Monday, September 17, 2007

Vote For The Mavericks

I thought Allen Amundsen's commentary in the Eureka Reporter this morning was a fun read. Some points well made.

I've always wondered why the mainstream media focuses so much on the dull mainstream candidates. Those candidates are so predictable. It's refreshing to hear candidates like Ron Paul (I've never listened to Mike Gravel) go contrary to the rest in the so- called presidential debates.

I agree with Amundsen: These "debates" aren't really debates, for the most part. They're just forums where candidates can give you a short sound bite on why you should vote for them.

I always wonder why so many people watch these debates and, then, when election time comes vote for the same dull clowns they've been watching for months on end?

I say don't vote for them. You'll only encourage them. Waste your vote on one of the dark horses, like Ron Paul. That's what I usually do and I feel better for it.


At 9:04 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Waste your vote?

Great advice Fred.

At 9:22 AM, Blogger Fred said...


At 9:25 AM, Blogger mresquan said...

I'd be wasting my vote by voting for anyone other Paul at this point.

At 9:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If we had instant run off voting people would feel better about voting for alternative parties.

But Ron Paul would still be a wasted vote. His views on public education, privatization, government regulations, etc. would mean a return to virtual feudalism. Thankfully, extremists like Paul will never be successfully elected president.


At 10:13 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Fingersfly wrote, "Thankfully, extremists like Paul will never be successfully elected president.".

Oh, I don't know. I've never seen a libertarian candidate that's gotten such good press from both the Left and Right.

That said, you are correct.

First, he won't win the Republican nomination. Second, even if he did, he'd probably lose, even against Hillary. Too many people are afraid of liberty.

As a wise man once noted, Most people fear liberty because it means individual responsibility.

At 10:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Individual responsibility has nothing to do with why we need government to do some things for us. We can't pave our own roads, build our own schools or water delivery systems or regulate business. Communities are better at the big issues than individuals are. We are all individually responsible for electing a government that serves the needs of the governed and paying the taxes to support what we as a whole demand in the way of services. It isn't that difficult to understand for most people.


At 10:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BTW Fred, Paul isn't a Libertarian candidate. He is running as a Republican.


At 11:19 AM, Blogger Fred said...

"BTW Fred, Paul isn't a Libertarian candidate. He is running as a Republican.".

I know, but he was the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 1988.

"Hey Fred, if you're registered as a Libertarian, how are you going to vote for Ron Paul???????".

I can't, unless I decide to switch registration just to vote in the primary. Don't know that I'll bother doing that.

I've heard from a number of LPers that will be switching to Republican to vote in the primary and then switching back. I doubt it will be enough to do any good, though.

At 11:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would guess all three :)

At 12:23 PM, Blogger mresquan said...

Fred,just register as decline to state,then switch right back.

At 1:34 PM, Blogger Fred said...

mresquan wrote, "Fred,just register as decline to state,then switch right back.".

I'm not sure but I don't think the Republicans allow DTS to vote in their primary. I think the Democrats do, but not Republicans.

No big deal. It's not that I have a problem with registering Republican temporarily. After all, I was registered Republican almost my whole life until '92. I just don't know that I'd want to bother switching from LP to any other party or status.

Who knows. We'll see how things go. And keep in mind, the nomination is actually made in caucus (at the national convention) and doesn't have to follow what the popular vote within the party is. One could argue that anybody voting in a primary is wasting their vote since the vote isn't what decides who wins.

But it usually does follow the popular vote.

At 2:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred said: "I've always wondered why the mainstream media focuses so much on the dull mainstream candidates."

Uhh, are you seriously wondering? It's because corporations directly influence the news organizations they own. While big media companies favor conservatives, ultimately they'll push for any candidate who won't rock the boat. Paul, Gravel and Kucinich are boat rockers. They represent upheaval to the status quo, and so they will be stopped via all of the usual tricks. Read They do a good job of pulling together the discrepancies, particularly with Fox News and ABC News. Our state media does some pretty downright ****ty things... I'm not talking from the usual crazy blog commentaries (which do show up often on Reddit), but actual documented bias for specific candidates and against specific candidates, consistently.

At 5:39 PM, Blogger Fred said...

