Civil Rights Progress.

[MSimon]

What about actual Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson's positions?

I think the guy has a point. IIRC, Ron Paul has a simillar opinion on this.

The US made the mistake Gary Johnson and Ron Paul promote in the 30s. We got WW2 as a result.

Spending as much on war making capabilities as the rest of the world combined is signaling. Drastic cutbacks are another form of signaling.

All things considered I'd rather have too much signal than not enough.

Winston Churchill thought that if the stupidity didn't return for 50 years we would be doing good. It took a little longer than he expected But the stupidity is back. Peace mongers and "just enough for defense" are the greatest promoters of war in the world.

So far peace through superior firepower has worked. I'm loath to test the limits to find out where it fails.

[Skipjack]

We got WW2 as a result.

Simon, WW2 had many reasons, not just the lack of arms on the side of the US. I am sure you will agree with that.
I think it is hard to compare the times too. Besides, we are talking a reduction to 2003 levels, not 1930ies levels...

[MSimon]

We got WW2 as a result.

Simon, WW2 had many reasons, not just the lack of arms on the side of the US. I am sure you will agree with that.
I think it is hard to compare the times too. Besides, we are talking a reduction to 2003 levels, not 1930ies levels...

Pacifism in the western world was a great inducement to war. Hitler said of the West - they are worms.

One way to signal we are not pacifists is arms spending. At around 5% of GDP it is not excessive.

But OK. The experiment will be done (if it is done) without my input. We shall see.

Weakness (or the appearance of same) invites attack in the animal kingdom. But of course humans are different. ;-)

[Diogenes]

There is an axiom(don't know by whom) about new ideas in Science (plate tectonics, relativity, quantum mechanics, hopefully SENS) not being accepted because those old scientists who were hopelessly prejudiced against them are persuaded by reason and evidence. They just grow old and eventually die, and our replaced by newer scientists for whom the new ideas aren't so new. Likewise with the war on drugs, give it another 20yrs or so and the old Reagan era war-on-drugs die-hards will be dead and buried, and the current crop of libertarian 20-somethings will be middle aged and in positions of leadership.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck
====
It might not take 20 years.

Hopefully your right MSimon but personally I think will just have to wait for them to die off:

The war on drugs is 98% successful, but it has never been permitted to achieve the other 2%. People just won't stomach what it would take to actually eliminate drug abuse.

Let me go on record as saying I believe it is our Duty to prop up murderous Psychopaths when it is in the best interests of the United States.

Deeply ingrained nut-baggery like this will only be eliminated by father time.

A Tale of two Murderous Psychopaths.



1. Franklin Deleanor Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin.

Joe Stalin murdered 30 million people. He was the very top shelf of murderous psychopaths. Had we not supported him, a different murderous psychopath (Adolf Hitler) would have won, and may have gone on to beat Stalin's record of murder.


Roosevelt chose to support the number two worst murderous psychopath in history to prevent a different murderous psychopath from becoming an even worse threat to us.


2. Harry Truman and Chiang Kai Sheck.


At the end of World War II, Harry Truman was sitting on the greatest deposit of war material in history. It was all surplus and no longer needed because the war was over and we won. No further fighting by U.S. Forces was necessary because the belligerents had capitulated completely.

Chiang Kai Sheck was the leader of the Chinese Nationalists and had fought as an ally with American forces trying to rout the Japanese. He asked Harry Truman for transport aircraft with which to pursue Mao Tse Tung, land his troops on top of him, and defeat his communist army.

Truman refused. He regarded Chiang Kai Sheck's organization as corrupt and abusive, and he chose not to support that murderous psychopath at that point in history. As a result Mao was left unmolested while his forces roamed the interior of China spreading communist propaganda and gathering strength. At the time Chiang Kai Sheck had asked for support, Mao could have been beaten with relatively little effort. He had already been bloodied up badly in his conflicts with the Chiang forces previously, and he was actually running away from Chiang 's forces while he was making his "long march" through China.

