Is President Obama Ignoring Intelligent Online Input?

[Ivan Seeking]

Indeed, and above all: Specialized! A man like David Gergen for instance, or David Axelrod could serve any president well, and would blow us out of the water.

By the same token, you see it here with engineers learning that those skills only HELP with theoretical physics, and visa versa. I'm not taking my car to a mechanical engineer, I'm takign it to my MECHANIC. I'm also not going to ask my mechanic to design new jet, or furnace, etc.

Gergen is probably the man I most respect among the pundits and former advisors. Though a conservative philosophically, he is also bipartisan and served under Presidents from both parties - he served under four Presidents! You can trust him to state his honest opinion and not some party line.

When there is no clear path, I always look to Gergen for guidance.

 

[nismaratwork]

Gergen is probably the man I most respect among the pundits and former advisors. Though a conservative philosophically, he is also bipartisan and served under Presidents from both parties - he served under four Presidents! You can trust him to state his honest opinion and not some party line.

When there is no clear path, I always look to Gergen for guidance.

I agree, he's also absurdly bright and well spoken... and you can see others listen to him... even those who disagree. Like Warren Buffet... he's a force.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree, he's also absurdly bright and well spoken... and you can see others listen to him... even those who disagree. Like Warren Buffet... he's a force.

And those who waste their time with the likes of Limbaugh and Beck, or MSNBC for that matter, would be well-served to follow Gergen instead. Of course, this would completely destroy the illusion... and our country would be far better off.

 

[Proton Soup]

i often found enlightenment from Dick Morris and his bridge-burning strategy.

 

[nismaratwork]

i often found enlightenment from Dick Morris and his bridge-burning strategy.

A cautionary tale?

@Ivan: Agreed.

 

[Proton Soup]

A cautionary tale?

@Ivan: Agreed.

i haven't watched him in a while. i assume he still does analysis for Fox. but he always gave an insider view into the way these people really think. at least for the politickin to the public side of things.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

i haven't watched him in a while. i assume he still does analysis for Fox. but he always gave an insider view into the way these people really think. at least for the politickin to the public side of things.

To my knowledge he was never on Fox and I get no hits indicating otherwise. He is the senior political analyst for CNN though. [Whoops, maybe you didn't mean Gergen?]

I should point out that while that clip from The West Wing was pretty harsh, it was too funny to pass up given the context of this thread. And I'm sure every staff member has been accused of running a dictatorship at least a few times. I was even accused of being a secret agent for the Government once! Also, Evo doesn't smoke. I don't know if she has a fondness for moo moos.

 

[Al68]

There's no freedom in chaos, just older laws of the jungle. In that kind of world, people like me kill people like you for sport; this is a better world.

What on Earth are you talking about now? It's simply impossible to misread my post that insanely.

He's young... presumably, and doesn't realize that he's advocating his own kingship, or serfdom.

First, I'm probably twice or three times your age, at least, just guessing. Second, and more relevant, I advocated no such thing. Misrepresenting the views of others is not honest discourse. I advocate libertarianism. Not anarchy, chaos, kingships, serfdoms, or any other such nonsense that could only be confused with libertarianism by those completely unfamiliar with it.

Have you forgotten that by today's standards, the U.S. was founded as a libertarian paradise with a constitution that tried to ensure it? That libertarianism is the central theme of the constitution?

Heh...

Truly, isn't this the heart of "Libertarianism" as it's bandied about now? Nihilism for everyone... except X or Y group, who naturally self-organizes.

Should we tell him he's halfway to communism?

Try learning something about what you're talking about. The claim of nihilism is completely nonsensical, as is the claim of being halfway to communism. Libertarianism and communism are at the opposite ends of the political spectrum.

It serves no purpose to just keep on fabricating a bunch of logically incoherent nonsense and posting it.

 

[Al68]

You misunderstood him. He wants laws to protect him, but he doesn't want laws to protect others :P

Complete nonsense, and you know it. What is with people just fabricating hateful nonsense without any regard whatsoever? Try substantiating your claim. If you even considered whether it could be substantiated you would have realized immediately it was nonsense.

And you claiming you know what I want because you're psychic won't fly, even with others who don't inherently know better like me. How about some semblance of a standard for making asinine claims about other forum members?

 

[Char. Limit]

This thread is so off-topic it's not even funny. Except for the fact that it is. Keep going, it's kind of entertaining!

 

[DanP]

Complete nonsense, and you know it. What is with people just fabricating hateful nonsense without any regard whatsoever? Try substantiating your claim. If you even considered whether it could be substantiated you would have realized immediately it was nonsense.

And you claiming you know what I want because you're psychic won't fly, even with others who don't inherently know better like me. How about some semblance of a standard for making asinine claims about other forum members?

