AJC's Tucker called McCain "a real libertarian"; Matthews said he "deserves to be president"
On the April 15 broadcast of NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show, Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor Cynthia Tucker claimed that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is "a real libertarian." Tucker also said that McCain is "an Arizona conservative, not an Alabama conservative," presumably a reference to the late Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ). In the same broadcast, host Chris Matthews continued to praise McCain and repeated his claim that McCain "deserves to be president." He also supported Tucker's assertion that McCain is "a real libertarian." However, both Tucker and Matthews ignored McCain's positions on gay rights and abortion, both of which have conflicted with the principles of libertarianism in the past, as Media Matters for America has documented.
After playing a video clip from the October 19, 2002, edition of NBC's Saturday Night Live, hosted by McCain, in which he portrayed then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, Matthews asked: "Has anybody any question as to why the conservatives don't like this guy? ... [T]here he is lampooning one of their guys, talking about a police state and mocking the Patriot Act and the whole works." Tucker replied: "Well, John McCain ... is a real libertarian. He's an Arizona conservative, not an Alabama conservative. But many conservatives believe you don't criticize within the group. That's why they don't like him." Tucker's characterization of McCain as a "real libertarian" echoes that of Republican strategist Michelle Laxalt, who, as Media Matters documented, said that McCain "matches a lot of the maverick, [former President Ronald] Reagan, [former Sen. Paul] Laxalt [R-NV], individualistic, and civil libertarian in many respects." Like Laxalt, Tucker offered no examples of McCain's purported "libertarian[ism]." McCain has a lifetime score of only 23 percent from the American Civil Liberties Union.
Furthermore, this is not the first time Matthews has claimed that McCain "deserves" to be president. On the January 22 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Matthews said that McCain "has deserved the presidency. Whether he should be president or not, it's up to the voters. But he's certainly done a lot." Media Matters has documented other examples of Matthews praising McCain. For instance, on the February 13 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Matthews lauded McCain's "maverick reputation" and "the cut of [his] jib." Matthews has also described McCain as "a firm man" and called him "kind of like a Martin Luther."
From the April 15 broadcast of NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthew's Show:
MITCHELL: I think that the maverick image is yesterday, but there is still -- as Dan and the others have been saying -- there's still a place for him in this campaign. It's not as the maverick. I don't think he can campaign as the maverick when he's embraced the Bush agenda and this unpopular war. But he still can try to reclaim that conservative base.
MATTHEWS: OK, let's be unusually brutal on this show, although I think the guy deserves to be president in terms of all his service to the country, and here we are saying he's yesterday's news. Cynthia, can he make it through to February 5th, when we have this tsunami Tuesday and all these big primaries?
TUCKER: I think he will make it until then, Chris, but he may not come out on the other side.
[...]
MATTHEWS: Before we go to break, by the way, John McCain's political stardom has also made him a comedy star, whether he's making appearances with Jay Leno, David Letterman, Jon Stewart, or in a cameo in The Wedding Crashers. But McCain really hit the big time when he hosted Saturday Night Live in 2002. In one particular sketch with a familiar-looking host, he pretended to be hard-nosed Attorney General John Ashcroft:
[begin video clip]
DARRELL HAMMOND (actor impersonating Matthews): Attorney General, we're going to start with you. How do we make this country feel safe again?
McCAIN (impersonating Ashcroft): Chris, security starts with vigilance. As Americans, we will never truly be free until each and every one of us is afraid of being thrown into jail. And thanks to the TIPS program, we've been able to detain tens of thousands of potential American terrorists for months at a time for little or no reason, just like the founding fathers dreamed.
[end of video clip]
MATTHEWS: Has anybody any question as to why the conservatives don't like this guy? Cynthia, there he is lampooning one of their guys, talking about a police state and mocking the Patriot Act and the whole works.
TUCKER: Well, John McCain has -- is a real libertarian. He's an Arizona conservative, not an Alabama conservative. But many conservatives believe you don't criticize within the group. That's why they don't like him.
MATTHEWS: I know, and there he is taking Manhattan by storm.
Two points 1) in terms of all his service to the country. Refers to the fact he was tortured for America. It is a qualifying statement. 2) I'm a libertarian...McCain is a libertarian in some respects, not in others.
Kerry sustained pain and injury in the same war. Nobody said that meant he deserved to be president (certainly didn't hurt, but only in the rap industry does an injury mean instant credibility*).
*kidding!
Chris Matthews has said that Kerry certainly did more for his Country than Bush. So what are you talking about??
Street cred.
Both Kerry and McCain have spent decades screwing this country over. If that's service, I'll pass.
Did he say Kerry "deserved" to be president? Support for a candidate is not the same as claiming they have some kind of divine right for the office.
I Think It's Funny How Many People Of Color On These Shows Represent The GOP Point Of View. If You Were To Go By These Talk Shows You'd Think There Were As Many Black Repubs As Dems. It Just Seems Shady To Me.
So according to you, Black people are so unsophisticated that they must all agree with one another on every issue?
"McCain has a lifetime score of only [link to action.aclu.org] color="#0052a3">23 percent from the American Civil Liberties Union"
Ha ha. That's funny. As if that disqualifies someone from being a libertarian. The ACLU is a far left organization, not a civil liberties organization. They protect some civil liberties but not others. A better measure of McCain's libertarianism would be his score from the CATO institute. CATO is libertarian on every issue, not just those that further a liberal agenda.
Excellent Post. Let me explain Libertarian...b/c I am one.
Libertarian means in limited gov't both social and economic. That means no regulations or entitlements. But, it means social freedoms too.
On the social issues, McCain is in the center.
But, on economic issues, he is to the right. That's a libertarian - sort of.
So no regs means my well armed multi corp comes to your nieghboorhood sucks anything of value with maximun destruction duly spread and a poisoned lanscape that grows and glows. Over expressed perhaps, but I think you see the basic question. If not, how would I be stopped? Bigger guns, insurgency? How would idiotic greed be controlled?
