per his remarks. The Republicans should hammer him for that point and torture him with questions about what constitutes a "negro dialect".

[Hockeynut!]

Does anyone other than this moron think that if his skin tone were darker he would have lost or if he were lighter he would have won by a bigger margin?

There's actually a lot of racism directed at darker skinner blacks compared to lighter skinned blacks. Ironically, it's very prevalent within the black community. I have a very good friend who is black and a few years ago her boyfriend's mother went ballistic when they started dating because she's very dark skinned. Now, her boyfriend was black and his mother was black. His mother said "You better never bring home a girl that black again!"

As a rural white boy, I thought it was fascinating, lol.

Edit: Here's an interesting article on "colorism". http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/ ... -persists/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I don't think Obama would have lost the election is he was as dark as Al Jolson in black-face, but it's still an interesting read.

[Geezer]

Does anyone other than this moron think that if his skin tone were darker he would have lost or if he were lighter he would have won by a bigger margin?

There's actually a lot of racism directed at darker skinner blacks compared to lighter skinned blacks. Ironically, it's very prevalent within the black community. I have a very good friend who is black and a few years ago her boyfriend's mother went ballistic when they started dating because she's very dark skinned. Now, her boyfriend was black and his mother was black. His mother said "You better never bring home a girl that black again!"

As a rural white boy, I thought it was fascinating, lol.

That probably still exists but IMO that's a dated concept that likely isn't as common anymore. That's the old "if you're brown stick around, if you're black get back " type saying. In the last couple decades there's been a some of the opposite sentiment along the lines that the blacker the better among African Americans. I watched a show where a very pretty young black woman was griping that she was considered nice looking because she had "European features" which she somehow equated as a racist view. IMO how dark an African American isn't a major issue especially with younger people and with the increaed amount of biracial people in the U.S.

[Kraftster]

So, under your view of libertarianism, then, you'd basically have laws to protect the one absolute (individual sovereignty). So, you'd presumably punish unprovoked use of force. To have any such law, I'd think you'd want a fairly specific, fixed definition of provocation. Care to give it a stab?

Thank you for wishes for my step-dad. He's doing better.

I recognize, and have said before that the logical extreme of my beliefs has to be anarchy (in its literal meaning - "no state"). I can't find a way to justify the existence of any state entity at all, philosophically. If I believe in non-aggression in all its manifestations, then on what basis can exist an entity such as goverrnment police, or a government judiciary?

Violations of an individual's physical being and property are unjust. Violations of a person's physical being would include assault, slavery, rape, murder, etc. Violation of a person's property would include fraud, theft, vandalism, etc.

How does one protect oneself from these violations? As they do now. The state's police - as a rule - cannot prevent these violations. They can seek the aggressor and persue restitution on behalf of the victim after the fact, however. And yet there is no reason that the free market could not provide such an entity.

I'm not sure if I've answered - or at least started to answer - your question. I'm not feeling particularly articulate today, for some reason. Probably from being a little tired and cold, and being at work with not much to do other than kill time!

Anyway... let's go from there, and see where it leads us!

Definitely a fun place to start.

Let me preface this by saying that I enjoy talking about things philosophically, but, some of my objections will probably be practical as well -- I'll try to note whether I'm talking philosophically or practically but I might miss doing that here or there

Philosophically, I think I have a fundamental disagreement with a non-aggression principle. To me, you'd need a belief in equality underlying any sort of non-aggression principle. I have a hard time getting to a point where I believe in any sort of equality among human beings. Like I've said, I think people are inherently unequal -- in every possible way. Based on that, I have a hard time treating all people as moral equals.

So, for instance, if Person A is quite pedestrian in every way -- intellectually, physically, ambition-wise, etc. and "owns" Property X (this brings up another question -- how are property rights handled under your libertarian system?). Person B owns Property Y. Person B is a genius, lets say, a scientist experimenting with plants for medicines. Property X has a particular plant crucial to the research of Person B. Person A is just hanging out just "getting by" all his life but holds this non-aggression principle and opposes any trespass on his land. Person B is kept from finding some groundbreaking medicine because Persona A doesn't want him on his land. Person B should be able to exert some sort of force so that he can have access to property X.

Underlying this, for me, is my teleological belief that we should constantly strive to advance our science, philosophy, arts, etc. I think you need to have force available to you in order to accomplish this.

Practically speaking, I think there is a problem with the ambiguity involved in any non-aggression principle. It seems doubtful that an agreement/societal consensus could ever be reached on what constitutes provocation, what constitutes force, etc, etc. You almost have to identify a concrete definition of these things. You'd have to use force to enforce a concrete definition of those things with individuals who disagree with your definition. I think you might argue that the use of force for the purpose of ensuring that no one can exert unprovoked force over anyone, but, it seems like a pretty fatal inconsistency to even use force in the name of a goal like that.

There's some more out there, but, that seems like some good stuff to chew on.

[Kraftster]

Just to clarify on the teleological belief part. I believe that we (humans) have a teleological view of self purpose, so, an internal teleology of sorts. That being constant improvement and growth. I think that the collective external impact of individuals pursuing their own final goal is advancement of society.

I just wanted to point out that I don't have any belief that there is any general teleology in nature, aside from perhaps entropy if you could call that a teleological view.

