A Libertarian view

[kallend 2,151]

Steve Chapman is a self-proclaimed Libertarian (just for Rainbo), and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune.

www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0403180158mar18,1,911686.column?coll=chi-news-col

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkymonkeyONE 4]

<----Voted for Ed Clark twice. Seriously.

[n2skdvn 0]

could ya paste it kallend i've registered to enough newspapers.

if my calculations are correct SLINKY + ESCULATOR = EVERLASTING FUN
my site

[Luv2Fall 0]

Thanks!

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

could ya paste it kallend i've registered to enough newspapers.

------------------------------------------------

The Flip-Flopper Running for President

Changing positions is something President Bush knows a lot about. He does it all the time

Published March 18, 2004, Chicago Tribune


The other day, Donald Trump criticized Warren Buffett for ostentation, the French accused the Belgians of being snooty, and Kid Rock lamented the decline of good manners. Sound impossible? You're right. But they're no more unlikely than the truth, which is George W. Bush attacking John Kerry for changing his positions.

"Sen. Kerry clearly has strong beliefs," the president quipped recently. "They just don't last very long." Bush says his Democratic challenger has flip-flopped on the Iraq war, tax cuts, the USA Patriot Act and the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Changing positions is something Bush knows a lot about. He does it all the time, even as he pretends to be steady and sure. But what he lacks in consistency, he makes up in certitude. He's a man who believes what he says, even if what he says is exactly the opposite of what he said yesterday.

But conservatives have been happy to echo the official line. Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger lambastes Kerry as "inconsistent and opportunistic," traits he attributes to decades of service in the U.S. Senate. "In this world," reveals Henninger, "the instinctive hedging ascribed to Kerry, an ear for the upper registers of nuance and an aversion to constancy, is natural and normal."

Reading Henninger, you might forget the Senate produced such presidents as Harry Truman, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson--who were not exactly mealy-mouthed milquetoasts. He also overlooks plenty of current and past senators known for straight talk and strong convictions, from Barry Goldwater and Phil Gramm on the Republican side to Ted Kennedy and Henry "Scoop" Jackson in the Democratic ranks.

If Kerry sometimes reverses course, it's not because he's wasted 20 years representing the people of his state in the U.S. Senate when he could have been doing something useful, like running a baseball team. It's because, like most politicians, he sometimes finds that a shift in positions is politically useful--not an admirable motive, but hardly an unusual one.

Kerry certainly can't match the heroic consistency Bush has shown on tax cuts--which the president proposes when the economy is growing and when it's shrinking, when the budget has a surplus or a deficit, when the nation is at peace or fighting a war. A guy who uses a hammer on a nail and a screwdriver on a screw, in Bush's book, would be guilty of flip-flopping. A man of principle uses a hammer for every task.

I really shouldn't fault the president for his unchanging position on tax cuts, since it's one of his few positions that haven't changed. During the 2000 campaign, he said, "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building." Those troops are now reconstructing Iraq. After denouncing President Clinton's military intervention in Haiti, Bush sent the Marines there himself.

Bush said his predecessor "overdeployed" American forces, but he has stretched them even thinner. After pledging to bring our troops home from Bosnia, he kept them there.

In the campaign, he promised to boost the defense budget. After taking office, he said he'd keep it at the level proposed by Bill Clinton. Then he decided to raise it after all.

Bush partisans portray him as a forward-looking leader in the war on terror. That took another turnaround. In 2001, outgoing National Security Adviser Sandy Berger informed his successor, Condoleezza Rice, "You're going to spend more time during your four years on terrorism generally and Al Qaeda specifically than any other issue." But the administration left Osama bin Laden alone until he killed nearly 3,000 Americans.

After Sept. 11, 2001, Bush rejected demands for a new Department of Homeland Security, but eventually changed his mind. Then, when he didn't get his way immediately, he said the Democratic-controlled Senate was "not interested in the security of the American people"--because it declined to approve something he had opposed just months before.

