Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
For the Divided Government Critics
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Jacob Sullum of Reason lays it out:

Problem:
Federal spending as a share of GDP, which fell under Clinton to 18.5 percent, is again above 20 percent. Discretionary spending has increased faster under Bush than it did under Lyndon Johnson, no slouch in doling out taxpayer dollars. Earmarks have reached record levels, and the abuse of emergency spending bills is rampant.

Far from reforming entitlement programs, the Republicans compassionately created an exorbitant Medicare drug benefit that will add trillions of dollars to the program's long-term shortfall—the gift that keeps on taking. Far from reducing the federal government's scope, they have extended its reach into state and local matters such as education, abortion, marriage law, and end-of-life medical decisions.

Bush has either actively sought bigger government, as with the Medicare bill and the No Child Left Behind Act, or acquiesced in it, as with transportation spending and farm subsidies. Returning the favor, the Republicans who control Congress have acquiesced in the expansion of executive power, behaving as if they expect their party to control the White House forever.
Solution:
It takes no leap of faith to believe that a Congress run by Democrats would be more inclined to impose limits on the president's surveillance, detention, and war powers. Or to suggest that Bush might suddenly find his veto pen when confronted by free-spending Democrats instead of free-spending Republicans.

As the Cato Institute's William Niskanen points out, the only extended periods of fiscal restraint since World War II occurred during the Eisenhower and Clinton administrations, when different parties controlled the executive and legislative branches. "Government spending has increased an average of only 1.73 percent annually during periods of divided government," he writes in the October Washington Monthly. "This number more than triples, to 5.26 percent, for periods of unified government."
Any questions?

And, as Sullum concludes:
I am not expecting Democrats or Republicans to act on principle. I am counting on pure partisan perversity, the tendency to automatically resist whatever the other guys try to do, simply because they're the other guys. Blind team loyalty has brought us six years of unbridled growth in the federal government's size and scope. If the elections go right, the same mindless partisanship can put the bridle back on Leviathan.
Precisely.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Any questions?
Ok, I’ll bite: what has Sullum been smoking, and does the answer have anything to do with why he’s been such a long-standing (and, unlike his split-government advocacy here, eloquent) advocate of drug legalization?

A more realistic scenario if the Dems take either house is that they will insist on all sorts of new spending conservative Republicans oppose, but which an "compassionate conservative" like Bush would likely sign, as a condition of renewing the Bush tax cuts that everyone has gotten used to but no one seems to remember are temporary. If Bush "suddenly finds his veto pen" (rotsa ruck), or if the nominally Republican house refuses to go along to enact the compromise bill in the first place, then the Democrats have a win-win. They got all the tax increases they wanted, without having to take the heat for actually voting for a tax increase. If they don’t get their new spending now, no big deal; their cash flow is all set up to go for when their guy/gal takes the reins in ’09. Then, President Billary gets all the spending increases she wants, again without either having to vote for a tax increase as Senator, or having taxes go up in any manner while she is President. Meanwhile Bush (and Congressional Republicans, too, if they controlled the other house at the time) gets blamed for raising everyone’s taxes after promising not to. Read my lips, part deux.

Of course, Sullum doesn’t care. Like most big-L libertarians, he doesn’t want to win. He just wants to complain.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
I can hardly wait for the Democrats to come to power...so I can punish McQ and his silly ilk.

I can see it coming, nothing but complaints about what the Congress is doing or not doing.....Because it’s obvious McQ doesn’t REALLY want Speaker Pelosi or Majority Floor Leader Reid. He wants McQ in those positions, but he just can’t grasp that his faction is still a MINORITY in politics and rather than build a workable coalition to produce policies he likes he supports a negative strategy that accomplishes NOTHING.

Frustrating one’s opponents is NOT the same as advancing one’s cause. And ultimately it’s advancing one’s cause that matters. You didn’t see the McGovernites fleeing the D-Party did you? You didn’t see them hoping that their party lost whilst THEY were the minority in their party, did you? Nope.

Positive effort thru time is the key, not some hope that the Republicans will learn from their "Mistakes"-which CAN mean, "They didn’t do what I WANTED" not that they made mistakes-and that a divided Congress will achieve anything. And Henke and others here NEED change, unless now Social Security and Medicaid AREN’T giant unfunded mandates waiting to sink the Ship of State.

