| Dec 24th, 2003 03:39 PM |
| Brandon |
YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE TALKING ABOUT?
LIBERTARIANISM!
I DON'T THINK OAO HAS TALKED ENOUGH ABOUT LIBERTARIANISM.
|
| Dec 24th, 2003 08:56 AM |
| The One and Only... |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore
neo-liberalism is predominantly an international term, which has taken on some domestic relevance. It is a doctrine that mant practice but few admit to. Joe Lieberman is a classic example of a free trade, pro-globalization, neo-liberal. He is also, btw, pretty pro-public schools, and uhhh, pro-roads (please, find me somene anti-roads, would ya??).
|
Yeah, but what I meant was that neo-liberalism ALWAYS goes with libertarianism. There is no such thing as an anti-globalist libertarian, unless you are referring to the libertarian socialists.
Quote:
|
It's true, populists often called for more government intervention, debt relief, collectivization, etc., primarily because it often stemmed from the agricultural regions of our nation. William Jennings Bryan was a progressive populist, but he was also an anti-Catholic prohibitionist. Populism often went hand-in-hand with big government social programs and moral conservatism. You can see shades of that populism in the third party campaign of George Wallace, as well as the Goldwater campaign. These men figured out that while Southerners might not be economic libertarians, they were certainly moral conservatives, and that could be used. This culminated with Reagan. Do not confuse populism with big government Liberalism, because they do not go hand-in-hand, despite the title of "the people's party." Van Buren and the Dems may have been the first to "popularize" electoral politics and exploit the vote, but that's not entirely populism.....
|
I know what populism is.
What I meant by the neo-liberal revolution was the great beginning of the era of global trade and, as it seems to be turning to, capitalism.
|
| Dec 24th, 2003 12:34 AM |
| Jeanette X |
www.hamsterforpresident.com
|
| Dec 24th, 2003 12:02 AM |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
Okay... exactly how do you define populism and neo-liberalism? Because to my knowledge, neo-liberalism is an extremely pro-market doctrine that goes hand-in-hand with libertarianism, and populism has always favored public schools, roads, etc.
|
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?....?
neo-liberalism is predominantly an international term, which has taken on some domestic relevance. It is a doctrine that mant practice but few admit to. Joe Lieberman is a classic example of a free trade, pro-globalization, neo-liberal. He is also, btw, pretty pro-public schools, and uhhh, pro-roads (please, find me somene anti-roads, would ya??).
It's true, populists often called for more government intervention, debt relief, collectivization, etc., primarily because it often stemmed from the agricultural regions of our nation. William Jennings Bryan was a progressive populist, but he was also an anti-Catholic prohibitionist. Populism often went hand-in-hand with big government social programs and moral conservatism. You can see shades of that populism in the third party campaign of George Wallace, as well as the Goldwater campaign. These men figured out that while Southerners might not be economic libertarians, they were certainly moral conservatives, and that could be used. This culminated with Reagan. Do not confuse populism with big government Liberalism, because they do not go hand-in-hand, despite the title of "the people's party." Van Buren and the Dems may have been the first to "popularize" electoral politics and exploit the vote, but that's not entirely populism.....
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 10:58 PM |
| Brandon |
ENOUGH OF THIS JIBBER-JABBER. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT LIBERTARIANISM!
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 09:45 PM |
| The One and Only... |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore
Woah, what about the Milky Way!!??? Let's not forget the entire known and unknown universe, okay!??
And are you saying that neo-liberalism is the opposite of populism, or that populism is somehow contrary to small government, lower taxation movements...? If so, your understanding of our political history is limited.
|
Okay... exactly how do you define populism and neo-liberalism? Because to my knowledge, neo-liberalism is an extremely pro-market doctrine that goes hand-in-hand with libertarianism, and populism has always favored public schools, roads, etc.
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 09:14 PM |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun
Liberals are not going to make that mistake again. You know that.
|
"Liberals" hardly made up the bulk of the Nader/Green constituency, and a lot of them will never vote the lesser of two evils, EVER.
I'll agree, if Dean is the candidate, it's pointless. But four years of a Bush administration tends to do that to people.....getting Bush out is their priority.