I'm loving deleting the troll posts.

At 8:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Should I feel honored that my posts weren't deleted as "troll posts?" LMAO!!


At 9:26 PM, Blogger The Boy Most Likely to ... said...

Comment Moderation is good sometimes Fred. I have a fan on my blog that makes the same comments regardless of the subject matter of my posts.


At 9:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can't take the heat Fred? Can't answer the tough questions?

At 2:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Thankfully, extremists like Paul will never be successfully elected president."


Big gov't. out of your personal life?
respect for the constitution, accountability?

Wow- if thats considered "extreme" nowdays- I guess we really are in trouble.

How sad someone thinks Ron Pauls views are "extremist"!

God help us.

At 4:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No public schools, no regulatory agencies over pollution, food, drugs, clean water, everything privatized, no minimum wage, no OSHA may not sound extremist to you Mr. 2:50 but you can bet they sound extremist to intelligent Americans.


At 4:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No minimum wage
+ no social safety net

= slavery.

At 4:52 PM, Blogger Pogo said...

fingersfly is a recent graduate of a government skool. We must ignore (strike that) forgive her.

At 5:05 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Well, obviously Fingersfly and 4:48 are Authoritarians, or close to it.I suggest we give them the time to make their case.

At 5:05 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

4:48PM: "Slavery: the seizure of the product of ones labor by force." American Heritage Dictionary.
As in: TAXATION to support those who are capable of but who refuse to work.

At 5:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pog, Actually Fingersfly graduated from "government skool" about 38 years ago, back when you had to have a passing grade in Civics and Problems of American Democracy to graduate from high school. I notice that none of you who disagree with me are able to refute my post, just belittle and insult. Isn't it interesting that in a post about political debates not really being debates that none of you Libertarians (Uber Republicans) can debate? No wonder politics has degenerated to such a degree and we get so many people in office who are unworthy of their position.


At 6:05 PM, Blogger Pogo said...

fingers, I suggest you re read your post of 4:16PM. It contains absolutely NOTHING in the way an argument. It merely lists programs that are nowhere authorized in the Constitution that you failed to understand either 38 years ago or now.

At 6:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Our constitution was designed by brilliant men to be adaptable to future needs. No where in the constitution does it restrict congress from passing laws to benefit citizens. Nor does it prohibit taxation. My earlier post was a list of Paul's extremist views. His type will never be elected because he represents only a small number of hypocrital whackos like yourself who benefit from these programs but whine about paying for them.

At 6:40 PM, Blogger kaivalya said...

If you are registered non-partisan, I believe you have your choice of ballots in the primary.

I will be voting for Ron Paul because he is the best kind of Republican, the Jeffersonian Republican (aka Libertarian).

Isn't it time we took back the Republican party from the Federalists? Isn't it time to start the Revolution of 1800 all over again?

-a citizen for the State of Jefferson

At 7:07 PM, Blogger Pogo said...

fingersfly, your view of the Constitution as a "living document" is total nonsense. The "brilliant men" who crafted it provided an AMENDMENT procedure in Article V. Amendment XVI (though questionably ratified) allows for income taxation. Please cite the explicit authorization for: "...public schools, regulatory agencies over pollution, food, drugs, clean water, ... minimum wage,...OSHA." The Constitution was enacted as the "rules of the game", if those rules can be changed without resort to Article V, ANYTHING goes. Welcome to the wonderful world of "progressivism" wherein citing the Constitution (or Amendment II) in a Kalifornia courtroom is one of the quickest ways to be jailed for "contempt of court".

At 7:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The founders granted congress the power to pass laws including taxation. If the constitution wasn't adjustable other than the amendment process then they wouldn't have made such extensive provisions for a congress. SCOTUS decides if a law passed by congress is unconstitutional,not a bunch of neofascists calling themselves Libertarians.


At 8:12 PM, Blogger Pogo said...

fingersfly: "...SCOTUS decides if a law passed by congress is unconstitutional,..." Thank you for making my point. And who, pray tell made the above "rule"? SCOTUS did: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). It is nowhere explicitly stated in the Document. Please enlighten us as to your conflation of libertarians with fascists. Calling them "neofascists" is about as logical as calling the Pope an atheist. Is that "logic" as taught to the (kindergarten) class of 1961? You are a living example (caricature) of the "progressive's" propensity toward hurling epithets in lieu of debating.

