[SeMissourian.com] Fair ~ 79°F  
River stage: 29.57 ft. Falling
Friday, Sep. 19, 2014
Post reply Read replies (128) More threads Create thread

You never know what you'll find when searching for something else
Posted by Old John on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 12:15 AM:

Forget the novels, the reality TV and the politics for a minute, history still facinates me most, especially what was left out.

http://www.mynativelife.com/?p=770



Replies

Old John, Historians, in order to be published, leave out inconveniences to the establishment. A former president condemned the work of revisionists that provided facts of history that were conveniently not disclosed by approved historians. The Internet offer opportunity for researchers that approved books failed to do.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 12:33 AM

BC, I was a bit miffed at you and Lumpy once for painting Lincoln as a tyrant. As a Lincoln admirer I had read everything out there and came to the conclusion he was a great man of vision and wisdom. I still think he was a man of vision and wisdom but with the help of the internet it didn't take long to find out what I had been taught and what I had been reading was very one sided. He was a tyrant as president, possibly pocessed by some great evil or just plainly deranged by an earlier kick in the head by that stubborn mule.

Recently I have read that the distruction of Sherman's march across the south was caused mostly by the confederates not wanting to leave anything for the north to plunder as they disbanded in defeat. Most of what I find says scorch and burn was the intention of the northern military per Lincoln's orders. Later the tactics learned and practiced seem evident in Sheridan and others that cleared the way for the railroads while Canada managed to build a rail system without need of genicide.

-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 1:07 AM

It is amazing.................what history books leave out. But it should not surprise us. History is being made today and revised almost immediately. Even now, news organizations choose to report only that which agrees with their point of view.

-- Posted by Robert* on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 2:07 AM

ML,

The revisionist history that I read is written by certified historians who possess several degrees, and have usually taught for decades at various universities. The revisionist history books that I read are well researched, and most importantly contain footnotes (I will not read a history book that doesn't contain footnotes). Regarding Lincoln; compare the work of historian Thomas DiLorenzo to the recent work of historian wanna-be Bill O'Reilly.

Lincoln is an important figure for the wrong reasons. I have backed off from the claim that he is the worst POTUS ever. I believe that honor belongs to Wilson. Then I read something that moves Lincoln back into first again. I would like to see a smackdown between the Lincoln and Wilson historians.

-- Posted by Simon Jester on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 6:39 AM

ML,

I have never claimed to oppose mala in se laws; only mala prohibita laws.

-- Posted by Simon Jester on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 6:45 AM

And BC is not "entitled" to his social security check, nor is anybody else outside of the political class for that matter.

-- Posted by Simon Jester on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 6:47 AM

"BC, I was a bit miffed at you and Lumpy once for painting Lincoln as a tyrant. As a Lincoln admirer I had read everything out there and came to the conclusion he was a great man of vision and wisdom."

Is it not possible for a man to be both a tyrant and a great man of vision of wisdom?

In ancient Greece, when the people found the wheels of democracy brudensome and contrary to the desires for progress, the people would toss aside their hard-won democracy in favour of tyranny. Tyrants, after all, have an ability to accomplish great things unencumbered by the processes of debate and of advice and consent.

Alexander the Great was certainly a Tyrant, but the still branded him 'the Great' (though some historians challenge that label). Peter the Great of Russia was another great tyrant.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 8:55 AM

Me'Lange, I will take all monies offered to me that have no strings attached. If Social Security were discontinued, I still have the means to survive.

Besides, I enjoy spending Lumpy' and my children,s taxes held out of their paychecks. I look forward to receiving money that someone else earned through their production. It's almost as good as a hug.

Most universities require that their professors be published. It provides status and impresses alumni. It can be, and often is, a source of revenue. To be published, one has to be mainstream, or near mainstream in their writings.