Mao gathered support and came back to confront Chiang with a force sufficient to defeat him. Chiang then fought a retreating action which eventually ended up with him escaping to the Island of Formosa, where they formed a government and the Nationalist Chinese became our Allies.

Mao then proceeded to murder something like 100 million people (making him the number 1 psychopathic killer in history) both intentionally and as a result of his brain dead stupid socialist policies.


Conclusion.



Roosevelt made the Correct decision, Truman made the Wrong decision. Roosevelt supported one of the worst murdering psychopaths because it was in the best interest of the United States. Truman refused to support a murdering psychopath, and instead allowed a far worse murdering psychopath go on to gain a position of power from which he became a far greater threat to this nation, and in fact is responsible for destroying many thousands of American lives. (Mao's China fought against us in the Korean War. Had there been no Mao, there never would have been a Korean war.)




The point is, it was in the United State's Best interest to support one murderous psychopath against another, because the other one was so much worse than the one we did support or should have supported that only a f*cking idiot would think that being consistent with a principle is more important than the consequent murders of millions of people.

Now here you come along with your tiny little understanding of world history and events, and you judge it as "nut-baggery" to have supported such a man as Stalin, or Chiang, or the Shah of Iran. (The person about which the original comment was made.)

There are Millions of people who have died as a result of Jimmy Carter's failure to support the Shah of Iran, and it may happen that millions more will die as a result of the Islamic Theocracy which has taken over this crucial oil exporting nation, yet you think that your childish little consistency of principle (that supporting any psychopath is nut-baggery) is more important than stopping massive death and destruction?

What kind of loon are you? Why on earth would you think it more important that we refuse to support a psychopath than to prevent the alternative mass death and destruction?



I am getting d@mn tired of arguing with f*cking idiots such as yourself. It appears that you have no knowledge or experience worth imparting to others. Why don't you learn something worth knowing or otherwise STFU!

[williatw]

What about actual Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson's positions?

I think the guy has a point. IIRC, Ron Paul has a simillar opinion on this.

The US made the mistake Gary Johnson and Ron Paul promote in the 30s. We got WW2 as a result.

Spending as much on war making capabilities as the rest of the world combined is signaling. Drastic cutbacks are another form of signaling.

All things considered I'd rather have too much signal than not enough.

Some decline in military spending is inevitable, going back to 2003 level as Gary Johnson proposes is not that radical. I agree with his contention that he: "believes the greatest threat to national security at present is that we're bankrupt"

I am sorry but letting ourselves go broke sends an even stronger message of national weakness than reducing military spending would.

[Diogenes]

I think the guy has a point. IIRC, Ron Paul has a simillar opinion on this.

The US made the mistake Gary Johnson and Ron Paul promote in the 30s. We got WW2 as a result.

Spending as much on war making capabilities as the rest of the world combined is signaling. Drastic cutbacks are another form of signaling.

All things considered I'd rather have too much signal than not enough.

Some decline in military spending is inevitable, going back to 2003 level as Gary Johnson proposes is not that radical. I agree with his contention that he: "believes the greatest threat to national security at present is that we're bankrupt"

I am sorry but letting ourselves go broke sends an even stronger message of national weakness than reducing military spending would.

Military spending is not what is breaking us. It is Social (Read that as DEMOCRAT imposed) spending that is killing us.

[williatw]

Pacifism in the western world was a great inducement to war. Hitler said of the West - they are worms.

One way to signal we are not pacifists is arms spending. At around 5% of GDP it is not excessive.

But OK. The experiment will be done (if it is done) without my input. We shall see.

Weakness (or the appearance of same) invites attack in the animal kingdom. But of course humans are different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... C_deficits


Budget, deficits
Johnson believes the United States is on the verge of an economic collapse that he compares to the 1998 Russian financial crisis, which he believes can be stopped only by balancing the federal budget.[7][8] As such, he promises to submit a balanced budget for the year 2013 and promises to veto any bills containing expenditures in excess of revenues.[7] He promises to look at every decision as a cost-benefit analysis.[9] His budget would cut federal expenditures by 43% in every area, "across the board,"[7] including "responsible entitlement reform," because the "math is simple: federal spending must be cut not by millions or billions, but by trillions."[10] He calls the notion "that we can control spending and balance the budget without reforming Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security" "lunacy."[10]

He would cut spending across the board (including entitlements) MSimon not just the military. A bankrupt US would concern our allies and embolden our enemies far more than merely cutting military spending back to 2003 levels.