At 9:04 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

There is a good definition of "libertarian" here

At 9:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Libertarian agenda is a corporatist agenda. Fascists are corporatists, according to Musolini. You like to talk about individual freedom but not about the kind of world we would live in if you were successful, a corporate controlled world. A world without government regulation of vital resources or minimum wage, where only those able to pay would be educated.

"Progs" prefer an educated world where people are protected from the powerful. The majority of people believe there are many things we as a whole can do better than every individual having to do for themselves.

If you don't like this world and want low taxes, try a third world country without any social programs where most of the people are illiterate and hungry. Don't forget the bars on your windows and doors to keep them from robbing you to survive and keep lots of cash handy for the bribes anytime you have a problem.

From the Preamble to the Constitution...

..... promote the general welfare...

Do you think promoting the general welfare could be interpreted by a reasonable person as allowing public education, regulations for safe water and air, and a minimum wage just to mention a few? the blessings of liberty...

Do you think an educated and informed populace is the best way to protect our liberty?

Marbury v Madison didn't give SCOTUS judicial review. That was granted in Article III, 2 Clause 2.

Who do you think should decide if a law is constitutional or not? You?

At 9:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Let George do it."

At 6:17 AM, Blogger Pogo said...

It would be interesting to hear Eric's take on using the "preamble" of a statute or legal document as an argument in a court of law. Article III sec 2 does NOT explicitly grant the power of judicial review. It defines the jurisdiction of SCOTUS. Judicial review is "IMPLIED" and thus has seldom been challenged since Andrew Jackson stated: "John Marshall has made his decision. Let him now enforce it if he can." Or when Abraham Lincoln ordered the arrest of Chief Justice Roger Taney.
I suggest that you do some research on the definition of and reasons for those evil corporations. You appear to subscribe to the "progressive's" definition which is: "any economic private entity which is more successful than I"

At 7:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The preamble states the purpose of the constitution.

Ignoring my definition of fascism and using the strawman to defend corporatism is an interesting debating tactic. LOL!! Until the 14th Amendment was grossly misinterpreted to grant personhood to corporations, they didn't have the dangerous power they have today, but SCOTUS ruled and we have to accept their rulings or amend the constitution to comply with our desires.

You didn't answer my question of who you believe should decide if a law is unconstitutional.

I'll just rest my case here and let you libertarian neofascists continue on with your political masturbation without my laughter. On close inspection you are anything but funny.


At 10:18 AM, Blogger Pogo said...

FYI fascism: Noun 1. a political theory advocating an authoritarian, hierarchical GOVERNMENT. It would (still) be interesting to learn your rationale for conflating libertarianism with fascism.
To answer your question of "who..." Ideally, judicial review would be by a court not interested in amending the Constitution by means other than Article V (i.e. "emanations of penumbras"). This is of course in contravention of the "progressive " or judicial activist view which has more or less prevailed since 1937.

At 1:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

esquan, does that mean you're jumping ship from your Democrat loyalties to back a Republican?

At 3:24 PM, Blogger Jeff said...

Wow, there was almost interesting debate here. Pogo made effort, but rarely rose to a level of debate.

I see the fast (and accurate) typist as the clear winner, but then without any real competition, that isn't much of an accomplishment.

"It's because corporations directly influence the news organizations they own."

And the ones they don't own through the advertising dollars. It's not a liberal media, or a conservative media, it's a corporate media.

"While big media companies favor conservatives, ultimately they'll push for any candidate who won't rock the boat."

You are extremely optimistic. I'm convinced they place into office by any means available candidates who steer the boat their way. The ones they don't own, they marginalize.

At 6:33 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

"fast and accurate typist" equates libertarians with fascists and fails to defend that allegation. Perhaps you would care to enter the breach? Do you assert that the New York Times is a "corporate tool" of what?; given Pinch Salzburg's vitriolic hatred of anything smacking of opposition to the leftist agenda.