Most news organizations are propagandists for the state. There is the need of access, which the state controls. The Internet provides the means for reporters to present what they have learned without parent editing. It is in this editing that news is lost.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 9:42 AM

Me'Lange, I do have an opinion on why certain individuals desire power. But a psychological profile may upset many readers on this site. Just say it's sexual perversion.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 9:51 AM

ML,

Actually the political class can, has, and will spend SS taxes on whatever they wish. The SCOTUS decided that case almost a half century ago.

I think everybody should go ahead and get whatever they can. It will bring default much faster.

-- Posted by Simon Jester on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 9:51 AM

"Is it not possible for a man to be both a tyrant and a great man of vision of wisdom?"

Shapley, From my post, " I still think he was a man of vision and wisdom but with the help of the internet it didn't take long to find out what I had been taught and what I had been reading was very one sided. He was a tyrant...."

Thanks for the examples, I think many famed for their sucesses were tyrantal in their actions.

Me'Lange Good advise, I practice that stance regarding your posts. :) :)

-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 11:46 AM

"BC and Lumpy, I appreciate your opinion diversity, I simply disagree with most of them. I struggle understanding how one can "talk the talk", yet not "walk the walk".-Me'Lange

I can't speak for Lumpy, but yes, I am a hypocrite. If someone offers me something I value, I latch on to it. I value money, it helps me pay property, income, and a million other taxes.

Although I know that the money I receive is being paid by present day producers, it is still satisfying.

My wife says she is not justifying what I am drawing, but her books show that I have paid more in than I have received, however, we both know that that money was spent years ago, and the money we receive comes out of our children's paycheck.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 2:32 PM

Me'Lange, On another point: I am an anarcho-capitalist, and I believe there should be rules, just not rulers. Everything handled by government could be handled by private enterprise more efficiently. Not every action needs to be backed up with force or threat of force, which is the only method that government has at its disposal.

With government, voluntary association is ruled out as a means to enforce rules.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 2:42 PM

ML,

Good for Cape! I hope they can find some federal grants to pay for that trolley also. I noticed several old buildings in the Themis area that are looking pretty shabby today. They may be historic. I am sure that there are federal grants for the preservation of possibly historic buildings. Grab it all. If we don't, somebody else will. The sooner the better.

-- Posted by Simon Jester on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 6:13 PM

Back to the original subject of this thread: I hear Lincoln is doing very well in theaters. Historically, this wasn't always the case...

-- Posted by Simon Jester on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 6:39 PM

"Back to the original subject of this thread: I hear Lincoln is doing very well in theaters. Historically, this wasn't always the case..."

Thumbs up!

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 8:25 AM

In a somewhat recent survey, all Presidents were rated by 58 historians in the categories of public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, vision/setting agenda, pursued equal justice for all, and performance within the context of times.

Lincoln was rated first with about 900 points, FDR, Washington and Roosevelt were next with between 810 and 875 points. Buchanan was last with about 300 points.

For obvious reasons I would lend more credence to an assessment by numerous historians, over that of a few Southeast Missourians.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 9:37 AM

Who, as always, are welcome to their own opinions.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 9:37 AM

.Rick.

Like Yoda said, make one great wars do not.

The "Civil War" wasn't even a civil war in the historical sense. Nor was the "American Revolution" a revolution.

-- Posted by Simon Jester on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 2:54 PM

"...a lot of Southeast Missourians put together is a whole lot of experience and knowledge combined."

Your claim reminds me of the Southeast Missourian who claimed to have 30 years of expeience. Turned out he had only one year of experience and had been doing the same thing for 29 more years.

I'll go along with the 58 historians.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 4:03 PM

Mathematics deals with quantifiable entities, numbers. 1 = 1. Unless you're an accountant or a lawyer, that is irrefutable.

History, on the other hand, deals with events of the past, recorded (or not) with conflicting testimonies by frequently-biased individuals. Sometimes there is solid evidence left by the events being recorded (photos, videotape, hard evidence (such as bullets, DNA, and such). Usually, the details have to be pieced together, CSI-like, from fragmented evidence altered by time and the effects of the four W's - war, wear, weather, and the will of God.