It is my perception of your statements regarding your preference against a government run country and your self cataloging statement that you are an right wing radical. Right wing extrema has nothing to do with "libertarianism" as you claim in your previous post. Rather, right wing extrema politics usually include racism, supremacy, authoritarianism.

As whatever this perception is true or false, biased or non-biased, it doesn't matter. You self cataloged yourself as a member of radical right wing , and history has shown time and again that those politic lead to an legislation biased towards oppression of others in the favor of a certain class.

 

[Al68]

It is my perception of your statements regarding your preference against a government run country and your self cataloging statement that you are an right wing radical. Right wing extrema has nothing to do with "libertarianism" as you claim in your previous post. Rather, right wing extrema politics usually include racism, supremacy, authoritarianism.

As whatever this perception is true or false, biased or non-biased, it doesn't matter. You self cataloged yourself as a member of radical right wing , and history has shown time and again that those politic lead to legislation biased towards oppression of others in the favor of a certain class.

You can't possibly be so dense as to think I was describing myself as an authoritarian racist. You must know I was referring to myself as a "right-wing radical" simply because it's common for the left to use that phrase to refer to economically libertarian-minded people. And you must know it is far more common today, particularly in this forum, for lefties to use the phrase to refer to advocates of low taxes and deregulation.

And the fact that I simultaneously called myself a "right-wing radical" and a libertarian logically ruled out what you claim to think it meant.

You are not so uninformed as to think that phrase isn't routinely used to refer to economic libertarians, so why pretend to be? Why not just retract your statements?

 

[DanP]

You can't possibly be so dense as to think I was describing myself as an authoritarian racist. You must know I was referring to myself as a "right-wing radical" simply because it's common for the left to use that phrase to refer to economically libertarian-minded people. And you must know it is far more common today, particularly in this forum, for lefties to use the phrase to refer to advocates of low taxes and deregulation.

You self-cataloged in the political spectrum. I just took your word for it. Can you ask me for anything else ?

And the fact that I simultaneously called myself a "right-wing radical" and a libertarian logically ruled out what you claim to think it meant.

It can mean a lot of things. It doesn't rule out anything. Besides, a lesson in politics is that you should be very careful what you say in your political discourse. You simply let too much material to be leveraged against you with statements like "Im a right wing extremist". Any political adversary will use that against you to gain capital. And you simply can't blame them. You served yourself, to say so.

You are not so uninformed as to think that phrase isn't routinely used to refer to economic libertarians, so why pretend to be? Why not just retract your statements?

Simply because I have nothing to retract. If you wish to be perceived differently, reconsider your position in the political spectrum.

 

[Al68]

Simply because I have nothing to retract. If you wish to be perceived differently, reconsider your position in the political spectrum.

No, I will not. I know exactly where I am in the spectrum. And if you choose to make claims that contradict what I have made perfectly clear about my position, that's all on you. And I know that the overwhelmingly most common use of the phrase "right wing radical" in this forum is to refer to anyone who advocates less regulation and taxes, or economic libertarianism.

What do you call the part of the political spectrum of someone who advocates unregulated free markets and low taxes, and no income taxes? Left-wing radicals?

But I'm not going back and forth about it. I'm a libertarian, and I've spent decades being called a right-wing radical by Democrats because of it. I have no obligation now to meet your semantic guidelines for what to call myself. Especially when I know you were never ignorant enough to actually believe what you were saying to begin with.

 

[nismaratwork]

What on Earth are you talking about now? It's simply impossible to misread my post that insanely.First, I'm probably twice or three times your age, at least, just guessing. Second, and more relevant, I advocated no such thing. Misrepresenting the views of others is not honest discourse. I advocate libertarianism. Not anarchy, chaos, kingships, serfdoms, or any other such nonsense that could only be confused with libertarianism by those completely unfamiliar with it.

Have you forgotten that by today's standards, the U.S. was founded as a libertarian paradise with a constitution that tried to ensure it? That libertarianism is the central theme of the constitution?Try learning something about what you're talking about. The claim of nihilism is completely nonsensical, as is the claim of being halfway to communism. Libertarianism and communism are at the opposite ends of the political spectrum.

It serves no purpose to just keep on fabricating a bunch of logically incoherent nonsense and posting it.

I'd give a detailed response, but others such as DanP already have quite nicely.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

@DanP: Very good rhetoric. You win by TKO in first round.

(I’m sorry for that "pink accident"... )

 

[OmCheeto]

... I advocate libertarianism. Not anarchy...

I would send a letter of complaint to Google if I were you:

Where is Barack? I agree with Char_Limit that this is pretty entertaining stuff. And it's so time consuming, he'd have no time to run the country. And then maybe Boehner could get some things undone.