Quote:
|
I'm not being arrogant. I just think that Nadar has given up because he knows it too.
|
No, it's not that simple (read above). Nader is very good at pointing out the inconsistencies of the Dean campaign. Others would follow that nod. Nader doesn't want to hinder the efforts of the Kucinich campaign, which I have mentioned above.
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 08:55 PM |
| Ronnie Raygun |
Liberals are not going to make that mistake again. You know that.
I'm not being arrogant. I just think that Nadar has given up because he knows it too.
All liberals will have to stand together if they are to have any chance against Bush.
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 08:49 PM |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Nader clearly mattered last time, and were he to run a competent campaign, could hurt the Democrats again. You being a Republican Party cheerleader first, and a conservative second, is quite clear in your arrogance over this coming election.
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 08:47 PM |
| Jeanette X |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun
It doesn't really matter anyway.
|
No...I guess not. 
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 08:42 PM |
| Ronnie Raygun |
Kevin, I think you're getting too worked up over it. It doesn't really matter anyway.
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 08:23 PM |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
That's why Harry Browne always does so well.....not forgetting how the LP inflates their national office holders, lauding victories in non-partisan races and appointments to water department boards, school boards, etc. But I digress.....
This is a blow to the Greens, no doubt, but it's equally naive on Nader's part. I don't believe this "independent run" wil ever happen, IMO, this is merely his way of retiring. I may be wrong, but I dunno.
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 07:56 PM |
| Ronnie Raygun |
Nadar is all the green party ever had.
Even the Libertarian Party has more sway.
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 05:49 PM |
| Protoclown |
OH MY GOD, ONE AND TWO AND FOUR, YOU ARE SUCH A DORK.
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 04:33 PM |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
The world has been getting more libertarian consistently. Did you miss the neoliberal revolution, or what?
|
Woah, what about the Milky Way!!??? Let's not forget the entire known and unknown universe, okay!??
And are you saying that neo-liberalism is the opposite of populism, or that populism is somehow contrary to small government, lower taxation movements...? If so, your understanding of our political history is limited.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ranxer
i havnt been following greens enough to understand what nader is thinking, but i did hear that he said he's going to run if kucinich doesnt get the dem ticket.
|
Maybe, maybe not. The word I've been hearig is that Kucinich will stay in the thing until the very end, to the point that they kick him out. The candidate will be all but official by the first few primary/caucus meetings, but the other Dem. candidates can "technically" run up until the convention. Those candidates send delegates. Those delegates assist in writing the Party platform for the next four years. Some think this is Kucinich's plan, hoping that all the other candidates will have long dropped out, leaving an abundance of Dean and Kucinich delegates at the convention. This seems like a victory to some in Kucinich land, having the opportunity to put a Leftist issue or two on the platform (I have trouble believing it to be significant at al, but whatever). So Kucinich will be in it for the proverbial long haul, so Nader may never blossom, unless of course he realizes and gets frustrated with Kucinich's "change the party internally" plan.
Quote:
|
like ive been saying for a long time.. if we can't have the best.. lets have the worst so the revolution comes sooner. not that i wish bush's policies on anyone mind you.
|
People went for this argument in 2000, but I don't think they're buying it after actually living through four years, two wars, etc. with the real deal....
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 02:44 PM |
| ranxer |
i havnt been following greens enough to understand what nader is thinking, but i did hear that he said he's going to run if kucinich doesnt get the dem ticket.
regarding election predictions and oao's crystal ball, i don't think bush will win because of anything he has done.. actually i think bush's efforts have hurt his chance for re-election. as many have said the country is better off when he's on vacation.
he may win because many of us lefties can't support any of the democrats besides kucinich.. that is the left that supported nader.. unless nader starts pulling off some major headlines i'm campaigning for kucinich even after the dems put someone else up against bush.
like ive been saying for a long time.. if we can't have the best.. lets have the worst so the revolution comes sooner. not that i wish bush's policies on anyone mind you.
plus i won't have to throw out all my impeach bush investments if he's reselected. 
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 01:57 PM |
| The One and Only... |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Protoclown
There you go with the crystal ball again. You know how long your life is going to be. Where did you get such a wonderful device of prescient knowledge?
|
I like to call it probability theory. You may find it of interest one day.
The world has been getting more libertarian consistently. Did you miss the neoliberal revolution, or what?