Oftentimes, as someone already noted, the only written History is by the victors. In civilized warfare, however, both sides often record the events.

Julius Caesar was noted for keeping extensive journals of his campaigns. Most of his opponents were less so.

The Chinese during the Han Dynasty recorded the events of the Battle of Red Cliff, both the winning and the losing sides filing reports. They are generally in agreement, and thus the account can be considered fairly accurate. This is rarely the case, particularly in wars of such age (~ 1,800 years).

American Presidents have left an extensive paper trail of official acts. However, details of their personal lives and of unrecorded events is subject to historical revision. Nearly all history is biased one way or the other.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 4:09 PM

I think that historians, like government intellectuals, serve the needs of the state similar to Tiberius' minnows serving him.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 6:52 PM

Gore Vidal's "Lincoln a novel" is a good example of what Shapley mentions IMO. Not one part in my critique is unbelievable but most of the details are speculation.

He writes in an antedote of humor and says that when lincoln was asked if it was true that Lincoln told that story, Lincoln agreed it was probably fact based humor but said, I reckon it was charged to me to give it legs.

Maybe best not to contest the greatness of Lincoln as viewed through progressive liberal ideaolgy and let Common and others continue to feel good about themselves for lauding a Republican.

Revisionism about many people and events have been charged to history to give it legs.

-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 11:30 PM

Old John, The revisionists usually focus on actions during the period, but some also include personal insults.

To libertarians, the 58 historians represent the interests of state. The increased power of the central government impressed the historians, as well as it did Marx.

Marx, neoconservatives, liberals, and the state historians would be and are impressed with Wilson and both Roosevelts.

Those impressed with Lincoln are supportive of the increased role of a central state. That would include liberals, former communists, and students/followers of Strauss (neoconservatives).

Only libertarians support less government or no government.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 11:04 AM

.Rick., Very few libertarians are involved with political parties.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 11:45 AM

Only anarchists support no government.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 11:49 AM

'Anarchy' generally refers to the total absence of government.

libertarians generally hold the concept of subsidiarity, which prefers no more government than is necessary to maintain order, and that government be emplemented at the lowest level possible.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 1:49 PM

"Yes , there were "Leaders" of "empires" , these were sacred positions more then "political" positions."

That is 'government', in the simplest context. Tribal leadership is the most local form of government. It exists in many nations today, sometimes to good effect, sometimes not.

"There were no campaigns , secret ballots , or local representatives."

NO battles for leadership? No challenge of authority? No intrigue or conspiracies to overthrown bad leadership? I find that difficult to beleive, mankind being what it is.

Was there no tribal council? Have we been misled for all these years?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 2:37 PM

.RicK., We anarcho-capitalists are still called libertarians. Many people are confused between Libertarian (political party) and small l libertarians and anarcho-capitalists.

Confusing? libertarians believe in little or no government.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 3:21 PM

"Yes , you have been misled for all of these years . A bias history , perhaps ?"

"It was something close to what people call "The Pope"."

"Our Pope has a hierarchical structure, which both selects him and answers to him after his selection. Beneath the Pope are the Cardinals, beneath the Cardinals are the Bishops and Archbishops, and beneath them are monsignors, priests, and deacons."

'Subsidiarity' is actually a Catholic concept, but is expanded into civil government. The dictionary defines it thusly:

"1. (Christianity / Roman Catholic Church) (in the Roman Catholic Church) a principle of social doctrine that all social bodies exist for the sake of the individual so that what individuals are able to do, society should not take over, and what small societies can do, larger societies should not take over

"2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in political systems) the principle of devolving decisions to the lowest practical level"

_________________

There is an election of the Pope, but votes are limited to the Cardinals.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 3:21 PM

.Rick., Although I was on a state executive committee in the Libertarian Party, I understand little about the direction of the party.

I have since became a small (l) libertarian, and have nothing to do with politics, other than being anti-government.

I believe the private sector offers a better choice for the future. I believe the private sector disseminates wealth and knowledge far better than central planning.