Wait! Maybe Barry is already trapped, and trolling our forum! It's already started!

http://www.wayoutwestnews.com/2011/03/02/boehner-reveles-in-reversing-pelosis-green-efforts/"
Speaker of the House John Boehner has undone Nancy Pelosi’s steps to green the U.S. Congressional cafeteria and reintroduced foam plastic coffee cups. This morning his aid tweeted “The new majority – plasticware is back.”

Down with the Greens! Down with the Greens! Government oppression of foam plastic coffee cups was wrong! Victory is ours! Long live Lady Liberty! Woo Hoo!



Ok then. I've got my sign for the next insanity rally.

 

[Al68]

I would send a letter of complaint to Google if I were you:

No you wouldn't. If you were me, you wouldn't misconstrue those search results and you would know the difference between libertarianism and anarchism.

 

[Al68]

I'd give a detailed response, but others such as DanP already have quite nicely.

Mistaking a libertarian for a racist authoritarian is responding quite nicely? Even you wouldn't make that mistake.

 

[DanP]

Being the radical right-winger I am ...

Mistaking a libertarian for a racist authoritarian is responding quite nicely? Even you wouldn't make that mistake.

Then again ... maybe you was mistaking yourself :P but It's good that you now call yourself a libertarian.

Especially when I know you were never ignorant enough to actually believe what you were saying to begin with.

Politics is a whore, not fair maiden .

Peace man.

 

[OmCheeto]

No you wouldn't. If you were me, you wouldn't misconstrue those search results and you would know the difference between libertarianism and anarchism.

I really do try to understand you. But I'm afraid I have to agree with the following assessment:

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html"
Libertarians are a small group whose beliefs are unknown to and not accepted by the vast majority. They are utopian because there has never yet been a libertarian society (though one or two have come close to some libertarian ideas.) These two facts should not keep us from considering libertarian ideas seriously, however they do caution us about accepting them for practical purposes.

The authors logic is a bit difficult to grasp. How can we not accept your ideas if they are unknown? But worded differently; "We don't accept your beliefs, because you don't really have any.", might be more comprehensible.

 

[Al68]

Then again ... maybe you was mistaking yourself :P

Nope.

but It's good that you now call yourself a libertarian.

Yes, I do. Just like I always have.

 

[DanP]

Yes, I do. Just like I always have.

Which kind of libertarianism?

The one who wants to totally eliminate the state , or the one which wants to maintain the state with minimal powers, just as a law enforcement force ?

 

[Al68]

The authors logic is a bit difficult to grasp. How can we not accept your ideas if they are unknown? But worded differently; "We don't accept your beliefs, because you don't really have any.", might be more comprehensible.

Complete nonsense. Ignorance of libertarian beliefs is not the same as libertarians not having them. Libertarian beliefs are well documented, well researched, and extensively critiqued over centuries. And of course a perfectly libertarian society has never existed. The same can be said of any political philosophy.

But there is no reason to be ignorant of libertarian beliefs. They are easy to research online. But using a personal opinion site of a non-libertarian as a source is obviously the wrong way to go. Especially one such as the one you linked to which betrays gross fundamental misconceptions and fraudulent misrepresentations of libertarianism.

Just to understand the basic concept of what the word libertarian means, try this source I found with a quick search: http://www.theihs.org/what-libertarian.

Trying to claim libertarians "don't really have any" beliefs is just sillyness. Libertarianism, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism" , has been written about extensively since the Enlightenment by such brilliant classical liberals as John Locke, Adam Smith, Hobbes, Fredric Bastiat, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, and countless others. If you were really interested, I'm sure you could find much info online, and I could even help. But I'm unaware of a good in-depth source online in a single location. Of course I haven't looked that hard, since I have a very good understanding of it that predates the internet. (We used to read real books, in brick libraries, you know. :!))

 

[nismaratwork]

Mistaking a libertarian for a racist authoritarian is responding quite nicely? Even you wouldn't make that mistake.

No, and I don't think you're racist, but I think you're still falling to the belief that your view is not a different kind of authoritarian view. You want to impose your own beliefs on others in the name of freedom... always a dangerous thing. You mean it too, and don't see how that's the case, which makes it even MORE dangerous.

I don't think you're a bad person, but I think you've "stood for nothing", and ended, "falling for everything".

You can't ignore the modern move that Libs have made to become anarchists or nihilists. Maybe you would be better served by not identifying with a group, but identifying with a set of solutions to specific problems; go narrow spectrum, not panacea.