How would idiotic greed be controlled??
You're making my point for me. It shouldn't be controlled.
Regulations and Government create monopolies b/c only a few companies can financially abide by the regulations.
I challenge you to find one monopoloy in the history of the world not caused by the goverment.
With no regulations, more people can start their own businesses, more people will have choices of where to work, and prices of goods goes down. This increases the wages and purchasing power for everyone.
You may confusing government and capitalism.
Didn't confuse anything I wrote. Please respond what you mean??
EWEST was referring to operating parameters such as environmental law and other constraints. You're talking about MARKET-related regulations.
If you actually believe there should be no government regulations, then you're not a libertarian. Libertarians DO believe in minimal government. But they also believe that your right to do with your property as you choose ends when it starts to harm others or the property of others. THAT requires SOME regulation.
Absolutely wrong:
That would be a commonlaw Tort, or nusance. It has nothing to do with regulation.
You couldn't create enough court rooms or educate enough judges and lawyers to handle the chaos you're promoting.
What??!!
What do you think it taught in the 1st year of law school?? Hahaha
Huh? I think you must have a typo in your post. I can't make sense of it.
Contract Law and Torts are taught to 1st Year law students. It is the most basic aspect of American Law.
Moreover, if you didn't have regulations, you would have less litigation, not more.
So you wanna put first year law students in as judges? You realize you make very little sense.
And you may be right about fewer lawsuits. If corporations have all the power, nobody will be able to sue.
Frankly, you make a lot of absurd assertions that you couldn't prove if your life depended on it.
Are you serious??
The simple point I was making is that a first year law student could easily deal with the issues of Contracts or Tort. They are not complex. Experienced judges could easily handle it as well.
What your saying about Corporations is just rediculous. If a corporation harms you, you have a potential Tort Claim.
What your saying about Corporations is just rediculous. If a corporation harms you, you have a potential Tort Claim.
First, you're talking in circles. You say that if a corporation (or anyone, more generally speaking) harms you, you can go to court instead of rely on government regulations to prevent the harm in the first place. This is idealistic, at best, and, at worst, would require about a much larger legal system than we currently have. And that would require more judges. Your solution appears to be to let first year law students try and preside over tort cases.
Second, I find it ridiculous to be called "rediculous."
"would require about a much larger legal system than we currently have."
You seriously need to take a good look at the legal system. We presently have Tort and Contract Law. This means that if a Corporation harms you, you have a cause of action against them. We also have regulations. 1 + 1 = 2. If you take away the regulations, you would have less litigation. 1 + 0 = 1.
Heh. Well, you're right. If absolutely everything is legal, then nobody could sue over anything, right?
Of course, that leaves a lot of innocent people being harmed with no recourse.
They have recourse --- Torts and Contracts.
aaaaaaand we're full circle.
I fail to see any case in which deregulation of an industry had benefitted the public at large while expanding the pocketbook of the corporation or company.The California power compay crisis... That was freaking fiasco. The state of California lost revenue, brown-outs, people dying because of toxic chemical dumps.Libertarians are basically the butt end of a joke: They're just Republicans that want to smoke dope and look at porn.
Libertarians are basically the butt end of a joke: They're just Republicans that want to smoke dope and look at porn.
Actually, that description makes them sound pretty okay to me. At least compared to plain ol' Republicans.
To respond to the substantive aspects of the above comments.
The California "deregulation" was a misnomer. There were still substantial regulations that essentially created a deregulated Monopoly. There were no alternatives to the corrupt energy corp.
Sure unregulated greed shouldnt be controlled its a good thing that someone, TO MAKE MONEY, put a housing tract on a toxic waste dump in Love Canal and didnt tell anyone. Those kids who got leukemia were just collateral damage. Its a GOOD THING, that the Ford company put the Pinto on the road KNOWING it would kill and maim people because paying the lawsuits was still cheaper than changing the design. Those people killed and maimed surely understand the common good. Once we get tort reform and people who build housing contracts on toxic waste dumps can make even MORE money and that is GOOD. You need help Doren.
Contract law and Tort law takes care of that and provides a cause of action.
It has nothing to do with regulations.
Contract Law and Tort Law didn't stop Love Canal or Pintos.
Regulations would not have prevented it either.
But, Tort law and Contract law provide a cause of action.
So the tainted food and horrible working conditions portrayed in Sinclair's The Jungle were remedied by tort law. I see.
Sinclair looked at anecdotal evidence and not at reality. The reality was that the Gov't was creating monopolies making it so that many workers had limited options to work. The less barriers to entry in the market, the more choices for work of the citizenry. Moreover, the Gov't has no right to prevent the freedom of contract between workers and their people willing to pay them.
Moreover, as far as regulating the food. Private companies (Consumer Reports...etc.) can easily replace the actions of the Gov't. It would inform people about what they are eating, and people would therefore not purchase goods or services from unethical businesses. It would also be cheaper and more efficient.
"Private companies (Consumer Reports...etc.) can easily replace the actions of the Gov't. It would inform people about what they are eating, and people would therefore not purchase goods or services from unethical businesses."
That's easily one of the craziest things I've ever heard. Private companies have no teeth, they have no enforcement power. Companies that act ethically are handicapping their own profit margins, so that encourages all companies to lower their standards and some will be relatively better than others, while still measuring far below regular standards. What are people going to do, starve? What's Consumer Reports going to tell people then, product X is crap but it's better than everything else, so you should buy it?
"Private companies have no teeth, they have no enforcement power."
Right, but the consumers do. If a company "Taco Bell for example" produces crappy food. You then don't buy that food, and they lose money. Their competitors who produce good food win.
Consumer Reports would let people know which cars are the safest, which food is the best, which computers are the most powerful, which vitamins are the safest...etc. The companies who tried to sell you "snake oil" would be financially harmed unless they were ethical.
Unless they find it cheaper to just pay off all those they harm than fix their products.
Did you read my post? No company will be forced to provide anything under your scenario. The bar can be lowered for all companies to maximize profits. Or is your argument that businesses are too ethical for that to happen?