I'm not impressed by those who worship Roman emperors like the child molester Tiberius, the incest of Caligula, the blood letting sexual drive of Claudius.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 4:14 PM

I find the Libertarian Party to be confused. On the national level, they are usually fairly good advocates of subsidiarity and freedom from overly-broad federal powers. Their selection process for candidates, unfortunately, is not so good, such that many also-rans seeking a party platform on which to run, whether conservative, liberal, or something else, have used the Libertarian Party's ballot access to run. As such, they tend to lack a clear message, even if the platform itself is well laid out.

They've also become dominated, at least in many areas, by the Marijuana-legalization crowd. As such they are tainted with the Hippie image, whether valid or not.

On the local level, they seem to be all over the place, from anarchists to those seeking to shift the braod powers exercised by the federal government to the states (a principle advocated by many conservative Republicans).

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 4:22 PM

"I'm not impressed by those who worship Roman emperors like the child molester Tiberius, the incest of Caligula, the blood letting sexual drive of Claudius."

I'm not aware that anyone currently worships Roman Emprorers.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 4:45 PM

I seriously doubt there are anarcho-capitalists (anarchists) in the Libertarian party. Although I haven't kept track of the party since the libertarian Harry Browne ran for president on its ticket, I doubt they have ran a libertarian for president since Harry.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 5:03 PM

.Rick., It is difficult for the old guard to ease up on their want of power over people's lives. Perhaps in the future there will be a Congress devoted more toward freedom and liberty than they are to power over people's lives.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 5:41 PM

The UN wants the Obama Administration to punish Washington and Colorado for undermining the drug war http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/ar...

Next the UN will want the administration to conduct a war against guns.

Obama, will you kiss the UN's feet like the rest of our so called great leaders have done in the past?

-- Posted by BCStoned on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 7:33 PM

SH,

I believe that the failed federal war on drugs is the single most destructive offense unleashed on society in modern history. It's not about hippies smoking pot.

-- Posted by Simon Jester on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 4:44 AM

"I believe that the failed federal war on drugs is the single most destructive offense unleashed on society in modern history. It's not about hippies smoking pot."

I have no problem with ending the drug war. It's not about the cause, it's about the perception.

Ii visited the Libertarian Party's website a number of years ago to get more information. Browsing through the items advertised for sale in their store, one would have gotten the impression that the the Marijuana Leaf was the official symbol of the party. Drug legalization was the rampant theme.

You could buy books and pamphlets that dealt with other issues, as well as campaign buttons for various candidates, but by far the most common items all had Marijuana Leaves emblazoned upon them.

That may have more appeal today, but at that time (the late 1990s early 2000s), it wasn't going to win the favour of the majority of voters, particularly not the disenchanted Republicans looking for a serious states-rights' alternative to the Republican Party's establishment regulars.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 6:18 AM

SH,

I have been an involved member of the LP for several years now. I know what is preventing the LP from growing, and acheiving some political victories: people like me are involved members of the LP. I don't believe that there can be a political solution to the problems caused by politics. I see the LP as more of an educational vessel than a real political party. The LP can (and does) have success at the local level. There are advantages to being a member of an official political party. I have found some of the most hardcore anarchists in the country hanging around LP national conventions. It has street cred where it counts.

The worst thing the national LP ever did was allow itself to be co-opted by Republicans. Bob Barr was a disaster.

-- Posted by Simon Jester on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 6:32 AM

"The worst thing the national LP ever did was allow itself to be co-opted by Republicans."

So, you think the secret to the Libertarian Party's success is to keep people out of it? Good luck with that!

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 8:18 AM

It depends on what the definition of "success" is. Of coarse Republicans are welcomed into the LP so long as they don't confuse themselves into believing that the LP is GOP Lite. They will be disappointed, just like the Ron Paul supporters are disappointed to find out that the GOP is the crony capitalisim / war party. Political parties should never sell themselves out in an attempt to grow their numbers.