 

[DanP]

Libertarianism, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism" , has been written about extensively since the Enlightenment by such brilliant classical liberals as John Locke, Adam Smith, Hobbes, Fredric Bastiat, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, and countless others. If you were really interested, I'm sure you could find much info online, and I could even help. But I'm unaware of a good in-depth source online in a single location. Of course I haven't looked that hard, since I have a very good understanding of it that predates the internet. (We used to read real books, in brick libraries, you know. :!))

Libertarianism SHOULD NOT be under any circumstances confused with Classical Liberalism. 2 very different animals.

 

[Al68]

Which kind of libertarianism?

The one who wants to totally eliminate the state , or the one which wants to maintain the state with minimal powers, just as a law enforcement force ?

The latter, sort of. This kind: http://www.theihs.org/what-libertarian. Like I said, I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. I'm what the word liberal always meant prior to the turn of the century, or a classical liberal.

I know many small groups of anarchists and others use the word libertarian, but historically it has been fairly synonymous with classical liberalism.

 

[nismaratwork]

The latter, sort of. This kind: http://www.theihs.org/what-libertarian. Like I said, I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. I'm what the word liberal always meant prior to the turn of the century, or a classical liberal.

I know many small groups of anarchists and others use the word libertarian, but historically it has been fairly synonymous with classical liberalism.

It is now... which is why it's probably better to enunciate your beliefs, rather than identify with a label. Not bad reason to abandon labels altogether, don't you think?

 

[Al68]

Libertarianism SHOULD NOT be under any circumstances confused with Classical Liberalism. 2 very different animals.

Nope. Not very different at all:

http://www.theihs.org/what-libertarian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

 

[nismaratwork]

If I were Obama, and read this, I'd start WWIII.

 

[DanP]

Nope. Not very different at all:

http://www.theihs.org/what-libertarian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Some libertarians like to paint themselves as classical liberals, but that's kinda all. They are different.

Id say Omcheeto was right, libertarians don't seem to have a very well defined political identity.

 

[Al68]

No, and I don't think you're racist, but I think you're still falling to the belief that your view is not a different kind of authoritarian view. You want to impose your own beliefs on others in the name of freedom... always a dangerous thing.

That's just false. Please cease and desist once and for all making false claims about what I do or don't want or believe. I will tell you what I want and believe, and that is that.

You mean it too, and don't see how that's the case, which makes it even MORE dangerous.

You are very, very, VERY, confused if you think libertarianism is a type of authoritarianism.

I don't think you're a bad person, but I think you've "stood for nothing", and ended, "falling for everything".

Logically incomprehensible.

You can't ignore the modern move that Libs have made to become anarchists or nihilists. Maybe you would be better served by not identifying with a group, but identifying with a set of solutions to specific problems; go narrow spectrum, not panacea.

More logical incoherence.

Logically nonsensical assertions with no substantiation whatsoever provides nothing legitimate to the thread.

 

[nismaratwork]

That's just false. Please cease and desist once and for all making false claims about what I do or don't want or believe. I will tell you what I want and believe, and that is that.You are very, very, VERY, confused if you think libertarianism is a type of authoritarianism.Logically incomprehensible.More logical incoherence.

Logically nonsensical assertions with no substantiation whatsoever provides nothing legitimate to the thread.

It seems you've confused us all... maybe you need to start explaining things, instead of challenging everyone to a meangingless debate.

 

[Al68]

Some libertarians like to paint themselves as classical liberals, but that's kinda all. They are different.

I provided sources that substantiate the opposite claim. You have made unsubstantiated assertions about political philosophies that aren't even yours.

As a libertarian, and a classical liberal, I don't have to meet every definition ever used by anyone of either. It's not that hard to understand.

Id say Omcheeto was right, libertarians don't seem to have a very well defined political identity.

See above. Your lack of understanding of libertarianism does not equal "don't seem to have a very well defined political identity".

Historically, libertarianism is essentially classical liberalism. If you knew the subject matter, you would realize that the overwhelming bulk of alternate groups using the word "libertarian" are fleeting very small groups, not significant to the issue.

 

[nismaratwork]

I provided sources that substantiate the opposite claim. You have made unsubstantiated assertions about political philosophies that aren't even yours.

As a libertarian, and a classical liberal, I don't have to meet every definition ever used by anyone of either. It's not that hard to understand.

See above. Your lack of understanding of libertarianism does not equal "don't seem to have a very well defined political identity".

Historically, libertarianism is essentially classical liberalism. If you knew the subject matter, you would realize that the overwhelming bulk of alternate groups using the word "libertarian" are fleeting very small groups, not significant to the issue.

You don't find it odd at all, that you're alone in this? You have no desire to clarify what you do believe in, but would rather exchange links?

How much of what you say is pushing ideology, and how much in good faith?... I had assumed the latter until recently.