It's good news for Consumer Reports though, as everyone in America's going to need a subscription.
Wrong, the bar gets get raised w/ competition.
That's quite obviously an assumption. When gas goes up, just about every gas station raises their prices in unison. I hear about one or two that are about forty miles from my house that have reasonable prices, but outside of that they all go up. Profit margins. If companies can cut back on spending to increase the holy profit, then they'll do that. Some may spend more to make more, but to assume that it'll be some grand contest to see who can provide the best product lest they get an unfavorable review in Consumer Reports borders on the insane.
How far out there do you have to go to think that the government shouldn't be in the business of protecting its citizens from this sort of thing? Really, if Consumer Reports wants to inspect your restaurant, you don't have to let them. They have no power. How many of these magazines are you going to need to write up every little business in the country anyway? Small businesses thumb their nose at the magazine and their following issue is going to be as thick as the yellow pages. Who's going to spend time reading it to find something that as far as they know is more expensive and only marginally better? Without your assumption holding up I don't see any signs of intelligence in your plan at all.
While we're at it, why don't we scrap the police departments and have local yokels patrol the streets with their shotguns and walkie-talkies? It would be cheaper and more effecient, don't you think?
Police departments are different.
2nd. Collusion loses to the Prisoners dillema in a deregulated economy. The first company who lowers its price will get 100% of the business.
It would if they followed regulatory law. I mean murder laws dont stop murders either so should we do away with them
So then instead of addressing the problem your solution is let them die then the families can SUE??? Are you kidding? Why do we have laws against murder, I mean let them kill people then the families can take care of the problem by suing the killers.
Murder laws are analogous to Tort laws. Tort is a civil action. Murder statutes are Criminal actions.
That's what they do to third world countries. Why not here? We're the ones who buy it all anyway. Might as well put the toxic sweatshops closer to the WalMarts.
Why does the ACLU defend Rush Limbaugh and the KKK's right to march, then?
As a libertarian, let me explain. There are two aspects of a libertarian. The ACLU is to the far-left on social issues and economic issues. That is the definition of liberal.
Libertarians, like myself are on the left on social issues, but on the far-right on economic issues.
No, your statement was that the ACLU was not a civil liberties organization, just a far-left one. So...then...why do they defend Limbaugh and the KKK, if they are just liberal instead of a civil liberties organization?
Pardon me, Rino's statement, and he's who I was responding to.
B/c defending limbaugh and the KKK, is a social issue. It deals w/ the right to due process.
It has nothing to do w/ economic issues.
So the right to due process is a "liberal" issue?
Yes, giving as much protection as possible to the one accused ("due process") is a liberal issue.
It's a constitutional issue. If that's really a partisan matter, then conservatives are on the wrong side of the foundation of our entire system.
The point is that they're more interested in the Constitution than in taking down political enemies like Limbaugh. If that's "liberal", then using that as a pejorative is quite bizarre.
If they were interested in the Constitution, then they would advocate that Roe v. Wade be overturned, since the Constitution says absolutely nothing about abortion.
Wrong, Due process is not given to use in the Constitution, the Constitution states that Due process cannot be taken away. It is implied that we all have the right to Due Process.
However, Due process used to permitt people to be harrassed by the police until they confessed to a crime. Miranda is made up, but solves that problem.
So the spectrum of Due Process is what is liberal or conservative.
The Spectrum goes from allowing police to induce a confession, to allowing a Pedofile to teach people how to molest children over the Internet.
Wasn't beating a confession out of someone declared illegal because it clearly violates due process? It's not really part of the "spectrum" of some political scale of what's acceptable under it or not.
No, pre Miranda there were actually Supreme Court cases that allowed confessions to be admissible where a man was beated by police.
Since then, the Supreme Court created Miranda.
That may be true, but it's not really answering my question. You're using something that's been thrown out as part of a modern framework of reasonable viewpoints. There may be some room for debate as to how much protection people get from the law, but that doesn't make it a "liberal" or "conservative" issue. Unless conservatives are arguing that people should have confessions beaten out of them, and I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Well, there is a difference w/ a lot of the extent it goes even in modern, as you say "reasonable" issues.
The Supreme Court "created" Miranda?
It did. Read the case. The judges who wrote the Miranda decision would say they created it too.
Perhaps that's short-hand for "court-created Miranda right to counsel."
There is no "Miranda right to Cousel." Police don't have to provide you with an Attorney if they don't ask you questions.
Miranda stands for the proposision that they have to explain to you your rights.
Miranda is short for "Miranda v. Arizona" in which the Supremes held that "The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of his rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney."
Popular culture gave the actual reading of those rights the name of Miranda.
I would say that directly saying the right to due process cannot be taken away is a lot more than an implication that we have the right to due process I would say it is saying it directly
Exactly,
That is in fact, what all the Bill of Rights say if you really read them.
They are really a "Bill of Gov't Limitations." It is implied that people have those rights to begin with, and then some (9th Amendment), which the Gov't can't take away/limit.
It doesn't have to say anything about abortion. It was written in the 18th century, was abortion such a big issue at that time that it had to be addressed? Good lord. By your logic any issue that arises into the public forum after the Bill of Rights can't be addressed at all unless by amendment.
"By your logic any issue that arises into the public forum after the Bill of Rights can't be addressed at all unless by amendment"
Those kind of issues should be voted on! That's what we have a democracy for. Issues that aren't contained in the Constitution should be voted on. It's not a difficult concept. If you want to change the Constitution, amend it. Don't expect activist judges to change it for us.
So we should scrap the Supreme Court then? We don't need them to interpret any laws, just address an issue on the "O'Reilly Factor" for a couple of weeks and have people vote.
Sounds great.
You're not making any sense whatsoever. There are a lot of rights explicitly contained in the Constitution that can't be taken away. The right to bear arms is one. That's explicitly contained in the Constitution. The right to an abortion is not found in the Constitution. It was simply created by activist judges with the Roe v. Wade decision. If you can find the word abortion in the Constitution I'll give you $100. If not, then you'd be better off keeping your mouth shut.