Should the Dems try to attract new members by not supporting unions and taxes? Should the Repubs try to attract new members by becoming doves? The LP has core beliefs also, and while we sometimes stray, we aren't changing for some membership drive.

The LP experimented with courting disgruntled Republicans a few years ago. The Barr/Root ticket was the result, with Wayne Root being elected to the LP national committee. It was a dismal failure, with Root actually endorsing Romney this spring. The libertarians responded by electing a "radical" (ie, libertarian) national committee. Root finally resigned, rejoined the GOP, and took his handful of followers with him. It simply didn't work.

-- Posted by Simon Jester on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 9:29 AM

Rick V., I think the Libertarian Party's biggest selling point in the seventies was economic. The one thing that Republicans and Democrats lack is an understanding of economics.

In the 90's, Republicans were catching on. With the election of a Republican President in 2000, they returned to their Keynesian ways. Big government spending could solve all economic problems.

They blame the failures of the economy on Democrat liberalism without realizing that their neoconservative leaders are also champions of the welfare state. The warfare state needs the welfare state to satisfy any public opposition.

I feel the Libertarian Party should return to its economic roots, not to win elections, but as you said, to educate.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 10:04 AM

Republicans and Democrats know only one thing, and that is to grow government. The War on Drugs has been a useful tool in that growth.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 10:26 AM

"They blame the failures of the economy on Democrat liberalism without realizing that their neoconservative leaders are also champions of the welfare state."

It's not a matter of 'failing to realize' anything. It's about electability. We can choose to be also-rans like the Libertarians or we can sacrifice on issues while trying to stem the tide of liberal over-reach.

President Bush conceded on the Prescription Drug benefit. It was clear we were going to have a prescription drug plan whether it was Mr. Bush's or Mr. Gore's. Mr. Bush's retained some degree of free market economics and individual choice. My preference would have been to not have a federal drug benefit enacted (as it has only opened the door to clamours for more and larger), but it was a necessary evil in the political climate of the day.

Yes, government gets bigger under Republicans. Do you really think Republicans 'fail to realize' that? What do you think I mean when I say we offer a 'slower handbasket'?

The Libertarians aren't going to win national eleciton. They've not been able to get a single federal candidate elected. Ergo, they will enjoy 'also ran' status for the foreseeable future.

You need only look at the gloating of the Democrats and their calls for even more and larger liberal policies over an election that basically changed nothing to see that the demands for more of other peoples' monies is only going to continue to grow. If the best we can hope for from Republican candidates today is a little less taxation and a little less government than will be enacted when they lose, I'll accept that until we can find a candidate that can win elections _and_ turn that around.

Currently, the demand for more of other peoples' monies to pay for the excesses of government is growing louder. It's not growing louder from Republicans, by and large, but it's growing.

We're not going to kill Social Security or Medicare, or Medicaid. We can reform then with free-market plans, but that shift has to be made gradually or it'll never be made at all. President Bush tries and failed. Mr. Ryan has such a plan, but with Mr. Romney's defeat is unlikely to see the light of day for at least two years. The Democrats have not plans nor desires to see them reformed at all. Some on here claim they support proposals to shore them up, yet they have never issued such proposals nor championed them.

There is a difference between the parties, whether you want to accept that. Yes, there are liberal republicans just as there are conservative democrats. Yes, the party regulars are career politicians who buy votes with other peoples' monies, just as the democrat leadership does. But, the rank-and-file have sway.

The T.E.A. Party movement tried to alter the Republican structure. They had some successes, getting rid of some party regulars and a few liberal-leaning Republicans that needed to go. This year was a disappointment. They will have to regroup, they will have to work harder and smarter if they are to effect change. They will have to screen their candidates better, and not let their messages be drowned out by the cacophony of the Democrats' election machine. There were stumbles, there always are when starting to walk, but walk they must if we are make headway.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 10:37 AM

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 10:37 AM

I agree 100%. It's tough - I didn't like Bush's move to the medicare "donut hole" program. It's bigger government. On the other hand if he fights it the democrats get more seats in the house and senate.