[DelPen]

If John McCain said he had many negro friends how quick would Sharpton and Jackson be jumping all over him? He's using the term in a favorable way but I tend to think these hypocritcal ass clowns would call for his resignation from the Senate, not just from a leadership position.

[Sarcastic]

lololol

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100109/ap_ ... obama_reid

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada described in private then-Sen. Barack Obama as "light skinned" and "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

Ne·gro (nē'grō) pronunciation
n. Often Offensive, pl., -groes.

1. A Black person.
2. A member of the Negroid race. Not in scientific use.

[HomerPenguin]

He's using the term in a favorable way

No, he's not. Complimenting a black man for how white he talks is not favorable.

[DelPen]

He's using the term in a favorable way

No, he's not. Complimenting a black man for how white he talks is not favorable.

I agree but even if someone said it favorably Sharpton and Jackson would be all over them if they had different ideaologies.

Reid's quote was about as racist as they get.

[Guinness]

Let me preface this by saying that I enjoy talking about things philosophically, but, some of my objections will probably be practical as well -- I'll try to note whether I'm talking philosophically or practically but I might miss doing that here or there

Understood, agree, and ask for same consideration.

Philosophically, I think I have a fundamental disagreement with a non-aggression principle. To me, you'd need a belief in equality underlying any sort of non-aggression principle. I have a hard time getting to a point where I believe in any sort of equality among human beings. Like I've said, I think people are inherently unequal -- in every possible way. Based on that, I have a hard time treating all people as moral equals.

So, for instance, if Person A is quite pedestrian in every way -- intellectually, physically, ambition-wise, etc. and "owns" Property X (this brings up another question -- how are property rights handled under your libertarian system?). Person B owns Property Y. Person B is a genius, lets say, a scientist experimenting with plants for medicines. Property X has a particular plant crucial to the research of Person B. Person A is just hanging out just "getting by" all his life but holds this non-aggression principle and opposes any trespass on his land. Person B is kept from finding some groundbreaking medicine because Persona A doesn't want him on his land. Person B should be able to exert some sort of force so that he can have access to property X.

Underlying this, for me, is my teleological belief that we should constantly strive to advance our science, philosophy, arts, etc. I think you need to have force available to you in order to accomplish this.

I can agree with you regarding the inequality of all people (in all ways save one -- later), but I think that there is a principle underlying how you act upon that inequality that I believe is unjust. It seems there is a presumption that you (for the sake of discussion) have the ability to see the future. Person A is not utilitizing his property in a manner that benefits society. Person B has the ability to utilize Property X in such a manner. Force should be initiated to sieze Property X from Person A for the betterment of society. So this presumes (leaving aside for the moment his rights) that Person A's existence is static - that he is incapable of growth, or even that he will never decide to sell Property X, etc. It presumes that Person B will act on behalf of society, and will not misuse the confiscated property. And it also presumes that the results of Person B's actions will in fact benefit society, as advertised. But all of these things are actually unknown. It may be likely that the scenario plays out as you presume, but in fact we do not have that knowledge. So I think it has to come back to the legitimacy of individual sovereignty and property rights, which, as I see it, are established by the principle of individual self-ownership. I'm not sure how one can make an objective claim to self-ownership (Person B) while at the same time denying the same to another. It would seem to me that, if you're seeking to avoid a relativistic argument, you don't want to adopt this one - I think it logically devolves to "might makes right" - if you adopt the belief that some are entitled to self-ownership but not others, than the strongest will be the ones who are best able to act upon this principle.

Practically speaking, I think there is a problem with the ambiguity involved in any non-aggression principle. It seems doubtful that an agreement/societal consensus could ever be reached on what constitutes provocation, what constitutes force, etc, etc. You almost have to identify a concrete definition of these things. You'd have to use force to enforce a concrete definition of those things with individuals who disagree with your definition. I think you might argue that the use of force for the purpose of ensuring that no one can exert unprovoked force over anyone, but, it seems like a pretty fatal inconsistency to even use force in the name of a goal like that.

But we have been determining what constitutes aggression for as long as government has existed. In practical terms, it's always going to be somewhat subjective and fiat - I argue on behalf of a limited definition based on a belief in individual sovereignty and non-aggression, which I laid out briefly in a previous post.

[Geezer]

He's using the term in a favorable way

No, he's not. Complimenting a black man for how white he talks is not favorable.

So there's supposed to be a white way to talk and a black way to talk? And a black man talking in said "white way" would be bad or at least should not be complimented about it? And whites who would "talk black" would be what; good. bad. acting foolish? I thought liberals were supposedly foes of such stereotypical behavior since they invented political correctness.

I don't think Reid was complimenting Obama with his "negro dialect" blurb. Reid was acting out liberal dogma; that America is basically racist but thet maybe the country would accept a "light skinned" African Ameican with whatever speech patterns Reid considers a "non-negro dialect". Reid displays the same ignorance exhibited by Murtha callng western Pa residents red-neck racists;or better yet Obama describing Pa residents as fearful, gun-loving religious nutbags.

[Geezer]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,582732,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This was a much greater security failure than the jockey shorts bomber. The WH has been dragging their feet on the Ft Hood jihadist terrorist for a couple months. Anyone really expect any changes to the PC approach that assisted assisted the terrorist attack. This SOA should have been discharged long before the attack and put under surveillance as a muslim jihadi.