At 7:29 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

Excuse me. That should read: Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. as the Chairman of the Board of the NYT CORPORATION.

At 5:50 AM, Anonymous hacker harry said...

what's this?? jeff and fingersfly with the same ip address? who'd a thunk it?

At 7:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

LMAO Harry!! Pray tell us what that same IP address is then you lying weasel?

At 9:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

7:36AM LMFAO learn more about site meters ;-)

At 9:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:11 You are a LIAR if you claim that Jeff and Fingersfly are posting from the same IP address.
Is this the tactic you use when you can't debate? This blog is a joke.

At 2:14 PM, Blogger Jeff said...


On cursory reread, I found that FF gave this string: "The Libertarian agenda is a corporatist agenda. Fascists are corporatists, according to Musolini,"
and referred to "libertarian neofascists."

The support of the allegation comes from the use of Musolini's definition. This could be a fallacy of appeal to authority, and therefore invalid, but it is defense of the allegation. The counter to it given was a dictionary definition of Facism, which fails to address FF's use of an alternative definition.

As for your comments and questions about the NYT, why did you pick only that media outlet? Which reaches a larger audience, the NYT, or Rupert Murdoch's media empire? Didn't he try to buy the NYT? I know he acquired the Wall Street Journal. If I had megabucks and a political agenda, and I couldn't acquire the NYT, what I could do is bribe journalists when possible. I could plant columns. It's amazing what you can do with large amounts of cash. So while I agree that the NYT is liberal leaning, I believe that its influence is deliberately limited by the wealthy scoundrels and their minions.

At 5:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The term Fascism is derived from the word "Fascio," which literally means a 'bundle of sticks', in reference to a corporatist structure uniting politics, industry and labor as a coherent unit.

At 8:51 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

Sorry 5:42PM, the word fascio came in modern Italian political usage to mean group, union, band or league. It was first used in this sense in the 1870s by groups of revolutionary democrats and socialists in Sicily, to describe themselves. Thereafter, the word retained revolutionary connotations. It was these connotations which made it attractive, for example, to young nationalists of leftist background who demanded Italian intervention in World War I. The fasci they formed were scattered over Italy, and it was to one of these spontaneously created groups, devoid of party affiliations, that Benito Mussolini belonged. "Fascism" is a term that was originally coined by Mussolini to describe his adaptation of Marxism to the conditions of Italy after World War I. He was emulated by Herr Hitler who formed the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). The distinction between these authoritarian philosophies of Marxism and Soviet Communism was the ownership of the means of production remained with the previous owners but in both systems the state was in complete control.

At 9:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

LMAO!!! The frightwing just can't help but claim that fascists are leftists. Attila the Hun was a leftist too, right? In fact, Mussolini reversed the socialist nationalization of industries and returned them to private ownership. Fascism is an unhealthy alliance of industry and government. Exactly what Eisnhower warned us about. Too bad we didn't listen.

At 9:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Benito Mussolini.."Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism
as it is a merge of state and corporate power."

From Politics Defined:
Fascism (in Italian, fascismo), capitalized, refers to the right-wing authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy 1922-1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. The name comes from fascio, which may mean, "bundle," as in a political or militant group or a nation, but also from the fasces (rods bundled around an axe), which were an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of magistrates. The Italian 'Fascisti' were also known as Black Shirts for their style of uniform incorporating a black shirt (see; Political Colours).

From Wikipedia:
A key distinguishing feature of fascism is that it uses a rightist mass movement to attack the organizations of the working class: parties of the left and trade unions. This strategy is variously called Corporatism, Corporativism, or the Corporative State [2], all terms that refer to state action to partner with key business leaders, often in ways chosen to minimize the power of labor unions. Mussolini, for example, capitalized on fear of an imminent Socialist revolution [3], finding ways to unite Labor and Capital, to Labor's ultimate detriment. In 1926 he created the National Council of Corporations, divided into guilds of employers and employees, tasked with managing 22 sectors of the economy. The guilds subsumed both labor unions and management, but were heavily weighted in favor of the corporations and their owners. The moneyed classes in return helped him change the country's laws to raise his stature from a coalition leader to a supreme commander. The movement was supported by small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats, and the middle classes, who had all felt threatened by the rise in power of the Socialists.