[williatw]

We got WW2 as a result.

Simon, WW2 had many reasons, not just the lack of arms on the side of the US. I am sure you will agree with that.
I think it is hard to compare the times too. Besides, we are talking a reduction to 2003 levels, not 1930ies levels...

Yes and even if the United States of the 30's had had a much larger military it would have had little effect on Hitler. After all we had the powerful isolationist movement in the US and the fact that we had no military alliances with European nations(or anyone) at the time. We had the Monroe Doctrine, if Hitler or the Japs had decided to invade Latin America guess that would have involved us. Barring something like that, Hitler still would have annexed the Czechs, Chamberlain’s appeasement; French weakness etc. would have stayed the same. Hitler would still have invaded Poland in 1939, WWII still would have happened. Suppose it may have deterred the japs from attacking us at Pearl, don't see how it would have stopped WWII. In fact if hypothetically our greater military strength had deterred the Japs from attacking us, would the result be we would not have entered WWII at all?

[Skipjack]

Quite a lot of people in the US were also doing business with Nazi Germany. Dont forget that the US manufactured the trucks that rolled over half of Europe. There were real business interests there as well...
It is all a lot more complex than just an amount of arms owned by the US.
Btw, the Russians probably had the most weapons of all at the beginning of WW2.

[williatw]

I am getting d@mn tired of arguing with f*cking idiots such as yourself. It appears that you have no knowledge or experience worth imparting to others. Why don't you learn something worth knowing or otherwise STFU!

I have already learned something worth learning...your an insane authoritarian nutbag.
Of course we could always wait for the tea-party folks to save us:

I have quite a good understanding regarding the wants and desires of the Tea-Party folk, and the topic of SS or Medicaid has not been broached in any discussion I have ever been a party too. The topic just doesn't come up.

Or maybe not, which takes me back to plan "B":

Hopefully your right MSimon but personally I think will just have to wait for them to die off:

The war on drugs is 98% successful, but it has never been permitted to achieve the other 2%. People just won't stomach what it would take to actually eliminate drug abuse.

Let me go on record as saying I believe it is our Duty to prop up murderous Psychopaths when it is in the best interests of the United States.

I personally think passing the 19th amendment was a mistake. I think much of the subsequent foolishness this nation has endured was a consequence of that mistake.

Deeply ingrained nut-baggery like this will only be eliminated by father time.

The sooner the better, doubt if you would like much what the world of 20-30+ years from now will look like anyway.

[Skipjack]

After careful consideration and then some more of it, I have decided that it may not be such a bad idea to legalize marijuana. It is not proven to be addictive. It is not THAT harmful. Since it is not addictive, it could be easily reversed if we found that legalization is not working as we would like it to. In any case this would have to be carefully watched and monitored and documented. I would want a legion of independent scientists from various major universities to keep an eye on this (still cheaper than having a several legions of police officers hunting down MJ users). I want to know exactly what benefits and negative effects if any, there are from this.
Then I want to get these same scientists to meet in a panel and compare their results. Then they will determine whether we can expect any benefits or negative effects from expanding this to other drugs, or maybe they will suggest to reverse the legalization of pot. In any case, we will have independently verified, irrefutable data on either possibility. I will then happily bow to the recommendations of these scientists, whatever they may be.
I have come to the conclusion that this would be the only way to come to a rational and logical decision on the matter.

[williatw]

After careful consideration and then some more of it, I have decided that it may not be such a bad idea to legalize marijuana.