The president was against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage; now he's for it. He rejected the idea of negotiating with North Korea over its nuclear weapons program, but lately he's been doing just that.

On Iraq, he promised to ask for a second vote by the UN Security Council before invading, only to renege when it became clear he would lose. In his 2003 State of the Union address, he said Saddam Hussein had vast stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. In his 2004 State of the Union address, he said Saddam Hussein "had weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."

Bush thinks it would be a mistake to entrust the presidency to a candidate with a history of flip-flopping on important issues. He should hope Americans don't agree.
--------------------------------------

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 226]

Damn - I'm dizzy from all the spin.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rehmwa 2]

I didn't see anything libertarian in that article. But I bet John sent him a box a chocolates.

A 'real' libertarian would have bashed Bush on his spending and then noted that he'd have to either not vote or support him anyway because Kerry would still be worse.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[riddler 0]

Quote

<----Voted for Ed Clark twice. Seriously.

Gotcha beat.

<-- Voted for Ross Perot twice.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[meltdown 0]

I didn't even have to read to know it was a Bush bashfest. Libertarian, right.

[rehmwa 2]

I also bet someone here has an uncle that voted for Al Gore twice;


in the same election


after the uncle was dead

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I didn't see anything libertarian in that article. But I bet John sent him a box a chocolates.

A 'real' libertarian would have bashed Bush on his spending and then noted that he'd have to either not vote or support him anyway because Kerry would still be worse.

Libertarian is the new word Liberals like to call themselves.

You know, like they used to call themselves "Progressives".

Wonder why they don't just admit they are Liberals?

Isn't being a Liberal something to be proud of?

[SkymonkeyONE 4]

Quote

Quote

<----Voted for Ed Clark twice. Seriously.

Gotcha beat.

<-- Voted for Ross Perot twice.

Nope, I voted for Perot in an election as well.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Damn - I'm dizzy from all the spin.

How about you enlighten us as to which statements were "untruths"?

(We used to call them "lies", but the Bush supporters don't like having GWB's untrue statements labeled as such).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Libertarian is the new word Liberals like to call themselves.

Our local Libertarians are quite different from liberals.

According to them, the only govt spending should be for roads, defense, and education. Not a free-spending liberal philosophy.

Opinions differ on drug decriminalization, but the general idea is personal responsibility. You can use drugs, but take responsibility for the events. Like alchohol use. Not a conservative philosophy.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Libertarian is the new word Liberals like to call themselves.

Our local Libertarians are quite different from liberals.

According to them, the only govt spending should be for roads, defense, and education. Not a free-spending liberal philosophy.

Opinions differ on drug decriminalization, but the general idea is personal responsibility. You can use drugs, but take responsibility for the events. Like alchohol use. Not a conservative philosophy.

I agree. I wasn't suggesting Libertarians were Liberals. Only that like the writer of the article, Liberals try to hide who they really are.

[Nightingale 0]

I would add law enforcement to that list (unless you were only referring to federal spending), but otherwise, it pretty much fits me.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Libertarian is the new word Liberals like to call themselves.

You know, like they used to call themselves "Progressives".

Wonder why they don't just admit they are Liberals?

Maybe because they associate themselves more with the aristocrats than with the rabble...

The whole left / right French Revolutionary business has been so ridiculously contorted it's a wash, imo.

If Bush woulda nixed the whole left/right thing instead of freedom fries he'd have done the world a favor.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Libertarian is the new word Liberals like to call themselves.

Our local Libertarians are quite different from liberals.

According to them, the only govt spending should be for roads, defense, and education. Not a free-spending liberal philosophy.

Opinions differ on drug decriminalization, but the general idea is personal responsibility. You can use drugs, but take responsibility for the events. Like alchohol use. Not a conservative philosophy.

I agree. I wasn't suggesting Libertarians were Liberals. Only that like the writer of the article, Liberals try to hide who they really are.