Heywood Broun... "Fascism, is a dictatorship from the extreme right or to put it a little more closely into our local idiom, a government which is run by a small group of large industrialists and financial lords."

At 7:40 AM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

9:33PM and 9:59PM: LMFAO. Why the panic? Can't you stand to have the rest of us know your friends for what they are: Marxist authoritarians? The next fable you will try to peddle is that the real power in Germany 1933-1945 was the Krupp family and I.G. Farben instead of the National Socialists and in Italy 1923-1943 was Fiat and the Caproni - Macchi aircraft conglomerates instead of Benito's black shirted Marxist thugs. Mussolini and Hitler found it more convenient and efficient to retain the management of enterprises rather than replace them with peasants and proletarian ignorati as the Soviets had done. To suggest that the business men rather than the political aparatchiks weilded the power is delusional. ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ knows one German family forced to join the NSDAP and Hitler Youth on penalty of losing their light bulb factory and being shipped to Bergen-Belsen camp. No wonder present "progressives" wish to tar their opponents with the "right wing" brush.

At 7:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Still nothing of substance from the frightwing, just more spewing of lies. These Limbautomized people are hopeless.

At 8:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

P.S. Your god Hayek has been thoroughly discredited on his claims that fascism is leftist. But you can't blame him for trying. Hiding your fascism behind an innocuous label is nothing new. Understanding the consequences of your political agenda seems to be impossible for Libertarians. Fascism by any other name still reeks.

At 10:10 AM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

7:54/8:01AM: "...just more spewing of lies. These Limbautomized people are hopeless...P.S.
Hayek discredited"? By whom, Dennis Kucinich?
Fact: Adolf Hitler nominated for NOBEL PEACE PRIZE in 1939 by SOCIALIST member of Swedish Parliament. Reason: "Hitler: the Führer of the National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party who avoided war in Autumn of 1938 and occupied Czechoslovakia". Possibly on the suggestion of Stalin who was negotiating the NAZI-SOVIET non aggression treaty? Indeed it would seem that your collectivist friends will go to any lengths to cover their tracks. Lenin's reference to "Useful Idiots " was spot on.
Now, let the seething non sequiturs begin.

At 11:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hitler's rise to power, as well as Musolini's, was powered by the wealth of the industrialists and bankers including many in the US. The first people they arrested and killed were the socialists. Hitler blamed the Reichstag fire on socialists and used that excuse to end democracy in Germany. Even a cursory reading of history demonstrates clearly that fascism was a reaction to socialism. Don't you read anything but your Libertarian neofascist propaganda?

At 2:30 PM, Blogger Jeff said...

I have no research to back up the opinion that follows; it is manufactured from my own imagination with input from fiction and nonfiction I have consumed with my fractured awareness of the world around me.

Whether the flavor is socialist, communist, or facist, power has the same basic elements. There is political power and there is market power. Mussolini led the political vein of power. Various business men managed the means of production. Hitler held the political power, industrialists the market power. Stalin held political power, appointed men the market power. Political power is fleeting; market power is tangible and enduring. As the political power shifts hands, business men compete for market power.

As a peasant, it doesn't much matter whether Mussolini was facist or communist. A joke I made up many years ago: What's the difference between a facist regime and a communist regime? In the communist regime, you own the bullet they execute you with.

Political power needs peasants to man the military; market power needs them to staff the work places. Political power needs the consent of masses (coerced though it may be); market power needs customers.

Orwell's model from 1984: there are those on the top, those in the middle and the masses at the bottom. The top wants to use the bottom to stay on top, the middle wants to use the bottom to take over the top.

It is advantageous to the bottom for the top and the middle to be competing with each other for power since each group will try to win over the support of the groups in the bottom.

I'll stop here and hope if you've read this far, it found it at least somewhat interesting.

At 3:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good insight Jeff. But understanding the left / right dichotomies in political systems is important even to us peasants. Power still corrupts and absolute power still corrupts absolutely. Blaming all the evil in history on one point of the political compass blinds us to the danger of authoritarians who claim to be on our side, which ever side that happens to be.


Post a Comment

<< Home