The "they're all alike" talking point falls straight into the hands of the liberals. It disenfranchises conservatives. As I've posted before - the last seven years when democrats control both houses of congress deficits are nearly 10 TIMES the amount than the last 7 years when republicans control congress. Yes they both run deficits - why would anyone ignore the quantitative facts? It makes no sense.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 10:47 AM

BC,

The only word in economics that anybody needs to understand now is "default".

SH,

The tea party is dead. I don't even know if it stuck around long enough to warrant a footnote in Glenn Beck's next "history" book.

"Necessary" evil. "Lesser of the two" evils. Republicans sure do endorse a lot of evil.

I know that the LP will never win a federal election. That is why a lot of LP'ers are saying that we should focus on local races where we have found success. By local I mean city councils, water boards, police boards, school boards... the duopoly parties are too entrenched at the county level to make a dent.

-- Posted by Simon Jester on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 10:51 AM

"The tea party is dead. I don't even know if it stuck around long enough to warrant a footnote in Glenn Beck's next "history" book."

Just because the Democrats have declared them dead doesn't make it so. The people are still there, they are still mad, they just need a leader that can rally them. They were disappointed by the Republican nomination process, but they can recover. It's not as if the taxation issue that spawned them has gone away.

If they declare the Libertarian Party dead, will you start shopping for a cemetery plot?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 10:55 AM

SH,

I am going to be cremated.

What is the tea party mad about? Why would they care about the GOP nomination process? I thought the tea party was independent.

-- Posted by Simon Jester on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 11:01 AM

Rick V., The Libertarian Party could serve as a instructor in economics. Heaven knows the Republicans and Democrats could use some instruction.

The Republicans and Democrats have built an economy based on thief, no different than any other common thief. In their theft, they have used up scarce resources that could be put to useful productive purposes.

With their military and wars, they bid up the cost of raw materials. With their welfare state, they bid up the cost of labor. Their taxes and regulations to support this nonsense puts non-state native producers at a disadvantage with offshore producers.

Welfare recipients don't always have a EBT card. Owning the means of production through the force of government, is no less welfare.

The duopoly could learn a few things from libertarians.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 11:49 AM

One more suggestion to the duopoly, the central bank has to go. It provides welfare to the non-productive elements of society.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 12:01 PM

"Why would they care about the GOP nomination process?"

Because the selection of Mitt Romney left them with little choice in the election - the Northeastern liberal or the Midwestern liberal. Mr. Romney tried to portray himself as a conservative, but he did not speak the language well. Nor was he seen as a strong candidate.

"I thought the tea party was independent."

Independent of what? They have been focusing on the Republican Party, which they see as more attuned to the voice of the people. The Democrats are set in their big government ways, and that is of what their platform speaks. The change the Democrats requires changing the platform positions, which are heavily defended by the entitlement-minded membership.

The Republican platform speaks of subsidiarity and freedom and smaller government. Changing the Republican Party does not require changing the platform positions so much as it requires holding the candidates thereto. Thus, the T.E.A. Party has sought to effect change through the Republican Party by identifying candidates more in tune with what the Republican Party states it supports.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 12:09 PM

"Owning the means of production through the force of government, is no less welfare."

Not by any standard definition of welfare.

The government is supposed to responsive to the people. As it is, it is repsonsive to the people with the money to buy influence. The people with money seek influence because the government has garnered the power to grant them the favours they seek. Strip the government of that power, and the influence seeking will shrink...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 12:12 PM

The only solution that I can offer to improve economic conditions is to focus on production and not consumption. When the production becomes competitive, then the consumption will follow.

Money is a medium of exchange between producers. Money only has value when there is production.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 12:45 PM

All I want for Christmas is some Republican blinders. I can justify anything I do viewing life through Republican blinders.

SH,

You and your fellow Republicans remind me of my kids the first time they flunked a test in school: "you should have seen how many Johnny missed".

.Rick.