Finally I’m intrigued by this teaching process...what will the Republicans learn? That they need to be MORE libertarian, less reliant on the Evangelical Right? Already the "pre-mortems" are in and it seems that the best policy that the for the Party is...well SURPRISE, advice that agrees with one’s pre-election policy preferences...if you’re a Pro-Choice Republican, be more Pro-Choice, the Evangelicals hurt us...if you’re libertarian, spend less...Funny that the "lessons" to be learned are not so obvious but really do match with one’s policy desires. Bottom-line: I don’t think that the Republicans are going "learn" what "you" want them to.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Finally I’m intrigued by this teaching process.
What teaching process? What part of this don’t you understand?
I am not expecting Democrats or Republicans to act on principle. I am counting on pure partisan perversity, the tendency to automatically resist whatever the other guys try to do, simply because they’re the other guys. Blind team loyalty has brought us six years of unbridled growth in the federal government’s size and scope. If the elections go right, the same mindless partisanship can put the bridle back on Leviathan.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
My response in full here. The short version, though, is that Sullum is both doing univariate analysis (hint: Ike and Clinton were the only peacetime presidents in the group) and seems ignorant of how Congress really works.
 
Written By: James Joyner
URL: http://outsidethebeltway.com
What part of this don’t you understand?
I am not expecting Democrats or Republicans to act on principle. I am counting on pure partisan perversity, the tendency to automatically resist whatever the other guys try to do, simply because they’re the other guys. Blind team loyalty has brought us six years of unbridled growth in the federal government’s size and scope. If the elections go right, the same mindless partisanship can put the bridle back on Leviathan.
I understand the idea, I just don’t think it will pan out. For example, the Medicare bill and the No Child Left Behind Act, if the Democrats had controlled one or both houses, do you really think the bills would not have happened or cost less? Divided government is a great idea if one party wants to cut social programs and spend on defense and the other wants to do the opposite but if one party wants to spend $40 billion on a program and the other party wants to spend $60 billion, I think your going to end up with a bill costing $50 billion.
 
Written By: err
URL: http://
McQ I laugh... they don’t just "oppose" one another...

From the Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates:
29. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy. No more. No less
The Democrat’s are merely the enemy of your enemmy. There is NO guarantee that you’ll get anything from their victory.

You and others don’t have any power and seeminly refuse to develop the skills or patience to capture power, so you hope only for "Negative Victories."

Folks on the Right and the libertarian Front seem to be arrogant or childish. You’re no better than the Kossacs... It is NOT obvious that your way is the better way. And the failure of any party to recognize your brilliance, speaks not to their IGNORANCE, but YOUR failure to convert.

It took forty years for the Liberal mindset to percolate so thoroughly thru American politics that a Republican could say, "We’re ALL Keynesians now." It took thirty years for the Great Society to emerge. In that time Liberals and Keynesians didn’t leave their party or hope for their party’s defeat or pray for grid-lock....they worked to advance their cause(s).

So too the opposition, be it Right or libertarian. It takes time, and perserverance...Sorry McQ but it is NOT inherently obvious that the increase in Federal spending is bad...you and yours need to explain cogently and politely why it is so. And both sides want to be where Ted Kennedy is TODAY, without recognizing the struggle it took to put him where he is. And it seems that neither group wants to put the effort in to achieve the intellectual/PR dominance that Liberalism has. Again it’s not obvious that you’re right, and until it IS obvious less praying for "divided government" and more work towards a government of your ideals is the better goal.

And again, tell me again, Why nothing is better than something, or have you forgotten the "Looming crisis of entitlements?" SOMETHING must be done and nothing being done is not a solution....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I agree with Joe on this: The ’libertarian way’ is not obviously better to a massive amount of people. In fact, most people don’t even have a clue what it means to be libertarian. Many people have never even heard of it, and for many who have, they associate it first with drug legalization (which isn’t the first flag I’d fly in my parade). People are genuinely afraid or dismissive of many laissez-faire ideas (abolish the FDA? Are you kidding?! Who will protect us?) There is a tremendous amount of communication and education that needs to occur to simply start people thinking about a more liberty-oriented way of life, and then another great effort to actually get people to risk time, money, and effort to try it out.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
I think this explains a lot about politics...