If you think that Roe v. Wade gave us the "right to an abortion" then you don't know what Roe v. Wade affirmed.
"If you can find the word abortion in the Constitution I'll give you $100."
Um, I already said it wasn't, because it wasn't an issue at the time. But that doesn't mean that the principles in the Bill of Rights can't be applied to more modern situations, and that's what the Supreme Court is all about...interpretation. Just because the word "abortion" doesn't appear in the original document doesn't mean that legal analysis and application is "activist".
I'm not making a lot of sense? Whew.
I think it time to keep YOUR big mouth shut until the day your tiny brain can keep up. The ninth amendment is explicit that there are other rights not specifically detailed in the Constitution itself just because you are too stupid to understand its plain language really isnt OUR fault.
Ldoren went to Pat robertson's Law School, what do you expect?
Who the hell are you, he wasn't even referring to me you idiot.
Have you ever read the US Constitution? Here's a few excerpts:
Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
So if abortion is not specifically mentioned, then that is a matter left to the states per their constitutions, or to the people themselves. So your beloved Federal government has NO say in this whatsoever. They have neither the right to deny or disparage those rights. Stop trying to rape our women with the Federal government. Their wombs are not the property of Washington DC. Case closed.
"So if abortion is not specifically mentioned, then that is a matter left to the states per their constitutions, or to the people themselves"
That's what I want. I want each individual state to decide it's own abortion laws. States like New York and California would still have abortion on demand and states like Alabama and Georgia would only have legal abortion in the most extreme circumstances. That's the democratic process and it's what our founding fathers intended.
Wrong. The 9th amendment says specifically that the fact SOME rights are enumerated, or explicitly laid out doesnt mean OTHER rights are dont exist. The Supreme Court was created to determine the constitutions intent. THEY say, and I will take THEIR expertise over yours that ONE of those rights the *9th amendment was talking about was a right to privacy and that abortion was part of that right. You disagree fine. Its silly to say they had no basis to make this decision because abortion itself wasnt mentioned when the 9th amendments specifically says that INDIVIDUALS have rights that arent specifically given in the rest of the bill of rights. Now the STATE doesnt have the RIGHT to take away any rights the CONSTITUTION says I have and the body created to make that determination says abortion is one of those rights, under a privacy umbra that the 9th amendment was talking about.
This is why the Constitution was written in broad concepts rather than specific case by case dogma. It was written so it didnt HAVE to be amended every other year when new issues arise but rather have the Supreme Court, which was specifically given this task IN the constitution, could interpret those broad concepts to the new realities. I think that was brilliantly done.
If they were interested in the Constitution, then they would advocate that Roe v. Wade be overturned, since the Constitution says absolutely nothing about abortion.
Actually, they ARE protecting the Bill of Rights by protecting the right to abortion. What I do with my body is MY business and nobody else's -- certainly not the government.
And the fact that McCain has been against abortion all along demonstrates, along with other positions, that he's not a Libertarian. Libertarians don't insist on telling people what to do with their body. They don't tell you you can't smoke cigarettes or weed or take pills, though they won't be fond of the idea of paying for your treatment if and when you decide to kick heroin. Libertarians, even the right-most-leaning of the bunch, think religion has no place in government.
Seriously, you need to do a little reading.
"What I do with my body is MY business and nobody else's -- certainly not the government"
So does that mean that you should have the right to take illegal drugs? Does that mean that you should have the right to engage in Prostitution? It's your body, right? The point is that there are already limits to what one can do with their own body. Another point is that it's not really your body at all, but the baby's body that is being destroyed. We could debate this issue all day long, but the larger point remains that the Constitution says absolutely nothing about abortion. Issues like gay marriage and abortion weren't included in the Constitution. Those weren't even issues back then. Our founding fathers wanted us to vote on controversial issues like abortion. It's what we have a democracy for. I myself am a big fan of voting and democracy. You obviously aren't.
"So does that mean that you should have the right to take illegal drugs? Does that mean that you should have the right to engage in Prostitution?"
Absolutely. Drugs are a health issue, like cigarettes or alchohol, where making them illegal doesn't help to solve the problem at all. All it does is create a cash cow for organized crime, just like Prohibition did, and people sent to jail on mandatory sentences push out more dangerous criminals like rapists back out onto the streets. As for prostitution, what better example of capitalism is there? Regulate it for disease control, tax it, and relax. It's always going to be there, it's not hurting anyone else, so make the best of it. Why spend money trying to eradicate things that are too big and established to tackle, when we can make money and handle it in a more mature manner at the same time?
Actually, the Founding Fathers didn't want the citizens voting on certain things. See also the Electoral College. You might also have a look at the actual Constitution to say how its amended. The people are the last to vote.
And if what we're talking about is Libertarianism, since that's a key point in this article, you might want to look at the Libertarian party platform. The Libertarian party in this country believes that abortion is best left up to the person facing the issue. Right there in its platform, it refers to the "right of privacy." I know, it's not mentioned in the Constitution. But if you think it doesn't exist, despite affirmation by the Supreme Court, then let's let the government put webcams throughout your home.
And as for voting on it, let's do it. That is, however, the last thing the anti-abortion , anti-privacy crowd wants.
As for your comment that I'm against democracy and voting, ... put up or shut up.
"The Libertarian party in this country believes that abortion is best left up to the person facing the issue"
The libertarian party also believes that the government shouldn't spend taxpayer money on abortion. That's something that most liberals support. The libertarian party also believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the issue should return to the states.
At which point a Libertarian state government would permit the government to get involved in the choices a woman makes about her body?
It's not the drugs that are illegal, it's the laws against them which violate the constitution. When the Federal government begins telling you that you can't enjoy your body, you become a slave to the state. If you are not the ultimate master of your person, then by definition, you are NOT free, you become a SLAVE, the property of someone else. The Federal government has NO right to tell us what we can or cannot do with our bodies, so sayeth the 9th and 10th Amendments and the very definition of LIBERTY.