Libertarians are better than statists. How can everyone be for everyone?

-- Posted by Simon Jester on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 12:55 PM

Let's get out of the clouds for a moment and perhaps discuss the following to give us some real examples of how a libertarian would perform (not govern or lead - I know those are bad words).

Assume that in 2000 John Doe was just inaugurated as the first libertarian president. 8 months later radical muslim terrorists fly multiple planes into several targets and kill 3000 Americans. What, if anything, would be president John Doe's response be? As a libertarian?

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 1:25 PM

"You and your fellow Republicans remind me of my kids the first time they flunked a test in school: "you should have seen how many Johnny missed"."

What, in my posts, makes you think of that?

The T.E.A. Party has had more successes, even in this election, than the Libertarian Party and yet you call them dead...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 1:54 PM

Dug, Since you asking a libertarian: The insurance companies and the people who suffered losses could put together a group of mercenaries after an investigation that would determined fault, and take out those responsible.

Rick could tell you what a Libertarian President would do.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 2:14 PM

Fighting wars is a constitutional duty of the government. we started fighting wars 'over there' as far back as 1801, the year Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated. We sent the Marines to the shores of Tripoli to fight piracy in Northern Africa.

We obviously weren't successful, since today we are dealing with piracy in Northern Africa.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 2:40 PM

" The insurance companies and the people who suffered losses could put together a group of mercenaries after an investigation that would determined fault..."

Who would conduct the investigation and ensure that it is a fair and reasonable one?

Somehow, the idea of having insurance companies controlling armies of mercenaries to 'take out' those responsible for costing them money does not appeal to me.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 3:21 PM

-- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 2:14 PM

Thanks. It was a serious question to move a bit from the theoretical political discourse and get to more WWLD - what would a libertarian do. That is how people vote and a little less etherial.

I consider myself ideologically conservative. But I support the republican party as the electable choice despite the fact that many republicans are liberal and I disagree with some of their positions.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 3:32 PM

I dunno. Sounds like an implausible scenerio.

First, we have never had, nor will we ever have a libertarian POTUS.

Second, none of those events could occur without a complicant government, an incompetent government, or a combination of the two. Which brings us back to the fact that we have never had, nor will we ever have, a libertarian POTUS.

Personally, I believe that 9/11 was a crime and should

have been treated as such. There have been a lot of facts (among other things) lost by treating 9/11 as an act of war.

-- Posted by Simon Jester on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 3:34 PM

Dug,

We have to live in the real world, and that means we are highly unlikely to ever find a candidate, or indeed a party, with which we agree 100% of the time. Unless, of course we form our own party and become our own candidate.

Most of us, hopefully, agree with ourselves 100% of the time...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 3:52 PM

Dug, After a conservative estimate of $2.6 trillion and the lives of 6000 men and growing, would you consider that a proper response to 9-11?

If a private sector company operated this poorly they would soon be out of business. I will take private sector solutions over wasteful government any day.

After all that money and lives lost, the government still contends that terrorism remains a constant problem.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 1:34 AM

-- Posted by BCStoned on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 1:34 AM

I would say it is not a proper response - as an armchair quarterback I feel they could have done this better and I'm confused why we are still there long after Osama is dead. I would agree that they *might* return to their tribal warring ways after we leave and the gov't of "Afghanistan" may exist in Kabul only.

I was just asking WWLD (see above)?

Today we are a nation full of heavy weapons capable of ending WWII in a few weeks if we fought like we did in WWII. When you send massive warfare into an area to "win the hearts and minds" you get a $2.6 Trillion war with a lot of deaths and continued terrorism. I have mixed feelings about helping people who are abysmally poor and uneducated. The real problem is al Qaeda and/or Iran's funding of terrorist, not the Taliban.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 9:16 AM

"Helping" people? LOL!

-- Posted by Simon Jester on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 9:35 AM

I don't laugh too much at abject poverty. Have you read or seen much some of the changes over there? I know of some local soldiers that have helped Afghan farmers with our farming techniques and helped repair farm equipment for them. And of course some of the schools for young girls that the Taliban despise.