Partisanship is a tool used to gain/maintain power.

Neither side is above pandering to maintain power.

"We" have the government we have because "we" don’t know what we want, or how to get what we want.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/what_if_the_bums_are_us.html
Occasionally, presidents and congresses get a free pass — some crisis or event fosters national unity. Bush had such a moment after 9/11; Lyndon Johnson had one after Kennedy’s assassination. Otherwise, politicians can deal with public opinion in three ways: Ignore it, change it or pander to it. Politicians who choose the first often become ex-politicians. The second is hard. The easiest course is to pander.

Bush and the Republican Congress happily cut taxes, enacted the Medicare drug benefit and praised deficit reduction. Anyone who thinks the Democrats set a higher standard should read "A New Direction for America,’’ the manifesto issued by House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. It proposes much new spending (bigger drug benefits, Pell grants and veterans benefits), new tax breaks, balanced budgets and no specific new taxes.

It also promises energy "independence’’ by 2020 — a popular but (unfortunately) impossible goal. We now import 12.5 million barrels of oil a day, 60 percent of our use. We can’t offset that by 2020. Unsurprisingly, House Republicans also plug energy "independence.’’

Tell people what they want to hear, regardless of how short-sighted or stupid it might be. That’s the bipartisan instinct. In this election, the Republicans deserve to lose, and the Democrats don’t deserve to win. Yes, I am a longtime believer in divided government because it may check each party’s worst excesses. But don’t expect fundamental changes if Democrats reclaim some power.

We won’t acknowledge choices, contradictions, unpalatable facts. So, many problems persist. Throwing the bums out is a venerable tradition, but what if the ultimate bums are us?
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://
Nonsense.

Look:
" Federal spending as a share of GDP, which fell under Clinton to 18.5 percent, is again above 20 percent."
The Lying Bastard was playing to the "center" from the left. This is what "triangulation" and that "Third Way" jazz was all about. Bush’s calculations are not nearly so politically cynical: he really believes in what he’s been doing. However, the long term consequence is decreasing eccentricity of orbit around socialist principles, and this is strictly due to the nature of compromise, Bruce. The left is naturally-bound to consolidate everything that they will take from Bush’s concessions of principle, while the right, for all their bloody outrageous lip-service to "freedom", etc., gag-me, have less and less to defend all the time due to both leftist consolidations and the concessions that they routinely make through compromises.

"Federal spending", in the context presented in these arguments is not any way to judge the broad-stroke political action in this country now. It’s a petty concrete isolated out of context from the long-term dynamics of the thing. Believe me, Bruce: the left will consolidate and advance on Bush’s concessions. They might not get a hell of a lot done in the next two years, but these sorts of implications of principle can afford to wait their turn. And they will get their turn, in the long run.

"Gridlock" is not what you people think it is. At its very best, it is a tactical dormancy of militant advance on the left, and that is not the same thing — at all — as actively combatting that whole philosophy.

And nothing else will do.

Bear in mind Fabianism and Gramscian "Long March", Bruce. That’s what’s going on. Here’s where the left has it all over the right: yes, Clinton’s calculations were cynical in the short-term of his administrations, but they were also fidelity to very much longer-term principles. The left has always known its aims far better than the right knows its own. Their principles have always — certainly throughout the whole 20th century — been far better integrated, and that’s what makes theirs a long-term program.

"Gridlock" is useless against this.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Ooh, ooh, I have a question:

If divided government is such a guarantee of lower government spending explain the Nixon administration.

Hint: neither the Democratic congress nor the Republican administration were interested in restraining spending or the growth of government. In fact they were competing to see who could grow it the most. Even an impeachment, the ultimate in partisan warfare did not stop the explosion in the size of the government. In Niskanen’s examples of the Clinton and Eisenhower years, one of the parties involved was interested, at least temporarily, in restraining spending (both times the Republicans).

Today’s Republican party has no interest in restraining spending and the Democrats haven’t since Grover Cleveland.

I will make this prediction once again: The result of divided government (Democratic congress) will be that the Bush administration will agree to a tax increase in exchange for continued funding for Iraq.

Please expalin what I am missing, this divided govrnment thing sounds like such a good story except for the fact that it is highly implausible.