Well at least you're being consistent. I have to give you credit for that. I can't say the same about most Democrats in Congress.
Unlike those Republicans in Congress, who are totally consistent. Well, not when it comes to not meddling in people's lives, crime, religion, science....
Rhino, The baby does not have a body without the female body first.
No female, no baby, unless the Schwarzenegger move Twins was a true story.
Don't forget the flick "Junior". Hmmm, I sense a trend...
The Supreme Court disagreed. So who do I think knows more about the law. Some hunter on a website or NINE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. HMMMM, let me think about that.
The last time I checked Roe V. Wade wasn't a unanimous decision. It was a very controversial decision that is condemned by many legal scholars, many of them liberal. There's probably four current members of the Supreme Court that would vote to overturn it as well.
It was a very controversial decision that is condemned by many legal scholars, many of them liberal.
List of those liberal scholars, please.
Here you go:
William Saletan, John Hart Ely, Laurence Tribe, Archibald Cox, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Jeffrey Rosen, Michael Kinsley, Alan Dershowitz, Cass Sunstein, Kermit Roosevelt, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
Thank you.
You understand that, at least from what's provided there in Wikipedia, none of those criticis of Roe are against abortion.
Exactly. They're people who are pro choice who oppose the Roe v. Wade decision. That's been my point all along. The debate over the actual issue of abortion is completely different than the debate over the Roe v. Wade decision.
Actually, part of your point was that we shouldn't be killing "unborn babies." You just want to hide behind states' rights so you can invade a woman's womb. Just as those against civil rights tried to use states' rights to keep certain citizens down.
You have the abortion and slavery analogy all wrong. They are similar issues, but only because they are both terrible evils. Abortion in my opinion is even worse than slavery, because I don't think that slavery ended up killing 45 million human beings. They are both terrible evils, but abortion has killed far more people overall.
Well, you've got balls, I'll give ya that. I wouldn't wanna venture into the type of comparison you just made. And they say that Liberals engage in moral relativism.
I'll let it go at this point. I'm not interested in a debate on this subject with someone who probably thinks the world is 6000 years old.
Most slaves were sent to the Carribean sugar islands. The average life expectancy of a newly arrived slave was two years. Much of the slave trade was to replace those who died from tropical diseases on the sugar plantations. Europe sweetened their tea and coffee on the death of the West African.
Banning abortion is slavery. It makes the woman's body the property of the state, to breed as commanded by the government. But then most anti-abortionists think that we're all the slaves of that Hebrew war god anyway, so the concept of liberty means little to them.
It's also rape. Forcing laws into the wombs of women against their consent, all in the name of power and control.
Your mind reading aside the majority DID make that decision while not unanimous it WAS 7 to 2. Not all that close.
Abortion is covered under the 9th Amendment. It's a right reserved by the individual citizen, based on the concept of private property, the body being the most private of property. When a government begins telling you what to do with your own body, you are no longer a free individual, you become a slave of the state. There. Abortion is in the Constitution. Refute that.
Redking,
That's not totally true. The 9th Amendment is the last vestage of the Federalists vs. the Anti-Federalists.
The Federalists, including John Madison, were worried that if a "Bill of Rights" were included in the Constitution, people would think that those were people's only rights.
He had said, why list Gov't limitations if Article I, section 8 of the Constition already limits the Federal Gov't Power.
The 9th amendment is really an inkblotter. It's a compromise that if the 1-8 amendments are put there, it really means that the rest of the power doesn't by default fall to the federal Gov't.
*James Madison
Do we really have to endure a lecture on Libertarianism from someone who said on the "Imus lynching" thread:
"There are no more liberals in America, only communists."? Go away and come back when you actually know what you are talking about.
You cut my statement and are dishonest.
Liberals used to say, "I may disagree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Then I said, there are no liberals today, only communists.
I stand by what I said.
Well, THAT clears that up.
That, and the fact that your idea of Libertarianism is kinda whacked, means we can certainly ignore pretty much everything you've written about Libertarianism.
"Then I said, there are no liberals today, only communists."
No you didn't. The second part of your statement was exactly as I quoted it.
"There are no more liberals in America, only communists."?
Including the first part of your post doesn't help you one bit. I quoted you then you misquoted yourself because, yet again, you said something so stupid as to embarass yourself. Who is dishonest? By the way, since you are a Libertarian and feel you are expert enough to lecture us all on the subject perhaps you could clarify a few of the subtleties of Libertarianism for us. How do you think the differences between minarchists and anarchocapitalists can be resolved? Do you think that Left Libertarians like Michael Otsuka, Right Libertarians like Gover Norquist, and Objectivists like Ayn Rand really share any common ground. If so how do those identifying as Libertarians resolve their differences. How do Libertarians handle the critique of Gerald Cohen who argues that any system that takes equality and its enforcement seriously is not consistent with "the robust freedom and full self-ownership of libertarian thought." These questions have plagued me for some time and I am glad we finally have the benefit of your studied and cultivated insight into these matters.
("due process") is a liberal issue.
Wow, you really had me going for a while. Ldoren1626, you big kidder, all this time, I thought you were serious! You parody libertarians very well, my hat is off...
Economic issues are social issues but not all social issues are economic issues.
Really, though, libertarians are bizarre. No regulations? That's not entirely true. In fact it's impossible to maintain a healthy and civilized society without consumer protection.
I have a feeling your buyer beware notions would be chucked out the window the minute your baby was poisoned by tainted food due to manufacturing malpractice.
Those dang libruls, always interferin' with my right to make a cheap buck in a deregalated food industry.
Libertarianism isn't on its face whacky. By its very nature, they can't really make the same kind of drive for publicity or votes, and that tends to leave them attracting odd folk to run for office at certain levels.
But, as a Liberal, I find the Libertarian party's platform in large part in line with my own beliefs -- more in line with liberal thinking that conservative to be sure.