I don't mind helping other people, I just don't know that our military should be doing peace corps work.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 9:45 AM

The poppy farmers are digging it.

-- Posted by Simon Jester on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 9:05 PM

How much has our global militarized FFA / Girl Scouts program cost ML? Was it worth it to you?

-- Posted by Simon Jester on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 9:11 PM

While searching for something else I see Peace has been euthenised. Yep, the turkey Obama pardoned last year is no longer a happily roaming free bird on the government farm. And some of you were worried Mitt was going to kill off Big Bird!

I wonder if the timing in the demise of Peace is some sort of secret omen of things to come.

-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 10:32 PM

Old John, Best not to probe a hornets nest with a stick. Some learn while their young, and some never do. Peace will never happen as long as there is profit in war.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 11:56 PM

"Dug, After a conservative estimate of $2.6 trillion and the lives of 6000 men and growing, would you consider that a proper response to 9-11?"

That's a liberal estimate, not a conservative one. The cost of allocations for the wars has totaled about $1.2 trillion.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 23, 2012, at 8:32 PM

"...not a conservative one. The cost of allocations for the wars has totaled about $1.2 trillion."

What a bargain... And at only 5000 lives.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 23, 2012, at 9:13 PM

And at only 5000 lives. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 23, 2012, at 9:13 PM

Most of which occurred under Obama in Afghanistan. Careful - you're speaking against the party and you cannot afford that.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 23, 2012, at 10:33 PM

"Most of which occurred under (President)Obama in Afghanistan."

Wrong again, as usual....

Of the 6644 American Military killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, 4759 were during the President Bush administration, and 1785 during the President Obama administration.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Nov 24, 2012, at 8:19 AM

"What a bargain... And at only 5000 lives."

I keep pointing out that fighting wars is a constitutional duty of government, paying other peoples' bills is not.

Thus, that amount, which is the cost over 10 years, is much less than we spend each year paying other peoples' bills.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Nov 24, 2012, at 8:24 AM

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Nov 24, 2012, at 8:19 AM

Wrong again common. It's a bad pattern for you. In Afghanistan most deaths occurred under Obama.

More U.S. soldiers have been killed and wounded in Afghanistan during President Barack Obama's first term in office than former President George W. Bush's two terms.

Under former President George W. Bush, 575 American soldiers died and fewer than 3,000 were wounded in Afghanistan. This means under Obama, at least 1,405 soldiers have died and nearly 15,000 additional soldiers have been wounded, which means 70% of the deaths and nearly 80% of the injuries in Afghanistan have occurred under Obama's watch.

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Nov 24, 2012, at 8:56 AM

While searching for something else: https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?v=...

Not on topic of the discussion but note the title of the thread.:)

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Nov 28, 2012, at 12:40 AM

Today while looking for the proper tie, I found someone snuck into my closet and shrank all my dress shirts. Oh well, I did tie my shoe laces. :)

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Nov 28, 2012, at 4:46 PM

Wheels, Bro in law's sister. Hate to admit it but I had known of her as long as I can remember but don't recall ever meeting her.

``````````````

While looking for something else, I ran across this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherh...

Should Obama invite this guy for a "let's get a beer!" session?

-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Dec 2, 2012, at 12:06 AM

Also, while looking for something else I ran across this from todays semissourian: http://www.semissourian.com/story/191861...

Easily passed over but the comment section leads to another one of Kens great posts with some interesting history. Cape to Jackson was Mo's first long distance telephone connection, Advance, College terraces and the "over a bottle of wisky" discussion on a Jackson porch.

-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Dec 2, 2012, at 1:30 AM


Respond to this thread

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account , enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.

Want to comment?

In order to participate in semissourian.com's forums, you must be a registered member of the site. Once registered and logged in, you can post comments to existing threads or post new threads of your own. Click below to register now (it's free!). If you're already registered, just start commenting and posting threads.