Disclaimer: I am not making a positive argument for keeping the government run by one party, the Republicans have been a spendthrift disaster. Just that things won’t get any better until one party (I don’t care which one at this point) decides to be the small government party. Until then you can mix and match all you want, it won’t change anything.
 
Written By: DS
URL: http://
Several good points above.
Discretionary spending has increased faster under Bush than it did under Lyndon Johnson, no slouch in doling out taxpayer dollars.
Yeah, but LBJ did a fine job of increasing entitlements. That is, increasing spending not just during his term but forever after.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"Gridlock" is not what you people think it is. At its very best, it is a tactical dormancy of militant advance on the left, and that is not the same thing — at all — as actively combatting that whole philosophy.

Billy, I know that you want to see Americans wake up to reality by the millions, but what percentage of the population is ready to combat that philosophy of which you speak? And what percentage would be needed for that combat to be successful? Clearly there is a big gap.

I don’t think any libertarians actually want gridlock - it’s just that they’ll take it over the current system. Most libertarians are people who are thinking short term because they think your long term view is just impossible. Again, look at this country and tell us that right now it isn’t.

Libertarians choose the battles they think will maximize liberty, within the set that they view as realistic options. The options you categorize as realistic simply aren’t seen as such by most. Until that changes, you may as well be charging at windmills for all most people can tell.
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
The State has tremendous power to ruin lives and destroy liberty - all without significantly expanding actual spending at all.
 
Written By: John Sabotta
URL: http://www.no-treason.com
Again, Wulf, you make the same mistake as McQ...you think TODAY. Look at the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party or Blacks, especially Blacks. They waited 32 years for their electoral vote to come in. I don’t recall that Blacks ever wished for "gridlock" or for "Divided government" or for "their" party to lose, even though their party didn’t always treat them well. I don’t think the McGovern Wing of the Party hoped for a Goldwater victory in ’64 or a Nixon victory in ’68. Like I said before it takes time, perseverance and a degree of loyalty.

You want a victory TOMORROW or 30 years from now you need to join a coalition TODAY. And don’t hope that your team loses… Someone’s loss is not YOUR victory.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Malachi Martin, in his tome Keys of This Blood, long ago characterized western "civilization" marching to Gramsci’s tune, even as they purported to be fighting the inevitable socialism it represented.

There is nothing one can offer in defense of the present that detracts from that, or, in any way, defends the government "as is" as being "American" in any original intent or form.

The American Experiment has been dead for many decades—Cleveland was perhaps the last president to act properly, but Lincoln had already plunged the totalitarian knife into the heart of the "republic."

We are just playing out the string, and any semblance of constitutionality in present politcal events is merely coincidental.

Contrary to those who will certainly object, I find the present circumstances to be heartening. Statism is on its last legs.

Freedom might actually have a chance.

:-) jb
 
Written By: jb
URL: http://
I don’t think any libertarians actually want gridlock - it’s just that they’ll take it over the current system.


Right.

It’s a short-term tactic, not a strategy.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
but Lincoln had already plunged the totalitarian knife into the heart of the "republic."
Yeah D@MN that Whig totalitarian....murdered the Republic, all for tariffs...I mean slavery was on it’s last legs...no one believes that old saw any more about "dying to set men free."

Statism, ah the Libertarian bug-aboo... tell me when this Statism was not an issue...let me know when the "Golden Age" was, dude....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
It’s a short-term tactic, not a strategy.
Yeah, well, as a tactic it’s not too great...it doesn’t grant you any victory, and may hand you a defeat...and if you want a victory, well you’d better start making friends, somewhere, in the Democratic or Republican Party, but friends SOMEWHERE, and praying for defeat ain’t a way to secure friends and trashing the Democrats ain’t much of a way either. You talk STRATEGY, well start executing one...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"...what percentage of the population is ready to combat that philosophy of which you speak?"
What different does it make?

What makes you think there will be more of them tomorrow?
"It’s a short-term tactic, not a strategy."
It’s heartening to see you say that, Bruce. This is not snark; I’m serious. I mean it.

I hope you mean it, too, for lots of reasons.

I say it’s just delusionary. If we get it out of the way, then maybe we can get on toward facing some bloody hard facts with what’s left of our American spine.


 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
There has yet to be a "golden age" "dude" . . .