I concur anything to start putting a stop to this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

When the looter is the government by George F. Will

In the lawsuit titled United States of America v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Massachusetts, the government is suing an inanimate object, the motel Caswell’s father built in 1955. The U.S. Department of Justice intends to seize it, sell it for perhaps $1.5 million and give up to 80 percent of that to the Tewksbury Police Department, whose budget is just $5.5 million. The Caswells have not been charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime. They are being persecuted by two governments eager to profit from what is antiseptically called the “equitable sharing” of the fruits of civil forfeiture, a process of government enrichment that often is indistinguishable from robbery.

Rather, they are victims of two piratical governments that, IJ argues, are violating the U.S. Constitution twice. They are violating the Eighth Amendment, which has been construed to forbid “excessive fines” that deprive individuals of their livelihoods. And the federal “equitable sharing” program violates the 10th Amendment by vitiating state law, thereby enabling Congress to compel the states to adopt Congress’s policies where states possess a reserved power and primary authority — in the definition and enforcement of the criminal law.
“Equitable sharing” — the consensual splitting of ill-gotten loot by the looters — reeks of the moral hazard that exists in situations in which incentives are for perverse behavior. To see where this leads, read IJ’s scalding report “Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture” (http://ow.ly/aYME1), a sickening litany of law enforcement agencies padding their budgets and financing boondoggles by, for example, smelling, or imagining to smell, or pretending to smell, marijuana in cars they covet.

None of this is surprising to Madisonians, which all sensible Americans are. James Madison warned (in Federalist 48) that government power “is of an encroaching nature.” If unresisted, it produces iniquitous sharing of other people’s property.

[Skipjack]

The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture” (http://ow.ly/aYME1), a sickening litany of law enforcement agencies padding their budgets and financing boondoggles by, for example, smelling, or imagining to smell, or pretending to smell, marijuana in cars they covet.

This is indeed unconstitutional.

[williatw]

The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture” (http://ow.ly/aYME1), a sickening litany of law enforcement agencies padding their budgets and financing boondoggles by, for example, smelling, or imagining to smell, or pretending to smell, marijuana in cars they covet.

This is indeed unconstitutional.

Yes and the author of the piece George Will is a conservative. Even their starting to figure it out. Like I said forfeiture of assets is the sleeper issue that will be the straw that breaks the camel's back as far as the public's support for the war on drugs.

And here: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/op ... uxzHxUNWYN

Cartels have oceans of money for corrupting enforcement because drugs are so cheap to produce and easy to renew. So it is not unreasonable to consider modifying a policy that gives hundreds of billions of dollars a year to violent organized crime.
Marijuana probably provides less than 25 percent of the cartels’ revenues. Legalizing it would take perhaps $10 billion from some bad and violent people, but the cartels would still make much more money from cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines.
Sixteen states have legalized “medical marijuana.” In 1990, 24 percent of Americans supported full legalization. Today, 50 percent do.
Would the public-health problems resulting from legalization be a price worth paying for injuring the cartels and reducing the costs of enforcement? We probably are going to find out.

[MSimon]

Pacifism in the western world was a great inducement to war. Hitler said of the West - they are worms.

One way to signal we are not pacifists is arms spending. At around 5% of GDP it is not excessive.

But OK. The experiment will be done (if it is done) without my input. We shall see.

Weakness (or the appearance of same) invites attack in the animal kingdom. But of course humans are different. ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... C_deficits


Budget, deficits
Johnson believes the United States is on the verge of an economic collapse that he compares to the 1998 Russian financial crisis, which he believes can be stopped only by balancing the federal budget.[7][8] As such, he promises to submit a balanced budget for the year 2013 and promises to veto any bills containing expenditures in excess of revenues.[7] He promises to look at every decision as a cost-benefit analysis.[9] His budget would cut federal expenditures by 43% in every area, "across the board,"[7] including "responsible entitlement reform," because the "math is simple: federal spending must be cut not by millions or billions, but by trillions."[10] He calls the notion "that we can control spending and balance the budget without reforming Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security" "lunacy."[10]

He would cut spending across the board (including entitlements) MSimon not just the military. A bankrupt US would concern our allies and embolden our enemies far more than merely cutting military spending back to 2003 levels.

Bad signal. We could accomplish the same thing by holding spending constant for 10 years and growing our way out of the problem.