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 01:08 PM |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
I think you'll find that the Reps have still secured the vote.
|
Working for Zogby these days....?
Quote:
Quote:
|
It is, none of that will happen. And your assumption that everyone, including pets, will vote Republican is equally naive.
|
Oh, it will happen before my death. Whether or not you realize it, our nation is getting more and more in favor of libertarianism every day. Populists are dead.
|
And upon what do you base these claims???
Mod, very good point.
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 01:00 PM |
| Miss Modular |
No Nader=No Dean.
Seriously, if Nader hadn't run the campaign he did in 2000, Howard Dean (and maybe Dennis Kucinich, for that matter) wouldn't be running right now, IMO.
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 12:59 PM |
| Protoclown |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
Oh, it will happen before my death.
|
There you go with the crystal ball again. You know how long your life is going to be. Where did you get such a wonderful device of prescient knowledge?
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 12:52 PM |
| The One and Only... |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore
Irrelevant, yet slightly reinforcing my argument against you. Swell, thanks!!
|
A bull market is a strong, powerful market. That doesn't go in your favor.
Quote:
|
Except for the fact that those elderly who actually vote, the white-upper/middle class, baby boomers, are getting screwed by this new medicare deal, and it's actually helping some lower-income, minorities, who vote less. Most recent polling data shows that the elderly don't even understand the new bill, and many people have since left AARP in disgust with it. Anyway, this is a digression from the point....
|
I think you'll find that the Reps have still secured the vote.
Quote:
|
It is, none of that will happen. And your assumption that everyone, including pets, will vote Republican is equally naive.
|
Oh, it will happen before my death. Whether or not you realize it, our nation is getting more and more in favor of libertarianism every day. Populists are dead.
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 12:51 PM |
| Protoclown |
While One Size Fits All was too busy looking into his crystal ball to notice the real world, he was forgetting that the majority of us didn't vote for Bush in the last election, that the first Gulf War didn't save his daddy when election time came around, and most importantly, A YEAR IS A FUCKING LONG TIME. We're talking about a QUARTER of his term that hasn't even happened yet. He can gain or lose a LOT of support in the coming months.
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 12:37 PM |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
Please, don't make me laugh. The Republicans are going to win this race easily, particularly now that market is going to go heavily bull in 2004. You should know, I know, Bush knows it.
|
Irrelevant, yet slightly reinforcing my argument against you. Swell, thanks!!
Quote:
|
The elderly will go Rep thanks to that fact that they actually passed a change to Medicare, something that the Dems have talked about but never followed up on.
|
Except for the fact that those elderly who actually vote, the white-upper/middle class, baby boomers, are getting screwed by this new medicare deal, and it's actually helping some lower-income, minorities, who vote less. Most recent polling data shows that the elderly don't even understand the new bill, and many people have since left AARP in disgust with it. Anyway, this is a digression from the point....
Quote:
|
All that aside, I'd like to think that Libertarians will pick up a little this year and possibly cause the Republicans to lose now that the Greens are gone, but I know that is just unrealistic.
|
It is, none of that will happen. And your assumption that everyone, including pets, will vote Republican is equally naive.
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 12:31 PM |
| Protoclown |
HEY, STUPID! THE ELECTION IS ALMOST A YEAR AWAY! NOT TOMORROW!
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 12:30 PM |
| The One and Only... |
Please, don't make me laugh. The Republicans are going to win this race easily, particularly now that market is going to go heavily bull in 2004. You should know, I know, Bush knows it.
Granted, that has more to do with the Federal Reserve than the Bush tax cuts, but voters tend to vote in a fairly dumb manner when it comes to the economy.
We all know that the middle class will sway right-wing, since it is the Republicans who are protecting marriage, ousted a dictator, and stood up against challenges that arose from 9/11 - not to mention slashing taxes a little.
The elderly will go Rep thanks to that fact that they actually passed a change to Medicare, something that the Dems have talked about but never followed up on.
Outside of minorities, the poor are going to be devisive since Bush has increased government funding in areas relevant to them.
The rich, obviously, will vote Republican.
All that aside, I'd like to think that Libertarians will pick up a little this year and possibly cause the Republicans to lose now that the Greens are gone, but I know that is just unrealistic.
|
Topic Review (Newest First)