You sit in sh*t arguing about sh*t as if it means sh*t and you get riled when someone mentions the fact that you live in sh*t.

Go for it. Makes sense, I guess . . .

I am not a part of your life’s equation, nor do I want to be.

Lincoln ended the American Experiment. His war ensconced the Federal authority over the states, and nothing you say can undo what has happened since. And no rational soul can look at America today and find a semblance of what, constitutionally, we are supposed to be.

If you—"dude"—want to pretend that "what is" is "American" . . . I cannot stop you. But please, do not expect me to accept the pretense.

It is, well . . .

Sh*t.

(And I had to * the sh*t word just to get this comment up. I rest my case.)

 
Written By: jb
URL: http://
"Libertarians choose the battles they think will maximize liberty, within the set that they view as realistic options. The options you categorize as realistic simply aren’t seen as such by most. Until that changes, you may as well be charging at windmills for all most people can tell."
Look, Wulf...

I do not believe for one second that you would deliberately set out to insult me.

And I cannot tell you just how god damned bloody outrageous is what you wrote there.

Here I am busting profanity regs at this place where they’re right up in front of my face as I type this, but I swear to god: this is necessary, and I have to do it.

You talk to me about "realistic". Bruce does it, and everybody does it. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You are avoiding reality as hard as you can, and you bloody come on to me with what’s "realistic".

I am convinced that you people do this because you flat don’t believe that what is going to happen and what is happening right now in front your eyes can actually happen here in America. You guys constantly — very reliably — use that word and the very concept of "reality" to ward-off reality. Now, here is something that I know about the philosophical/linguistic aspect of this: when you guys do that, you’re only indulging a mass-popular inclination for symbolism and metaphor in language that’s been especially prevalent since the 1960’s. No matter any of that, however, there is nothing that violates reality in the things that I say.

The fact is that I often talk about things that are so difficult and heavy in their implication that almost nobody has a taste for facing them.

Did you see my remarks over at "Mike’s Eyes"? One person said, "Your comment is depressing." Well, I know that. And some people find it depressing when the weather-radar shows them rain, but whether it’s "depressing" or not has nothing at all to do with the fact that it’s bloody raining.

Nobody ever heard me say that any of this was going to be easy. Look: a goodly percentage of the people who’re going to see these remarks are simply, summarily, disqualified from this discussion. All the lefties and even most of the "moderates" that this place sees in its comments: they are not interested in freedom — at all, in any way, no matter what they mouth — and they will not and do not get the time of day from me. I know this: that set of facts right there means that the line of enemies on the other side of the field of battle enlarges from horizon to horizon. "Mona"? Forget about it. There is simply no talking to her because what she says is utter gibberish without reference to "reality". (C’mon, man; there’s an issue: you people put up with her rubbish, and I know that nobody of any account does it sweetly, but who slaps her in the head with that "reality" cudgel?)

I know full well something that you guys don’t say, which is that this is going to be a desperate fight. I know that just putting it that way invites all kinds of ridicule from smiley-face types (e.g.; Glenn Reynolds, although he would never condescend to ridicule me because it would be far beneath his now finely established net.dignity). And yet you talk of "tactics" in this "gridlock" approach. None of it looks past the tomorrow that everybody knows is coming every time Field Marshal Rodham opens her mouth. To those of you here worth talking to, the questions will not go away: what are you going to hope for when her half of the "grid" is "lock[ed]" up and you know damned well that nothing about it will be relinquished from it? Meanwhile, the conservatives keep on compromising what is yours to begin with: the only manifestation of individual liberty this world ever saw proclaimed explicitly on that principle, and they’re giving it away piece by piece, election-cycle by election-cycle.

My god. Is that what constitutes "hope" for you people? Do you have any hope at all, or are you really, simply, content to cast your lot with a "tactic" that runs between every other November? ...which means that it’s as short a lifespan as can be managed in a videotape editing suite under Katie Couric’s direction or shipped from The New York Times’ loading-dock directly to the floor of your parakeet-cage.

This has to begin with ideas, men. And you guys are doing everything you can to not think about it. And then, you throw up your hands and say it’s hopeless because nobody wants to think about it. That is what this...
"...but what percentage of the population is ready to combat that philosophy of which you speak?"
...means. You guys are huddled-up around this "gridlock" non-idea (anti-idea), completely without the intellectual or (yes; it must be said) moral initiative to understand — or explicitly admit — what it really is.

