Political discussion thread

INVORD wrote: I don't know why libertarians praise Reagan, I'm not even sure they praise him at all. I read their newsletter often but don't remeber seeing them mentioning Reagan at all. Although I could have missed it as I normally ignore their talk about social issues. They're insane.

Vulgar libertarians do because they're content to ignore, even praise, the state when it aids big business. They tend to attribute the successes of state-backed-and-protected corporations tothe free market because it provides evidence for the validity of laissez faire capitalism. In reality it does nothing of the sort, but it's hard for some people to let go of such beliefs. In turn they feed off and fuel vulgar socialists, as both believe the state and capital are somehow enemies of each other.

INVORD wrote: Fine with me. Why only a socialist party? BTW the extreme left of the Democratic party is really a socialist fraction, so it's already here.

Can you provide some examples? I strongly doubt that wing of the Democratic Party goes further Left than Social Democracy, which favours a mixed economy. Nader is a Social Democrat, for instance, and he always struck me as being further left than the vast majority of the Democratic Party.

Deathrabbit wrote: Reagan did some good, but I don't like the unprecedented access he gave to bug business lobbies. Also, his Cold War policies may have defeated an already weakened Soviet Union, but all the ppl we are fighting today are extremists he armed and trained.

His ending the cold war is one of his few achievements. It cost us dearly in terms of budget deficits. His $300 billion deficits are close to $600-$700 in today's dollars, but as long as the economy was good, nobody cared. His deregulations ended up in the S&L crisis. His financial policies led to the stock market crash, real estate bubble and a painful recession. But the extremists were probably more a product of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The KGB controlled and nurtured most of the radical movements in the Arab world, Latin America and Africa, and after the Soviet Union disintegrated, all the bad guys were left on their own, totally unrestrained.

Forgotten Son wrote: INVORD wrote: I don't know why libertarians praise Reagan, I'm not even sure they praise him at all. I read their newsletter often but don't remeber seeing them mentioning Reagan at all. Although I could have missed it as I normally ignore their talk about social issues. They're insane.   Vulgar libertarians do because they're content to ignore, even praise, the state when it aids big business. They tend to attribute the successes of state-backed-and-protected corporations tothe free market because it provides evidence for the validity of laissez faire capitalism. In reality it does nothing of the sort, but it's hard for some people to let go of such beliefs. In turn they feed off and fuel vulgar socialists, as both believe the state and capital are somehow enemies of each other.

Libertarians as a party is something I can't fully comprehend. Their ideas run the gamut, from total freedom which looks more like anarchy to the imposition of the gold standard by the state, a pinnacle of regulation. Such combination of opposing views within the same party makes me think that those people group together because they can't go anywhere else. As I said I don't pay attention to their musings about the advantages of privatising the armed forces, etc. but their analisys of the current or past economic conditions is worth reading

Well I know Reagan called the mujahadin freedom fighters and there are conflicting reports, but most sources say the CIA gave them training/arms. Much of these same mujahadin would later become the taliban and Al-Qaeda.

Deathrabbit wrote: Well I know Reagan called the mujahadin freedom fighters

Oh goodness. Yes, it always is the other way around when they're not your ally, isn't it?

AH! On a happier note.
Sounds like that MN Senate race has finally been settled and Al Franken is declared the winner.
Sure, it's almost July and the election was in November....and the Republican candidate didn't concede even though the mandatory recount said he lost.

And now the Democrats have 60 votes in the senate, thanks to good ol Arlen Specter!

I didn't even know about Vito Fossella!?  And that guy is right across the river from me....

Anyway, just to add one more thing to the Sanford fun...he has admitted to "crossing the line" with 6 women, not his mistress, (or wife). He claims not sex, just "crossing the line"
It just gets juicier!

And as for the MN mess. Wasn't there this election back in...I think 2000. When the Reps told a guy just concede? Seriously, quite drawing this thing out?
Just saying....

Not that Pawlenty was helping of course.
Anyway, congrats to Al Franken.
Also, big thanks to our new buddy Arlen Specter for giving the Dems 60 seats, now they should be able to end most attempts at stalling.
A few Dems could always break from the vote but they're are a few moderate Reps as well to bring on board.

^ Take it up with whoever came up with that rule.

You know full well if Republicans were in this situation they'd be jumping to have 60 as well.
In fact, a few years back didn't they want to end filibusters by majority vote instead of 60?
Talk about one party rule.

I've fully admitted the Dems are simply the party I dislike less.

And seriously, I guess it sucks having one party with the ability to end any filibuster but that's our politics.
It hasn't even happened since the 60's (with the end of the New Deal coalition!)
So the fact the Reps even fell this far behind is pretty amazing.

Anyway, I rather have Dems in total control then Republicans. We know what Reps would do....what will the Dems do? Run up a massive debt? Raise taxes? This would happen anyway.

But they don't really have 60 seats because Byrd and Kennedy are AWOL with their health problems and the Democrats are more ideologically divided than many would like to think. 44 of them defected on the climate change bill in the House.