Instead of name calling, how about you enlighten us as to which statements in the article were "untruths".

We used to call them "lies" until the Bush supporters insisted that although GWB and his cronies say lots of things that are untrue or deceptive, they never lie.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

I also bet someone here has an uncle that voted for Al Gore twice;


in the same election


after the uncle was dead

The Chicago Tribune, of which Chapman is a senior editorial board member, endorsed Bush in 2000.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

I'm a libertarian. This means I am a "liberal" in the classic sense.

"Liberal" has been distorted. It used to be that "liberal" was an economic belief founded upon the ideas of Adam Smith. The "laissez faire" and hidden hand.

Nowadays, "liberals" typically embrace the economic ideology of Keynes. Ironically, Bush is doing just that.

I'm a libertarian who never voted for Bush. I've voted Libertarian the last two elections. Most think I'm pretty right wing on things, and on some things I am. But I'm also a lefty when it comes to personal freedoms.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Libertarian is the new word Liberals like to call themselves.

Our local Libertarians are quite different from liberals.

According to them, the only govt spending should be for roads, defense, and education. Not a free-spending liberal philosophy.

Opinions differ on drug decriminalization, but the general idea is personal responsibility. You can use drugs, but take responsibility for the events. Like alchohol use. Not a conservative philosophy.

I agree. I wasn't suggesting Libertarians were Liberals. Only that like the writer of the article, Liberals try to hide who they really are.

Instead of name calling, how about you enlighten us as to which statements in the article were "untruths".

Quote

Name calling??? It's only name calling if it's meant as a negative label. Are you suggesting Liberal is a dirty word?

Please point out where I said they were "untruths. I merely said the author was a Liberal hiding under the guise of a Libertarian. You disagree with me? Point out his Libertarian views.

We used to call them "lies" until the Bush supporters insisted that although GWB and his cronies say lots of things that are untrue or deceptive, they never lie.

Isn't that exactly how the author dismisses Kerry's "flip-flops"?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

But I'm also a lefty when it comes to personal freedoms.

Oh crap, now we have to define "lefty".

1 - If conservative means - little gov involvement
2 - If lefty means - leave people alone to do their own things

now a lefty is a conservative ("Miss Hoover, may I be excused, my brain is full")

and that, people, is why labels stink

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

and that, people, is why labels stink

They only stink if you put much value into them. Personally, I don't care what someone calls themselves. If someone shares more of my views than someone else, I'll vote for them regardless if they belong to the Republican, Democrat or Purple Party.

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

and that, people, is why labels stink

They only stink if you put much value into them. Personally, I don't care what someone calls themselves. If someone shares more of my views than someone else, I'll vote for them regardless if they belong to the Republican, Democrat or Purple Party.

What if you found out later they were lying to you just to get your vote?

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Libertarian is the new word Liberals like to call themselves.

Our local Libertarians are quite different from liberals.

According to them, the only govt spending should be for roads, defense, and education. Not a free-spending liberal philosophy.

Opinions differ on drug decriminalization, but the general idea is personal responsibility. You can use drugs, but take responsibility for the events. Like alchohol use. Not a conservative philosophy.

I agree. I wasn't suggesting Libertarians were Liberals. Only that like the writer of the article, Liberals try to hide who they really are.

Instead of name calling, how about you enlighten us as to which statements in the article were "untruths".

Quote

Name calling??? It's only name calling if it's meant as a negative label. Are you suggesting Liberal is a dirty word?

Please point out where I said they were "untruths. I merely said the author was a Liberal hiding under the guise of a Libertarian. You disagree with me? Point out his Libertarian views.

We used to call them "lies" until the Bush supporters insisted that although GWB and his cronies say lots of things that are untrue or deceptive, they never lie.

Isn't that exactly how the author dismisses Kerry's "flip-flops"?

If everything in the article is true, does it matter what label you place on the author?

If statements are untrue, does it make it better somehow that they come from a President of the United States who calls himself a "compassionate conservative"?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.