My basic problem with the libertarian philosophy is they seem to think whatever power governments DONT have will automatically go to the people. When it seem clear to me that the corporations which already have enormous power will be in a better position to snatch up whatever power the government cedes. Government is at least somewhat accoutable to the people n the form of elections. Corporations are NOT, they are top down power structures ruled only by its officers and the bottom line.
Two part response:
1st. Corporations have limited liability given to them by the State Government. In essense, they are a result of the Gov't. Any problems that you have against Corporation should lead you to push for less gov't, not more.
2nd. Corporations are great for poor people who can't get their businesses started. In fact, Corporations often start because some poor person with a good idea finds people with a lot of money to get everything started. They each divide ownership/shares, and then appoint a board of directors who elects a CEO.
If the Corporation is successful, they hire thousands of people and go public. The CEO, directors, and the poor people who start the whole thing get crazy rich. People on the bottom make less, but nobody forces the people at the bottom to take the jobs.
Lastly, the jobs wouldn't be there if it weren't for the corporation, and the corporation wouldn't be able to sustain itself if it didn't provide a service to the public.
the jobs wouldn't be there if it weren't for the corporation,
Because we know it's impossible to have a job unless there is a corporation involved.
"People on the bottom make less, but nobody forces the people at the bottom to take the jobs."
Well, someone has to take those jobs. In a capitalist society you're going to have different levels of income, so you're going to have people who are essentially forced to take those jobs unless they starve. Someone has to fill those jobs, it's not as if everyone has the option of getting something better. If that was the case, we'd be a world of 5 billion executives and no janitors.
"you're going to have people who are essentially forced to take those jobs unless they starve."
You don't seem to understand the concept of force. The only type of force is physical force.
To address your absurd statements specifically, w/ no regulations, there would be almost no barriers to entry. There would be so much competition, people would have more choices of where to work. The cost of food, and all other goods would be very, very low.
Lastly, if someone is starving, they are obviously better off with a job than without. This is especially true when a deregulated economy increased purchasing power of low-paid workers.
Lots of baseless assertions there. First you didnt address my point when making the bizarre claim that the power governments give up will go to corporations not individuals. Whatever mistakes, and I think they WERE mistakes giving corporations the power they have like giving them the rights of persons, they are here NOW with tremendous power and ONLY the government has the power to stand against them. If the gov gave up regulatory power then corporations could rape the environment and kill off workers one a day with NO accountability from the people.
Corporations are the way we do things now, they are not in any sense necessary. Cooperatives or the government itself could provide the resources to begin businesses, make factories, and do everything a corporation does today. There ARE alternatives. Sure they dont have to take those jobs, they can just starve or have no work at all. Again the government is at least somewhat accountable to the people corporations are not. The results of libertarian philosophy would be to take power from the entity that we DO have some input into, who has some accountability to us and give it to an entity that has NO accountability to us.
"Cooperatives or the government itself could provide the resources to begin businesses"
Wow. That's pretty scary. Ya, lets just have the government run business. We'll just give up all of our freedom and what has made us a great country and just have the government run our lives. We'll just have the government run business and become a socialist country like Cuba. Ya, that would be great.
He said "provide resources." He did not say anything closely resembling your distortion.
Besides, we already have substantial tax investments in private companies. The internet, power companies, railroads, airlines etc.
And I agree with his afforementioned premise that democratic government is all inclusive. Moreover, the only cost of participation in our government is citizenship. Give our power, the government of the people's power, over to private interests and instantly our government becomes economically exclusionary. Access to democracy would be strictly a pay to play transaction.
No thanks. Give me government accountable to the people, not the CEO.
Libertarians don't realize that their "unregulated market" policies have been tried before and are being implemented today and those policies have been found to be very very bad for the societies that have been affected by them.
Cases in point...Haiti is the most obvious example. Doctors won't even give you a bandage without you paying up front. Another example is Mexico...they've sold all their fresh water rights off to the multinationals, who bottle it up and sell it back to the people...well, just those who can afford it.
Libertarianism is called "neo-liberalism" outside the US and is a byword for pure greed and evil. Libertarians would and do steal the water from a child, all in the name of "free market capitalism".
What the heck are you talking about???
Hati and Mexico have Corrupt Gov'ts that can't protect its people from thugs. Capitalism can't thrive in that environment.
However, if you look at Hong Kong, the most Capitalistic Country in the world (almost no regulation). It is one of the greatest economic success stories in the history of the world.
The greatest facts about Hong Kong are that it has still been able to accomplish all this with virtually NO natural resources. It has no timber, farmable land, oil, or coal. That is amazing!!!
Hong Kong is the most capitalistic country in the world, eh?
Just wanted to see that one again.
Well, it is. If you wanted to go there right now and start a business. You would simply need to fill out basically and index card. That's real freedom.
However, if you look at Hong Kong, the most Capitalistic Country in the world (almost no regulation).
Hong Kong is no longer a country, but rather a part of the People's Republic of China. But you knew that, I'm sure.
It's economic policy is set apart from China.
And that makes it a country?
Haiti and Mexico are certainly examples of libertarianism....the countries are for sale to the highest bidder. That is the essence of libertarian economics. No regulation means one rule...he with the most gold makes all the rules. The reason we have so many regulations is to protect us from the libertarian economics we've experienced in the past. Regulations to keep the "free market" from killing people.
Ayn Rand is the goddess of libertarian economics and she was a nutter with a rape fetish. She wanted a world ruled by economic rapists. Libertarian economics is the rape of the poor by the rich, proven over and over and over again. No matter how you look at it, it's just plain wrong.
Viva la Zapatistas.
Ayn Rand is the goddess of libertarian economics and she was a nutter with a rape fetish.
Kinky.
There are many women who have rape fantasies. They tend to be very inhibited and see being forced by men as a way to break through those inhibitions. Not my scene, but I understand the mind processes behind it.
In "Atlas Shrugged", Ayn's version of a bad romance novel, she lays out her sexual logic by having the heroine go into a two page diatribe on the right of the rich and powerful to take what they want sexually, because they "deserve it" just for being rich and powerful. That logic underlies her entire philosophy.
"So...then...why do they defend Limbaugh and the KKK"
To give them more credibility. They can't take the left wing position every single time. They'll throw in a few right wing causes every now and then to give them more credibility, but 95% of the time is devoted to furthering a secular progressive agenda. They basically want anarchy in several areas. Also, the ACLU's founder was committed to turning the U.S. into a socialist nation. That's a far left position as well, not a libertarian position.
Right, so they're just faking it when they do something you agree with. How self-serving can one possibly be?
As for the founder, that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their behavior today. Henry Ford was a nazi sympathizer, that doesn't mean the current board of directors are a bunch of goose-stepping skinheads.
"Right, so they're just faking it when they do something you agree with. How self-serving can one possibly be?"
When did I say I agreed with it? I wouldn't ever want the KKK to be defended. Everybody associated with the KKK should be put behind bars.
Wow. Jailing someone for their ideas, even before they commit a crime... that sounds like... communism!
We need more citizens like you!
Things you agree with as in...
"To give them more credibility. They can't take the left wing position every single time. They'll throw in a few right wing causes every now and then to give them more credibility, but 95% of the time is devoted to furthering a secular progressive agenda."
I based what I said on your words, not the KKK example. If I was going to do that, I would have accused you of admitting support for the KKK by citing it as a "right-wing cause", but I didn't do that because it wasn't fair, obviously.
Nice Dodge of the Ford analogy.
They'll throw in a few right wing causes every now and then to give them more credibility, but 95% of the time is devoted to furthering a secular progressive agenda.- RINO Hunter
I won't question the 95% figure, as I assume you just made it up. The rest of this is specious at best.Aside from your pure speculation as to motive, could the disproportionate number of "secular Progressive" issues requiring civil liberties intervention have to do with the much more intrusive and controlling nature of the "Religious Conservative" agenda?
They basically want anarchy in several areas. - RINO Hunter
I thought the far left agenda was huge government?
"I thought the far left agenda was huge government?"
Only on economic issues and a few social issues like gun control and safety laws. Their agenda on social issues generally favors smaller government, except when it comes to gun control.
Now you're just talking out of your axx.
What part of what I said do you not agree with? Do you not agree that liberals favor a bigger government on economic issues and a smaller government on social issues?
Liberals have goals that aren't driven by whether or not the government grows or shrinks. Liberals do differ from conservatives in that conservatives pretend to hate government while growing it larger every time a Republican plants his sorry butt in the Oval Office.
But my astonishment at your post was your inconsistency with the usual winger talking points. I'm sure if we take a breather, you'll come back and talk about how Liberals want to grow the government by creating free abortion clinics.
Hmmm. It seems to me that Ronald Reagan cut the size of government pretty good, but whatever.
As usual you are completely wrong
Few people may remember that when Ronald Reagan took office, the federal budget was only $678 billion. During his 8-year tenure, the budget grew by 69% — on its way to today's $2.3 trillion budget.
The annual average increase in government during Reagan's administration was 6.8%, compared with "big government" Bill Clinton's average annual increase of 3.6%.
It SEEMS that way to you because the rightwing bloviators keep repeating it even though it is a lie.
Yeah, most "Libertarians" I meet are just Republicans trying to create a maverick image, or trying to appear non-partisan.
"Few people may remember that when Ronald Reagan took office, the federal budget was only $678 billion. During his 8-year tenure, the budget grew by 69% — on its way to today's $2.3 trillion budget."
That's because Reagan's tax cuts created astronomical economic growth which actually brought in more revenue to the government. The budget almost doubled in size during Reagan's term, because of the huge increase in revenue from Reagan's tax cuts. Your stats simply show that the economy grew faster during Reagan's tenure than Clinton's tenure. Lower taxes means increased economic productivity which means more revenue for the government and more money for the government to spend. The big increase in Reagan's budget shows that his economic policies were very efficient.
Oh, so make more, spend more? I thought the conservative ideal was to spend less and let citizens keep their money.
You are a mass of contradictions. Maybe instead of RINO HUNTER you should call yourself just plain RINO.
Also, forgot to mention the part about borrowing trillions to pay for those tax cuts and a massive military build up.
Rayguns tax cuts LOWERED federal revenue the first two years. The economy always grows so by the end of his term it was larger. Your very premise however is flawed. We are talking about the BUDGET not revenues. The BUDGET is a function of how much government is growing. The assertion was that Raygun SHRANK government, he didnt. I notice you didnt even take a stab at the second part of the post which showed DIRECTLY that the government did NOT shrink under Raygun no matter HOW YOU LOOK AT IT. Not even a good try. The assertion is flat out wrong.
No, the economic boom in the 1980's was driven by new consumer electronics technology, namely the microchip and VCR. Reagan's tax cuts had nothing to do with it. It was all down to advances in applied quantum physics and everyone heading to the new local vid shop to rent Traci Lords flicks.
You seem to have ignored the first part of my post, Rino.
The American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union is a CIVIL RIGHTS organization your delusions wont change that. It amazes me that defending the Bill of Rights makes them a far left organization.
It sure doesn't make 'em a right wing organization.
Hmmm. It's funny how they won't defend the civil rights of gun owners or school children who simply want a moment of silence at the begining of the day.
School children don't want a moment of silence at any time during the school day -- or maybe you don't remember what it was to be a kid.
Christian Fundamentalists want a foothold into the school curicula so that they can introduce THEIR religion into the lives of everyone, including those that don't believe as they do.
School children don't want a moment of silence at any time during the school day -- or maybe you don't remember what it was to be a kid.
I lol'ed. =D
Why, thank you. =)
In Emerson the Supreme Court made it clear there is NO right to own guns outside of a militia use. The ACLU takes cases all the time to protect the rights of children to individually express their religious beliefs even IN school. Bottom line just because they dont follow your far rightwing agenda doesnt mean they are not a civil liberties organization when they clearly are.
Hhhmmm.... I have served my school district adequately- I should be named superintendent of schools, then.. Got it, ty, Matthews...
Well, if you were a teacher in a terrible district, were assaulted by your students, and still managed to get your students to go to college...then that would be a better analogy.
You make it sound like McCain won the darn war.
Say Whaaat?
"I think the guy deserves to be president in terms of all his service to the country"
Well, Tweety, if that's the yardstick, then I guess that Sargent York or Audie Murphy or Jimmy Doolittle deserve it too.
Wanna dig one of 'em up?
At least they wouldn't be able to continue the CLUSTERFUCH happening in Eyerack.
I guess I conceed everything you said.
If, as CM said, were basing the President based on the sacrifice and dedication to the U.S. they would too.
He never said "He should be President," it was a qualifying statement.
He didn't say "He has demonstrated he has what it takes to be president." He said "He deserves" to be president, as though what he's done has already earned him the position. It hasn't.
The only people who DESERVE to be president are those who convince the majority of the American people to vote for them
I wouldn't say that kind of folk deserve to be president...many have conned the masses and never deserved to be in public office at all. I'd say that if the American public are dumb enough to vote for the losers we always get, then those voters get what they deserve.
BUSH CAMP SAID MCCAIN WAS UNSTABLE DURING 2000 CAMPAIGN. I THINK AMERICA NEEDS TO BE REMNDED OF WHAT THOSE GOOD GOD FEARING TRUTH TELLING REPUBLICANS THOUGHT ABOUT HIM THEN.
THE FACT THAT MCCAIN WOULD KISS BUSH'S RING/MOUTH AFTER THAT ATTACK AGAINST HIM TELLS ME MUCH ABOUT THIS REPUBLICAN WHORE.
BUBBA
Tucker must be on another planet since this month's Reason Magazine has a scathing article on why all libertarians should be afraid of McCain. Read it all yourselves.
Hyperbole is everywhere, but this one bugged me for some reason.
It is possible to be on this planet and not be acquainted with Reason magazine.
Yeah, but if one were truly a Libertarian, one wouldn't need a magazine to tell you why McCain isn't one. (Well, you WOULD need to know what positions he holds, even if McCain himself doesn't. But then that's where this whole right-wing misinformation thing comes into play.)
*sigh* another mmfa smear.
"in terms of his service to the country" makes a world of difference to the teaser headline mmfa advertised.
*wags finger*
Sorry, nope. NO ONE "deserves" to be president until they're elected.
The naivete of libertarians and "pure free-marketers" never ceases to astound me. It is time to go beyond high school economics class debates and enter the real world.
As long as human greed can enter into the equation we will always have need for the watchdogs to protect those unable to protect themselves.
I love it, there's economics vs. the "real world."
Let me explain this to you in simple terms. Regulations creates monopolies because of the transaction costs. Since it creates barriers for people who want to enter the market, there are less choices for consumers and people who want to work.
The more choices people have of where to work, the higher their wages, the safer their working conditions. This also increases purchasing power, and lowers the cost of goods.
Take a look at Hong Kong, the Most Capitalistic nation in the World (almost no regulations). It is one of the greatest economic success stories in the history of the world. It has virtually no natural resources. It has no Oil, Coal, Timber, or farmable land.
Lastly, if you look at history, Europe was in worse economic shape than Africa in the 1600 - suffering numerous famines. Only when property rights were permitted, and freedom from Government did it begin to thrive.
Monopolies have existed long before regulation, and large companies have always had advantages over small ones. I fail to see how well-legislated economic regulation would become a barrier to new businesses.
If you want to start a business and the costs to enter the market are high b/c of regulation, the only companies that benefit are the "big ones." They can simply pass the cost on to customers. Small companies can't survive in that environment. All Monopolies are created by Government regulation. It's that simple.
All sorts of Republicans are relabeling themselves as Libertarians after the Republicans trashed the Treasury, but if you voted for Bush or, in McCain's case, if you hugged Bush and his policies, you're a spend-spend-spend Republican.
You are explaining why many Libertarians like myself have claimed that Bush is not a Conservative.
I don't have to explain. That's your task. If you voted for Bush a second time, after seeing his tax cuts for the rich, profligate spending, and relentless borrowing, you share the blame. I wept when Bush was elected a second time. I went to my Limbaugh-listening neighbor and wept. And now that very neighbor rails about the government, but the Republican government we have is due to all those who voted for Bush, whatever labels that want to apply to themselves to wiggle away from their guilt. The communists have won due to Bush. China is a communist country and they own us due to all the borrowing. Bush sold the U.S. to the communists and he did so BECAUSE of all those who voted for him. I just wish that the coming tax burden could be borne by those who are guilty: those who voted for Bush.
Hard times are coming. Recession. Maybe depression. We're unprepared for global warming and we're a deeply divided nation that is loathed and feared all over the world. And those who voted for Bush are to blame. But hey, you got to defend marriage from queer citizens. That makes it all okey-dokey, doesn't it?
Holly, BRAVO AND THANK YOU!!
"Hard times are coming. Recession. Maybe depression. We're unprepared for global warming and we're a deeply divided nation that is loathed and feared all over the world. And those who voted for Bush are to blame. But hey, you got to defend marriage from queer citizens. That makes it all okey-dokey, doesn't it?"
Well, I've never voted for Bush in my life. Bush won b/c Kerry was the alternative.
2nd. Stop worrying so much. We are not going to hit a depression...911 should have caused a despression, but look how we've bounced back. Global Warming - there is nothing new about it. There have been large temperature changes when humans lived several times in history. Our ancestors survived even without our technological inovations. We're gonna fair much better.
I don't know what it would be like to wake up everyday and be a lib, so depressing.
Not half as depressing staying asleep and ignorant like conservatives.
Bravo, bravissimo! Very well stated.
Thanks, guys. Sometimes I'm a fire-breather.