And you have the nerve to lecture me on "reality".

Let me tell you something, Wulf: if this thing can be saved, then, someday, the generation that actually gets up and does it will curse us. It is very possible that we will not be here to know that, and I suppose there is a feeble little hope in that — that we won’t have to listen to that condemnation. But someone will absolutely someday point out all the generations gone past who did nothing real to save it, and they will mark us for bloody cowards for passing on the necessary task, which will only become more and more difficult as it rolls on.

I suppose it’s easy for a lot of people with the right thing in their hearts to live with that.

But it shouldn’t be.

And I think that, with the courage of conviction that history has demonstrated as not only possible but eminently worthy in our species, enough of you could be far better than that to do what will have to be done, sooner or later.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Billy, you (and Joe) seem to have misinterpreted me a little. I will take that to mean that I wasn’t clear enough. Look, I’ve never endorsed this gridlock approach. I’ve only commented on why some are pushing it as a short-term goal. I don’t even think it was the best plan in the short term, personally.

I did read you at Mike’s Eyes, and in a lot of other places, including your own site. I send friends to your site. I share libertarian and even Objectivist principles with people. And they treat these ideas like a tiger - it’s beautiful, but too dangerous to keep. I don’t believe that I will ever see a return to the actual Constitution. Not for one second.

I’d love to continue to discuss this, but I’m late for work. Later.
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
If divided government is such a guarantee of lower government spending explain the Nixon administration.
Therein lies the not of an argument that I have maintained for a long time. "divided government" is not just about counting the D’s and the R’s, and, upon noticing that they are relatively equal figuring that everything is under control.

The usual leftist labeling of Nixon as a right wing monster, notwithstanding, Nixon was at best, a centrist, not unlike our current president. The reason that Nixon was not contained by a Democratic Congress, is because Nixon himself was far more liberal than most of his Democratic counterparts in the Congress. Indeed, that’s why Nixon shows Agnew as a running mate. He needed somebody father to the right to balance the ticket.

Look, even assuming that stagnation in government would work to the end claimed, a 50/50 ballots in Congress, given the number of Republicans in name only, does not stagnation make. If we actually take the time to look beyond the D or the R, and look instead at the ideology contained in each of the members of both houses, we discover that the problem is we now have a liberal majority in Eat representative body.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
jb your post proves a number of points....that supposed libertarians can need serious medication....
It points were incoherent and seemed based on argumentum ad hominen as much as anythihng else, AND
It is, well . . .

Sh*t.

(And I had to * the sh*t word just to get this comment up. I rest my case.)
Is an excellent example of your problem, you mean because you could not type "sh*te" as a part of your post, you were some how censored, your "liberty" curtailed, and yet jb this is a PRIVATE site. The reasons for the filter can be good, bad, or indifferent...they are IMPOSED BY THE OWNERS OF THE SITE, not the state. In short, the filters ARE libertarian, the result of private decision-making...YOU object because your desire to profanity is somehow seen, by YOU, as a "Right." It’s not.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe—

Not a libertarian—anarchist, really. As for the ad hominem part—

Freedom in actuality is an incredibly difficult concept for you political types to wrap your intellectual arms around. You are so very much conditioned by the political nonsense that passes as reality that to entertain a contrary opinion seems totally beyond you.

That is okay by me—I really don’t have a dog in your fight anyway. You are the one flailing at shadows in the cave, not me. I eschewed the entire politcal approach years ago—it does absolutley nothing but suck up tax dollars, pass laws that restrict personal freedom, start wars all over the globe every several years, and trots out the claim to protect every "me" in doing so. Thoreau saw through that "sh*t" (lol) decades ago, but few others get it.

You want to elect your masters—I reject the idea altogether. It is that elementary.

In any case—be cool. jb

 
Written By: jb
URL: http://
Private property, etc., no problem. It’s just that the stated reason for the content filters seems kinda sketchy. The blacklisting of certain terms is meant to help people steal time/resourses from their employers by goofing off at work? No skin off my nose, none of my business, but am I missing something?
 
Written By: Monte Masters
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider