User talk:Rembrandt.ryan

(create an archive)

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Rembrandt.ryan! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Hello and welcome to Rationalwiki. I see that you have attempted a re-write of the Libertarianism page. This particular page is presently the subject of some debate on the site as you will see from the talk page. I have cut your proposed page to the talk page.

You are most welcome to join in the on-going debate in an effort to improve the article, but wholesale replacement at this point is probably not the best option. Cheers. :-) --Bob^{bing up} 06:23, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Hello Rembrandt.ryan. I understand that you may have strong feelings about the issue of Libertarianism but you really should put comments on talk pages. As you will see from the talk page, the article in question is already being vigorously debated by User:AnarchoJesse and user:Human. To arbitrarily overwrite the article at this point is not appropriate. You are however most welcome - indeed actively encouraged - to join that debate. I am again going to move your comments to the talk page.--Bob^{bing up} 09:34, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually I've changed my mind. In the spirit of absolute fair play, and to show that we encourage debate, I'm going to let your intro to the article stand for a while - or at least until somebody else removes it. This is not because it is our policy to put arguments into article pages, but simply to show that nobody is trying to immediately censor your point of view. In the event that you wish to show that you are interested in engaging in debate it would also be nice if you were to respond to comments on your talk page. (This page) Thank you.--Bob^{bing up} 09:53, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, I'm afraid somebody else has (correctly) moved it. I really am trying to help you out on this, but if you don't respond to queries then there is not a lot I can do.--Bob^{bing up} 10:41, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Because i hadn't yet caught on, i hadn't read your comments, nor did i know how to respond to you directly. Now i do, and have read them. I appreciate your attempt to use my article as a temporary placekeeper ...

Maybe i have the hang of it now -- this is the first i have engaged with wiki-type format and looks like i have a lot to learn. The concept seems strange, anybody altering the text of others, and it's got me curious as to how one version of anything manages to stick for awhile.

I am eager to figure out the next step in getting an accurate description of Libertarianism to hang in there, and am wondering as to how i'll be able to contribute. ^{— Unsigned, by: Rembrandt.ryan / talk / contribs}

"how one version of anything manages to stick for awhile" - when it gets to the point where no editors can improve it, is one. Also, there is no need for versions to last, almost anything can be made better somehow.

"getting an accurate description of Libertarianism to hang in there" While that might be possible, don't count on it ever being an article a libertarian would "like". Have you seen our snartikles on the Dems and GOP? (Democratic Party & Republican Party)

Oh, and lastly, I should have mentioned this way down below where you were asking about how to make new articles, you might want to go look at our "help" pages (link at top left of page). They're actually pretty good. ħuman 22:14, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Bob from Rem

Forget the headline. My comments are above it.

Forgot, not forget.

Am i doing this right?

Why are your comments time-stamped, but not mine?^{— Unsigned, by: Rembrandt.ryan / talk / contribs}

You type four tildes (~~~~) after your comment -- it does your signature and the timestamp automatically. We've all gone through this once, so don't worry about it :) _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ ▽ ←} 21:49, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

You might like to rootle about the Help files (link on the left)   ^Contribs_Talk 21:53, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

BTW, Bob's in Spain- it's about 4AM there so don't expect any comment from him yet awhile!   ^Contribs_Talk 21:55, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

4am and still in bed ?!? Must not be a Libertarian. Carpe diem. Rembrandt.ryan 23:36, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Hi Rem. No worries we all have to start somewhere. :-) I don't know if you are still unsure about anything or if things have been clarified in my absence - but if you are still unsure about things procedure-wise then please don't hesitate to ask.--Bob^{bing up} 02:40, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Unsure for sure

Concerning the anti-Libt article, what happens next?

How do i replace it, or is it going to stand? It's wrong to leave it in place if care about truth. We do care about truth, do we not?

It's wrong for the author of the hatchet job not to identify where he sits on the political spectrum. All we know about him is that he is against Libertarianism -- if he is a Dem or a Pub or a Marxist or a Green, he should make it known.

If he were to do that, then his version could still be included, providing it was under the heading, "The anti-Libt Point of View". I will indentify myself as a Libt. A little balance is called for here, don't we agree?

So again i ask: what happens next? Rembrandt.ryan 07:41, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Dunno, but it's strange that a Libertarian should use lower case i instead of I throughout. Isn't it?   ^Contribs_Talk 07:52, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

That is my preference; also i split infinitives and end sentences with a preposition when it reads better.

But outside of those purposeful "errors", feel free to correct my grammar, any time. That would be my preference as well.

Rembrandt.ryan 08:17, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

My suggestion

I mentioned it to one of our highly active members User_talk:Human#Libertarianism (please click that link). I would suggest that you insert that introduction you offered and then add points which you feel are needed in the article. If you want your edits to stand you might consider the following points:

• Simply deleting things you don't agree with is likely to start a battle. If you really want to delete something it is better to copy the part you don't agree with to the talk page, say what is wrong with it and say that if nobody objects you will remove it within 24 hours.
• It usually is better to add than delete anyway.
• If you have made what you consider is a really controversial edit then put a note on the talk page defending it before somebody else takes exception to it

These are not "site guidelines" but my personal suggestions to you about how you should proceed. Good luck and happy editing.--Bob^{bing up} 08:27, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Stuck on first

// A confirmation code has already been e-mailed to you; if you recently created your account, you may wish to wait a few minutes for it to arrive before trying to request a new code. //

Well, that's what it says, but either it never came or i accidently deleted it. (I HAVE made mistakes before, if memory serves.) A couple of days wait is definitely long enough; how do i request a new code? Rem 12:38, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

And how do i get rid of that sickly red from my nickname? I want it bold and bright blue -- can i do that in preferences?

Rem 12:41, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

To get rid of the red you need to write something - anything - on your userpage.--Bob^{bing up} 12:44, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

You can also change how your name is displayed in your signature, if you look around the the site you can see a variety of ways. In the help files section there should be more information. Try resetting up your e-mail to get a new code:

1. From your preferences, go to the section entitled User profile, and scroll down to Email, if desired check the box next to Enable e-mail from other users.
2. Click the button in that section; an email will be sent to your email address with a confirmation link.
3. When you receive the email, click the link it contains to confirm that you own the email address.

tmtoulouse ^heckle 12:49, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Err; my "confirm etc" email never came through either.   ^Contribs_Talk 13:02, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I have just left you a very important message on a talk page somewhere

I responded. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 23:20, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Like Kenservative? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:41, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

FYI

Rembrandt, comments like that go on the talk page, not on a person's userpage proper. Just letting you know for future reference. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:04, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Ahem

Was your partial rebuttal directed at me? Or RationalWiki. You just started talking about Rush Limbaugh on my talk page and I'm confused. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 01:08, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Wiki Etiquette

Hi Rem. I know you're a newbie at this so there may be a few things you're unsure of.

• Every user has a use page and a talk page. I am writing on your talk page now. When I write on this page (your talk page) you will get an orange box telling you that somebody has edited your talk page saying "You have new messages. Whenever you edit the talk page of somebody else they will also get a message telling them they have new messages. You do not have to "Remind them" in some way that you have written on their page.
• You should never write on another user's user page. This belongs to them alone and only they can write on it. Only you should edit your user page. You might want to mention about your cat, your views on predestination or whatever. Nobody else may edit it - though they may make comments about it on your talk page.
• Every article has an article page and a talk page. Comments about the article should go on the talk page of the article - not in the article. In the case of controversial articles it is often best to raise issues on the talk page before putting them into the article. I repeat - arguments are for the talk page.
• When editing talk pages it is a good idea to try to split them into sections if they are long. You made some edits to the middle of one talk page recently and it took me ages to find them.
• Articles are not "owned" by authors they are collaborative ventures, though sometimes there may be one or two main authors.--Bob^{bing up} 03:10, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Just like to point out that although your user page is generally considered to be your own space, it is not somewhere to post pornography, offensive hate-speech, something that may be considered defamatory or could involve RationalWiki in legal proceedings. Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 03:27, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for the Wiki Etiquette. Rem 15:36, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Just clicking links

I have clicked on EVERY link from "I have just left you a very important message on a talk page somewhere" on down thru "Ahem" ...

And could find nothing you added -- where is it hidden? Was it deleted?

you> Was your partial rebuttal directed at me? Or RationalWiki.

me> RationalWiki. I tried to make it clear that i didn't know who "you" is (are). I obviously failed.

you> You just started talking about Rush Limbaugh on my talk page and I'm confused.

me> You left a comment somewhere that referred to Rush, which is what elicited my response, and your link led me to your talk page.

Please tell me i put the AGW rebuttal on the right page (as i am starting to worry about my IQ).

I just noticed a question you asked that i missed before ...

you> If AGW has a strong scientific basis and support, would a libertarian support government efforts to solve it?

me> Probably not, because it would involve massive outlays of cash (according to the the AGW crowd), and the govt cure would almost surely be worse than the illness.

You are aware, i expect, of the counterproductive measures so far -- govt pushing ethanol which has caused greater pollution -- not to mention pushing food prices up with the result that poorer countries will experience even MORE starvation.

Govt has a stupendously, incredibly, ridiculously bad track record when it comes to problem-solving. But THIS time on THIS issue govt will come thru?

Serious question.

And are you aware of the Superfund program? Rem 15:33, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Q1 - Q9

Greetings, Ryan,

To answer the questions you asked of Bob:

Q1) Special:Listusers
Q2) That's fine, it's really a personal decision.
Q3) Add them to your watchlist by clicking the "observe" tab at the top of the page. You can watch them via your watchlist, accessible from the "my watchlist" link, also in the header.
Q4) Well, you could write parser hooks and the like for MediaWiki in general, but you would have to ask either me or Trent to upload them. Of course, there is an API for bots, if that's what you were asking.
Q5) The last page you were looking at.
Q6) Sadly, no. :( Special:Recentchanges is the next-best thing.
Q7) Yep.
Edit: Sorry, I misunderstood what you were asking. Generally, Talk:Main Page, but the forum is lovely as well.
Q8) By the software, yes. These include <a> and <img>.
Q9) I would use Google.

Hope this has been of assistance! :) --λινυσ^(☮) 13:55, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

See also replies on Bob's page.   ^Contribs_Talk 14:15, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Hi Rem. I guess that between them Susan and Linus have covered everything. They both know more than me about the internal workings and the help system. If anything remains outstanding no doubt you'll call out.--Bob^{bing up} 14:23, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks Linus -- just what i wanted. And timely too; garsh.

Q1)) Yes !

Q4)) View source for MediaWiki:MediaWiki was blank.

Q9)) Google, sure -- but a human with a brain that has probably had to learn Spanish himself, better.

Rem 15:47, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Q4) That was supposed to be an interwiki link, sorry. Here it is. --λινυσ^(☮) 16:04, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Re Q4. It all depends on what you want to do as you can change some of the ways that you interact with the system using a personal monobook.js (javascript file) or whatever skin you have chosen. On Wikipedia several have written editing and anti-vandalism tools that don't use the normal browser interface or use pop-ups. Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 13:03, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Signature

You said you were having trouble with your signature? Anything I can do to help? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 21:59, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I'll bet you could. As soon as i added color=0000ff, it no longer worked as it should. So i deleted the font tag, and it'll probably work, but won't be blue. Rem^Beau 22:37, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Uh-oh ... now Beau doesn't work. Rem^Beau 22:39, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Rem^Beau

[[User:Rembrandt.ryan|<span style="color:blue">Rem</span>]][[User_Talk:Rembrandt.ryan|<span style="color:blue">^Beau</span>]]

There. Just click this link - User:Rembrandt.ryan/sig - and copy paste the sig I made into it, then add {{User:Rembrandt.ryan/sig}} to your signature space and click raw signature. If you need any help just ask. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 22:44, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Let's try this. Rembrandt.ryan^Beau 22:45, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Once more into the breach. (breech?) Rem^Beau 22:49, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

When i click your User:Rembrandt.ryan/sig, i get --

// You've followed a link to a page that doesn't exist yet.

I know, you have to create it with that sig in it, then go into Preferences, and Under Signature add this to it {{User:Rembrandt.ryan/sig}} Then hit raw signature. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 22:54, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Or, if you wish, I will make the page. Whichever is better for you. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 22:55, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Cinco, seis, ... Rem^BeauRem^Beau 23:01, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Rem^Beau Rem^Beau 23:03, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Rem^Beau 23:05, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, it's blue but Beau soesn't work. Rem^Beau 23:07, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

That's because you are on the page it links to. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 23:09, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm...is it doing the double thing on it's own? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 23:20, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Heading

By the way, I've been meaning to ask you, is your name is any way related to Remy LeBeau? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 01:16, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Ha, no. Never thought of that. Rambo is what i had in mind. A Libertarian version -- gutsy, but suave, and able to leap tall buildings with a single bound. Rem^Beau 01:22, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Indents

Hi Rem. I know that I always seem to be moaning about something, but do you think you could use indents when you edit talk pages? Usually the first person replying to a message puts a colon ":" before their reply. The next person two colons and so forth. The result is to indent each comment from the one before - and it makes it a lot easier to see who has written what. Cheers, and good luck with the dancing girls.--Bob^{bing up} 05:15, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

The colon seemed only to indent the first line of a new comment, but maybe it was because my stuff above was considered part of one comment. I agree that the indents are a good idea, and i shall apply them differently the next go-round. Actually, i'll try it right here, right now. Aha!

Rem^Beau 21:08, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Rem, colon indents only apply to the paragraph which they precede. If you want something on a new line use <br> or reapply the same number of colons. Also you don't need to put a <space> after the colon. Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 06:37, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Loose end -- shall i move my AGW text to Global Warming?

I assume you mean this? Talk:Global_warming#Partial_rebuttal? Well, no. People have responded to your points. You need to respond to the responses to see if you can get consensus. If nobody had responded you might have been able to say "As nobody has responded to these issues I assume there is no problem in my inserting it," but as people have responded you will really need to fight your corner first. You might also wish to pick up one point at a time, as arguing five or six simultaneously will be a sure route to chaos. (As you have a number of points to make you might chose to start with their the least contentious - though others would start with what they would consider the most important - your call.

Having read a couple of other comments of yours in other places I'd like to also direct you to these two links: RationalWiki and RationalWiki:Project Whitewash/What is a RationalWiki article. These make clear what our objectives and point of view (POV) are. Our POV can be contrasted with Wikipedia which has a neutral POV. As you will see from those links we do not aspire to, and we do not want a neutral POV.--Bob^{bing up} 03:35, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Having just read the NPOV Talk Page, i'm wondering if i use a sufficient amount of snarkism in my posts? What is your opinion on that, Bob? Should i spice it up a bit, and put Human on the spit?

-- Rem^Beau 07:50, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Hi Rem. I've never thought that your posts lacked snark anyway. Human is more than able to take care of himself, but if you think you can actually put him "on the spit", well that's up to you. Just remember our community standards.--Bob^{bing up} 09:26, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Like or dislike?

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal&diff=prev&oldid=203714

You say perhaps I "don't like" you. No, I an only unimpressed by your avowed knowledge of things you speak of as if you understand them.

Actually, you bore me. Although, amusingly enough, you want to teach me history... for someone who doesn't want to research the US tax code before pontificating about it, that strikes me as rather shallow. ħuman 03:36, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Don't worry, Remmy. Human goes all prickly sometimes, but he doesn't really mean it. ^_^ ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 03:47, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Actually, Rimsquid, I do. In spite of KAOS' apologies in advance on my behalf. ħuman 03:54, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

He never means it when he disagrees with me, either :P ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 03:58, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Every now and then Human behaves like a complete ass. One can never tell whether he means it or not; play it safe and delete him. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:32, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Aw, Human -- don't worry -- i know you like me. But am i special? That's the question.

And about teaching you history? I don't know much, just a little bit more than you, so if you wish to drop out of my history class, that's okay, but i WILL have to give you an incomplete.

I do look up to you tho, you being deep where i am shallow, so as you seem hell-bent on demonstrating your knowledge of US tax code, i promise to precipitate when you divulge your official facts and figures. I may be shallow, but i am NEVER informed. Count on it.

Je suis desolee that you find my prose boring. How could i spice it up for you? Some ad homs maybe? Foreign phrases? Dangling participles? Misplaced modifiers? Nietzsche quotes? Red herrings? Jay Leno jokes? Jus lemmee know, i aims ta please.

-- Rem^Beau 08:58, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

you're a girl???--Waiting for Godot 18:21, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Liberal beliefs (1)

It has been said that Liberals are reclaiming the name. Fine, but what does the name currently mean? Here is a chance to clarify your self-definiton free of spin -- let no non-Liberal participate in this poll.

On my User page, there are three lists - True, False for the first two, and the third for ranking US presidents in order of intelligence.

Just a suggestion, but the task could be simplified and speedy if, when doing the TF lists, you do something like: True: A-G, K-S, U-X / False: H-J, Y / No opinion: T

For presidents, just re-sequence the numbers thusly: 42 39 33 34 36 37 35 40 38 41 43.^{— Unsigned, by: Rembrandt.ryan / talk / contribs}

-- Oops Rem^Beau 19:06, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

"Against prayer at football games". your questions are loaded, just like anyone trying to prove a point. I personally am against public schools organizing any kind of prayer, i am against coaches telling thier students to pray, I am against making prayer mandatory or "soft mandatory" (see CU Football coach bill Macarty (sp?) who gave better playing time to boys who prayed with him.) But if the crowd gets a bug up its butt to pray, why do I care? If one of the boys prays to god to help him catch the ball, again, his business (though i find it odd that a God would care about the outcome of a foot ball game). By the way, on that note... why do Christians pray before a big game?--Waiting for Godot 18:03, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

That would be a good question to pose for your friends over at CP, would it not?

-- Rem^Beau 19:43, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Premusably Americans only - 'cause a lot of it seems a bit silly to a Brit.   ^Contribs_Talk 18:07, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

A lot of it? But i am interested in how Brits that identify themselves as Liberal differ from those in the Colonies, and i think if something didn't apply, a N/A would work just fine. Even gun control, altho a fait accomplis in the UK would likely fetch the same response, yes?

-- Rem^Beau 19:43, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Ms. Godot, It may bebecause they...Suck? -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^COURTNEY!!! 18:08, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I just prayed that teh boys didn't hit me in my "4-eyed" face when playing that game where they hit you with teh damn red ball! THAT HURT!!!!! (and i was an atheist, but heck, maybe a god would appear and smite the boys)--Waiting for Godot 18:12, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, I've got a friend whos a girl, 115 lbs, 5'1' and.....I would rather take on any NFL team than go toe to toe with her. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^COURTNEY!!! 18:15, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

1) Them red balls (dodge ball?) were EVILLY hard. 2) i was a serious geek, with (then and now) no sporting skills to save my life. or my glasses. --Waiting for Godot 18:17, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

(ECx2)Oh Rem, Rem . When will you learn that the world - and RW - is more than the US?--Bob^{bing up} 18:09, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Bob, Bob -- you do think me an idiot -- are you saying that you couldn't answer most of those questions T or F? No lo creo. And i'll bet you a zillion pounds that you have an opinion regarding the intelligence of US presidents, and it would'nt drift far from that of US Liberals (if you are Liberal). I hope you'll tackle some of them, at least.

-- Rem^Beau 19:43, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Rem, About PETA. Do you mean the actual organization or just their ideals. And if you mean the orginazation, do you mean when Alex Pechaco was in charge or when Ingrid Newkirk was in charge. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^COURTNEY!!! 18:10, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Oooooooh Shrink -- i dunno -- i've seen Peta spokesmen on TV, and altho i don't remember their names, my gut feeling was they were kinda Liberal, and their policies as well. You gonna fault me for not knowing as much as you do about PETA people? Just respond with T and F if you agree with one but disagree with the other.

-- Rem^Beau 19:43, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

On presidents - is that "most intelligent" as written, or most effective?Cause intelligence alone does not a good president make (see Nixon)--Waiting for Godot 18:19, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Count up the Rhodes scholars - nice British influence.   ^Contribs_Talk 18:33, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Godot -- i mean intelligence alone; NOT a question about effectiveness. Intelligence ranking of presidents is something i would expect there to be a good deal of agreement on, but i hope to be surprised on that and the two previous sections.

-- Rem^Beau 19:43, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

I think there is a list of their IQs somewhere on the 'net, with "projections" based on their writing, etc., for pre-IQ tests holder of the office. I'll see if I can find it... ħuman 19:47, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh, never mind, that was a hoax email, not a real event. ħuman 19:49, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Double oops, then there is this ħuman 19:51, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

No fair -- i want your opinion, not a link to somebody else's.

-- Rem^Beau 20:11, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, but I'm not going to bother with the survey, just offering some hopefully constructive commentary. But if I was taking the survey, I'd just say "hey, some seem a bit brighter than others, but how can I tell? I've only been within shouting distance of two of them..." And, hey, Rambo, can you make life a little easier by signing "in line" with the end of your comment, rather than making a new line for your sig? No big deal, but it would help some of us. ħuman 20:27, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

How would it help? I find it less helpful to not have a consistent position for the signoff. And what about Truth and Beauty? It is ooogly when the signoff is split on two lines; aesthetically offensive to us sensitive folk.

Now why would a proud Liberal like yourself not want to go on record? Surely you are not ashamed of your political beliefs and consider them to be logical and correct, right? And you are in the midst of a friendly crowd, predisposed to agree with you. Plus the one or two Libertarians that may be here can do you no harm, and tolerance is their watchword anyhow.

-- Rem^Beau 08:11, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Just curious about a few things...

• Anthropogenic Global Warming legislation - what does that mean?
• Helmit laws for motorcyclists - spellcheck
• Penalizing oil companies - for what?
• Seatbelt laws - which ones?
• Drilling for oil offshore and in Anwaar - it's ANWR

No big deal, you might want to fix a couple things and clarify a couple. ħuman 18:52, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh and I forgot to mention Johnson (Lyndon). Why isn't he on the list of Presidents? ħuman 19:44, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

AGW -- yeah -- i didn't get around to thinking how to present that one. Legislation that impacts businesses and taxes, i suppose. If it still doesn't make sense, just mark it with a question mark. And ignore question about penalizing oil companies until (unless) i can come up with more than just a vague impression of what pols mean when they say that. Laws (in every state except NH) that require adults to buckle up in a vehicle. Don't Brits have one as well? ANWR -- thanx.

LBJ -- yikes -- that changes my numbering system. That sneaky sun of a gun slipped right out of my list.

-- Rem^Beau 19:58, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

And where does Dewey fit in? (American joke -- es muy complicado.)

-- Rem^Beau 20:06, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

I didn't realize we were the only state with no "buckle up" law! The reason I asked is that the installation of seat belts by manufacturers is a Federal law, as are airbags (or other passive restraint). So I wasn't sure which seat belt law you were referring to. ħuman 20:09, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

You live in NH? -- Rem^Beau 20:16, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Yup. ħuman 20:28, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Did anybody warn the NH Free Staters that you have infiltrated NH? In the interest of public safety, they should insist that wherever you walk, you should loudly announce your presence by uttering, "unclean, unclean".

-- Rem^Beau 07:51, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Your list of "liberal" beliefs is like something that Andy Schlafly would write. Many of them don't even relate to the concept of liberalism and liberals themselves are split on the issues. They are also mostly ill-defined. The fact that you want a true or false response to them shows that you are either quite young or a fundamentalist. Anyone with a bit of life experience knows that very little in the field of human relations is purely black/white, or true/false. Life is a spectrum of grey. As for the intelligence of US presidents, I neither know nor care. The intelligence of one man has little to do with how good a president he was as there are many oher factors that determine the success of a president. Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:34, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

What's the problem, anyhow?

Yo, Genghis -- can't you despise me or refute my political philosophy without trying to hang Aschfly around my neck? I don't know him and that probably means he is not even a Libertarian, and in any case isn't your ploy of guilt by asociation a logical fallacy? Certainly it wouldn't be relevant even if he and i were twins separated at birth.

Even a Libertarian, even famous ones like Milton and Murray, don't always agree with all my positions on issues, so why would even bringing THEM up necessarilly smear me? If you wish to go mano a mano, i'm your mano. It's not like i'm proclaiming myself to be a follower of the deity Marx -- i'm just a Libertarian that usually agrees with Libertarian thinkers, some present and some past.

TJ, whom i greatly admire, was also famously a slaveholder; does that suggest to you that i support slavery, or am somehow linked to that most un-Libertarian institution? And i revere his DoI, am i automatically guilty if in your eyes he put a word wrong? If you want to attack Bob Barr, go ahead, but if you attack me, make it about one of my views, not his. Zheesh.

Now should you wish to be constructive (BIG if) and engage in an adult dialogue, why not straighten me out as to which items you consider spun? Why is it that i, as a Libt, is glad, mighty glad, to own up to my political views, but not a SINGLE Liberal is willing to? If you really are a Liberal in good standing that is not ashamed of your views, why would you not jump at the opportunity to share them? Seriously?

I have not purposely spun ANY items on my lists, my word on it, and my word is my bond (i have no idea what that means, but i'm certain it predates Ian Fleming). Even Human, who is totally bored with my scribbling, has made suggestions, and i have complied. Go thou and do likewise.

-- Rem^Beau 09:29, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh yeah -- and that "Life is a spectrum of grey" bit -- who says? That sounds like Argument of the Beard to me. There IS black and white as well as greys, And it is theoretically possible that one of your political views (if only they would come out of the closet) is totally wrong and my view opposite it totally correct. (Okay, maybe not Politically Correct.)

But fine, if you wish to assign percentages to your picks, i won't squawk. That is my stand, and i can take no other. (Who was that -- Martin Luther or Thomas More?)

-- Rem^Beau 09:49, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Fine, I'll answer your quiz:

My personal beliefs bypass every one of those items. ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 09:33, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Ah -- U da man !!! Bypass EVERY one of my items? Wow.

-- Rem^Beau 09:49, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

rem, when given real criticism about your "list", and how it isn't an accurate picture of anything, and how it is structured to create an argument, not really find out any facts or defintion of "liberal"... when people call you on sounding like any pundit (right, left, or center) - you whine and go off like a 5 year old. Ghengis must have pegged you right, you are young. There is no such thing as "black and white" in any list of "what do X's believe". I'm a staunch feminist, and you would think all women would share the same views about the role of women, the rights of women to free choice and self determination - but they don't agree. not even rabid feminists agree. Why would you think there is any "set" of opinions that is shared by all people of any label?--Waiting for Godot 09:56, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

What i think is of no import, especially to a Liberal, i expect. Any preconceived notions (or if you prefer, bias) that i may have can be put to rest now that we have several responses.

As to my playing pundit, you won't find me left, center, or right, which would place me on the horizontal axis. I'm at the corner of the diamond on the opposite end of the vertical axis from the Totalitarian corner, which is where the far Left and the far Right converge.

As the father of JFK said when he was asked about his being the youngest (25) bank president in America, "Youth is neither a crime nor a novelty". And i am well aware that not even rabid feminists agree on everything, but i'd be very surprised if they didn't agree on most issues important to feminists, which means a clear pattern would emerge, and i bet you could come up with a list of them, and predict the pattern.

Hold on, wait a minute. I "whine and go off like a 5 year old"? Other than my humor, which probably amuses only me, what, specifically, have i said that you could say is the whine of a 5 year old? That ad hom seems to be strictly gratuitous, yes?

-- Rem^Beau 22:43, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Rem, I'm not associating you with Schlafly but your list is extremely polarised and shows naïveté, things which are Schlafly characteristics. Firstly you conflate socialism with liberalism, probably because of your US-centric POV. I dislike the US usage of the term "Liberal" because to me it seems that it is mainly used as a term of abuse for everything the right doesn't like. While many "Liberals" may tick all the boxes in your list, I call myself a "liberal" in the European sense of filling the middle ground between "big capitalism" and "big organised labour". Emphasising individual rights, freedoms and obligations in a mixed-market economy.

Unfettered libertarianism and laisser-faire liberalism may produce wealth and benefits for some but this is often at the expense of those with different skills or abilities. A successful society should be judged not only on it's economic prowess but also how it helps and treats those less fortunate. So yes, I do criticize the payment of huge salaries to CEOs but don't deny the fact that they should be rewarded for their contributions, people work harder when they know that they can enjoy the fruits of their labour, so I don't agree with the Marxist philosophy of each according to his needs. It's all a matter of scale and fairness. There is a certain degreee of enlightened self-interest in ensuring that there is not too much disparity between the rich and poor, as it ensures more stable social conditions and relieves me of the increased worry about the safety of my family and property. That's why the Danes are much happier and have to incarcerate far fewer of their population than the US does.

I also support the construction of safe nuclear power stations but know that some of my colleagues do not, while some with a more conservative viewpoint oppose nuclear power for their own reasons. I am a carnivore but believe that animals should be kept in humane conditions before they are killed, I regard PETA as extremist and think that some animal rights activists do more damage than good by their actions. For example, some have raided fur-farms in the UK and released captive mink into the wild. Mink have no natural predators and do damage to other wildlife. I don't approve of wearing fur for fashion especially from endangered animals, but leather and sheepskin are by-products of meat producton and it is wasteful not to use them. I support the protection of endangered species as their loss would make the world a much less interesting place and there is no good reason to pursue their extinction. I support legislation to control emissions and encourage the more efficient use of resources as it makes sense not to make a mess of the world for future generations. What if anthropogenic global warming is a reality and everything ends up badly? Saying sorry that you were wrong is not going to help. Surely developing alternative non-polluting energy resources is a good thing? The only reason we need oil is because there is currently no economic alternative. High oil prices provide a stimulus to develop those alternatives but we still need to find and develop new oilfields in the meantime. I don't expect everyone who calls themselves liberal to agree with on every point so trying to categorise someone on the basis of YES/NO answers is not the way to do it. Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:46, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

What he said!   ^Contribs_Talk 11:23, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Genghis -- you have brought up many interesting points just above that i would like to comment on, but HOW can i address them without breaking up your text? Would you mind?

-- Rem^Beau 22:51, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Liberal beliefs

Now an article, so please add to that there and not this here.

Rem: You did not really give people an easy way to comment on your points. So I've edited them here so that editors can comment easily if they want. I'm not am American liberal, but I'll make some comments anyway.--Bob^{bing up} 11:25, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I hadn't really planned ahead, didn't think i needed to, and didn't know how to start a new page.

-- Rem^Beau 22:05, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Hey, Remzibo, are you going to comment on the issues at some point? ħuman 22:52, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

You haven't been to the new page yet? I analyzed the first five there. Or are you trying to bust my chops because i don't do them all at one go? If that's it, I have other posts to respond to as well.

-- Rem^Beau 22:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I've been there, yes. I read most of the comments (while it was still here) earlier today, but I'll probably wait until activity slows down and read it all again (I do check occasional diff out of curiosity). It was an open-ended question, I didn;t mean to imply that you hadn't. Thanks! ħuman 23:23, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

It looks like you didn't take part. Are you a crypto-Righty afraid your comrades will find out? (I'll bet that's it -- a mole no doubt.)

-- Rem^Beau 23:36, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I wasn't aware there was a deadline. ħuman 01:34, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Ah, I see, at the end. I meant, join in and say your piece on each item like others did. And I mean your opinion/thoughts on the issues you raised, not "what libertarians think". I'd just like to see what you think about them in the same level of detail so many other people went into. By the way, how are you/we limiting the responses to "liberals"? ħuman 23:34, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

You sure you want my opinions mixed in? Hmm. Barkus is willin'

I don't understand your last sentence. Maybe i'm too sleepy.

-- Rem^Beau 23:44, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, why not answer the "questions" yourself as well. We are all curious about each other. The last question was about the sampling problem. You are, at some level, trying to ascertain what liberals think, right, not just a random cross-section of RW editors? Or am I wrong? As I recall, one of your original versions asked "only liberals" to respond... usually when this sort of thing comes along, everyone who wants to chimes in. ħuman 01:30, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Pundits plowed under, world leaders take note

Wow -- i mean wow! If the gods really want to zap you, they give you what you ask for. An embarassment of riches to be sure, but i am tickled pink. And if i never figure out how to deal with all that info, it's worth it to me -- i got a good laugh (out loud, honest) from your purposeful humor.

I can't tell you why, but Totnesmartin's last comment hit me just right, "Well Brian, I'm (opening a boutique) there's certainly an early swing to the liberals, but let's wait until the Americans get home from work and see how it goes". I don't know who Brian is, but i bet he didn't laugh as hard as i did. Part of it, i guess, was that Americans would have any special insight in evaluating all those answers.

You all know, of course, that it will be well nigh impossible to analyze the "data" in any meaningful, statistical way -- i like to think you all colluded (a global conspiracy) to blitz me silly. (Are you part of the Trilateral Commission? Do you get your marching orders from the Bilderbergers?)

I couldn't wait until i "got home" (i telecommute on most days), i had to read every scrap, so i WILL have some time to make up this evening. C'est la gare (it is the railroad station). All those opinions will keep me going for quite a while ... i will comment on them.

-- Rem^Beau 15:27, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Americans don't have "special insight", it's just that you used a politically universal term then applied some very US only topics like prayer at sporting events. In most of the world, religion is just not teh hot button issue it is here, no matter which side. Other than against Muslims, I can't think of a thing Le Pen said that would suggest he wanted school prayer, god in the constitution, or any other religious nonsense that the Right here prattles off.--Waiting for Godot 15:43, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

"Well Brian, I'm opening a boutique" is from a Monty Python sketch Oooh found it!. My statement about waiting for the Americans is not simply because the question were aimed at them ,but because They're (on average) more right-wing than the Brits - but does this hold true for the RWians? Totnesmartin 15:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

how so are we more right wing then you? I dare say... put up your dukes, put up your dukes!!--Waiting for Godot 16:01, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Proposal re the above

Rem, I've had an idea. I think the discussion above is much too interesting to remain hidden away on a user talk page. May I have your permission to turn it into an article? It'll probably go into RationalWiki: space. anyone else think this is is a good idea? Totnesmartin 16:08, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Great idea -- and it looks like it has already been done. That was easy. I only wish i had known how to do it. -- Rem^Beau 20:05, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Absolutely. Another reason is that it needs a Talk page, and er, this is a talk page. And the talk page for a talk page is....uhm....the article? My brain hurts. DogP 16:10, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Should have been "debate" space, methinks. But, whatever. ħuman 16:42, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

By the way, you were headed the right way with the "pagemove", I think - move and then undo, hopefully, would leave the full history in both places? Not sure, but that would be ideal of course. ħuman 16:44, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

That's what I was trying to do, but undo undid the entire move, as if it was undoing the admin task rather than the HTML. It'd probably need an admin to move the page and a non-admin to undo, or something ludicrous like that. I can't be arsed to go through every combination of edits in hopes of hitting the right one by chance. Totnesmartin 16:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Just realised i didn't wait for permission - oops! :( Totnesmartin 17:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Let's now get this removed from here so the dialogue doesn't split across two pages. Rembrandt.ryan - may we do this? DogP 17:23, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Ahhh ... lemmee think about that ... Okay. -- Rem^Beau 20:19, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Apologies for removal

I removed the entire section above and moved the subsequent dialogue threads to the Talk page of Debate:Liberal beliefs - it now has a page all of its own. Sorry for treading in your castle, it was done with the best intentions. Feel free to revert if you object. DogP 19:23, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

You guys (above) don't make it sound so easy, so i hope somebody will tell me exactly how it was done. It obviously belonged on its own page.

-- Rem^Beau 20:23, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

It is easy, we just made it sound complicated. It was just copied/cut and pasted to the new location. ħuman 20:52, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

And if i want to start a brand new page? -- Rem^Beau 21:57, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

A Brand New Page ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 21:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

You can search for the title, if it isn't there you will have the opportunity to "create" it. Or do what KAOS did, and create a link to it. Following the link opens the edit box. Just take care to use the right namespace (if it's an essay or debate or some such). ħuman 22:09, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

May as well.

I may as well do the damn test. But I'm not going to go by just letter. I hate having to go back and forth.

A) Affirmative action - Support to an extent. If it's a tie, give it to the black guy. B) Anthropogenic Global Warming legislation - Support to an extent. I think there are a few more important issues going on right now. C) ACLU - Strongly support. As long as they don't turn into a censorship thing and only go after the people Al Sharpton says is racist. D) Banning prayer at football games - Again, if you want to do it, do it. Don't take my time watching your football games by praising Jesus. And don't force anyone else to. E) Banning smoking - This is just a bad question. Everywhere, completely? It would be the exact same thing as Prohibition, It wouldn't work. F) Democracy - lolwut? Not direct because people are idiots. G) Enforcing political correctness - FUCK NO! H) Ethanol production - Yes. I) Fairness Doctrine (radio shows) - Yes. J) Gun Control - Nobody convicted or charged with any kind of crime that involves force, I don't care if it's a misdemeanor or you shot a baby, NO GUN! No ak-47s because why the hell do you need an AK-47. But yes, have a gun in your house, WITH A LICENSE and a weeklong wating period. K) Hate crime legislation - Yes. But good ones, none of this "they tried to make me stop killing my kids because I saw Satan in them, they did a hate crime" bullshit. L) Helmet laws for motorcyclists - If you are too fucking stupid to not realize that your head is softer than the ground, you deserve a darwin award. But yes, they ahould be required. M) Humanitarian intervention in other nations - Yes. By humanitarian I don't mean kill them because they're commies. N) Penalties on companies that hire offshore - If you own the company, I don't see how it's hurting. O) Penalizing oil companies - For....what exactly? P) PETA - Post or pre alex Pechaco. If it was during Pechaco's reighn, then yes. Newkirk is doing more to hurt animal rights than help it. R) Progressive tax system - Not gonna answer because....I don't know what it is and am too lazy to look it up. S) Public funding to develop energy alternatives - Yes. NO GODDAMN ABSTINNENCE EDUUCATION! T) Seatbelt laws - See helmet U) Trade Unions - Business people are mostly evil. So yes V) Universal healthcare - Yes, but we need something more than just that. W) Wealth redistribution - Socialism is a good idea on paper. So make it good in real life then we'll talk X) Welfare - Yes. Y) Windfall Profits Tax - See progressive tax system.

AGAINST:

1 Building nuclear power plants - Nuclear. Bad. We gonna try to get Iran to stop, maybe one way to make them take us more seriously is to....stop? 2 Corporations paying huge salaries to CEOs - If they made the company what it is... 3 Dog fighting - How is this political at all? Against. 4 Drilling for oil offshore and in Anwaar - Against. 5 Nuclear weapon development - See top one. 6 Preemptive war - Preemptive defense good. 7 Prizefighting - You wanna sock each others brains out be my guest. 8 School choice - For. By choice, I mean Choice. Not go here. 9 Whaling - Blubber is yummy. Just kidding. Ahab only works well in fiction.

Rank these American presidents from the most intelligent to the least:

32 Roosevelt (FDR) 33 Truman 34 Eisenhower 35 Kennedy 36 LBJ 37 Nixon 38 Ford 39 Carter 40 Reagan 41 Bush 41 42 Clinton 43 Bush 43

Fdr Kennedy Clinton LBJ Carter Nixon Ford Reagan Bush 41 Bush 43

Happy? Gen. S.T. Shrink ^COURTNEY!!! 00:10, 8 August 2008 (EDT) Eisenhower

Eye AM happy -- yes i yam. And surprised that you have a touch of Libt in you. (That oughta get your goat. Probably what you were afraid would happen.) But you didn't disappoint me with the other 90% (approx). But i gotta know -- how serious were you about your smart-prez lineup?

-- Rem^Beau 00:38, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Wow, whodathunkit!!!! You found a libertarian!!! Hey, Ryanbot - I am a libertarian too!! I'm just not retarded and groping for "converts", like you. ħuman 00:53, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Rem. I do not self indentify as a libertarian. Therefore, since libertarianism is about personal choice, I am not a libertarian. That was my list of favorite to least favorite. As for smartest, Eisenhower would be a bit higher. Aside from that, I'm good. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^COURTNEY!!! 17:10, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

I would put Clinton and Nixon at the top of the list. with Carter and FDR almost as intelligent, but i don't claim to have any way to measure -- just my impression. As to you being a Libt, i would never accuse you of that. You are correct tho, that Libt is a lot about individual choice, and i would argue that that works better than lack of choice.

-- Rem^Beau 09:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Human -- no, i didn't find a Libt, and am not likely to find one on this site; "groping for converts" is not why i'm here. I would hope that some here, tho, would have a better understanding of what Libertarianism is really about, as opposed to what the DailyKos would have you believe. And you guys are really a challenge -- that is a factor too.

You say, you're "just not retarded" -- are you really sure?

-- Rem^Beau 09:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Awaiting your apology - but better yet, the source that mislead you?

"::::::On another note, "AND with Katrina, govt has spent over half a million bucks on EVERY man, woman, and child in New Orleans." The population of N.O. in 2006 is listed as 275,000. 2.75 E+5 times 5.0 E+5 = 1.375 E+11, that's 137,500,000,000. I think your source might be defective. ħuman 17:14, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

You're looking good since you've got numbers, and i don't know what i did with mine. But i'll find them, and if i can't divide, i'll admit it.

-- Rem^Beau 00:54, 8 August 2008 (EDT)"

All I did was multiply your numbers. I will be expecting your gentle apology for being utterly wrong in your claim here, and where I copied this from ([1]).

You asserted the numbers. I just multiplied them (your half million bucks per person, the post-Katrina population of New Orleans). I suspect either your math skills, or your choice of "sources" are woefully inadequate. I's actually prefer that it was a source that lied to you or misled you - and that you share it with us. ħuman 04:15, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

I hope there is a source and it's not some stupid math error by Rem. Because then we can do a nice big RW side-by-side demolition job. Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 05:10, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't know, it might have been something he mis-heard, mis-read, or mis-remembered. Happens all the time to all of us. If, however, there really is someone out there saying this, yes, we can have some fun! ħuman 14:56, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk Pages

Rem, I think I've mentioned before that it's usually unwise to put comments in the middle of talk pages. There are two reasons for this:

• People are less likely to read your words of wisdon, as they will expect to see new comments at the bottom and probably won't go looking for them in the middle.
• It confuses the thread and makes it unclear who is replying to what.--Bob^{bing up} 17:15, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, i know you're right -- i suspect a lot of my stuff is overlooked because of that, but also i often notice that i have missed the posts of others even tho they do it the way you recommend.

But also there is the big problem of disconnection between someone's point and a response to that particular point. When they are widely separated, it would result in having to copy every point from one post, one-by-one, to another post, and maybe a third.

I guess we're both looking for the perfect "third way", which may not exist. I will do it as you suggest, but in several instances i will have no good way to respond to someone's points. I know i'm "differently abled", but i am trying to conform.

-- Rem^Beau 18:40, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

If it's a really long way back you could copy and put into italics the point your referring to with a comment like: User x said ... I think other wikis make a more sophisticated use of the indent system to indicate related comments - but we're a bit too anarchic for that. But really if you want to keep up with the debates you need to spend more time on-site. Otherwise the river of thought and comment will have moved on by the time you arrive.--Bob^{bing up} 16:46, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Libertarianism article

Are you just here to wave your pet theory in our faces or what? Totnesmartin 18:35, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

You know why i'm here -- i have explained it. As far as the Libertarianism article goes, why should a Libertarian not have some say over part of the definiton article? Does it seem okay to you that anti-Libts should butcher it?

Bob has several times said that suggested changes should be added to the talk page so it can be debated before altered. Why wouldn't that apply to the Libt article? Because i'm a Libt, making that unnecessary?

-- Rem^Beau 19:16, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

You seem to have this strange issue where you get time backwards, make edits to the article, then say something unrelated about it on the talk page, say you put the edits on the talk page and call it debate. You just said, IT SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE TALK PAGE. So the natural solution in this case is to....Add it to the talk page, not make huge edits to the article, then get pissy when people get mad at you. And believe it or not, just because you self identify as a libertarian does not mean you are the sole authority on libertarianism. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^COURTNEY!!! 19:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

I think i've got the picture.

-- Rem^Beau 19:27, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Good luck! Fight the good fight! Much good it'll do ya, I'm sure... Lurker 02:12, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Reply

Just thought I'd let you know I replied to your tax cuts page and the liberal beliefs page. The latter is getting very long, so we should maybe put our debate on a new page sometime soon. Good discussion so far, by the by.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 14:23, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I'd really like to see some of the discussions at the liberal belief page stripped out to their own debate pages, with links to them left behind. It makes it easier to concentrate on a topic when it is more explicit. Alternatively, if anyone wants to state their views on a topic "unmolested", make an essay page, and anyone else can chime in on the talk page. Just an idea that might make life easier. ħuman 15:51, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

I have responded on both things again, and moved the beliefs discussion to Debate:Liberal_beliefs/Tom_and_Rem.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 02:21, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Demotion

Hi. I would like to inform you that you have been demoted. If you have any questions see our sysop guide. You could try contacting customer service but there is no one there. $\approx$$\pi$ 00:53, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

My condolences on your demotion. ħuman 01:25, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

I accept the demotion in the spirit in which it was given, whatever that means. And being generally incompetent, i can see how i am well-qualified for this honor.

-- Rem^Beau 08:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Archive

You might like to archive this page (69kb)
I've put a talkpage box @ the top. Just cut and paste into a new page created using the "Create an archive" link.   ^Contribs_Talk 00:25, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Embarrassing yourself

You might want to consider how much you are embarrassing your cause, and yourself, with your endless inability to even define a position for yourself, or your assumed party/philosophy. You are not doing your viewpoints any favors when every "fact" you claim is either withdrawn, or unsupported. And I mean every fact. You just think you are somehow smarter than anyone else, and smugly claim they just don't understand the Truth when they disagree. Then you fail to respond to their challenges.

I strongly suggest that you a poor exemplar of your positions, and might want to get someone smart who shares them to come here and defend them. Since you are, as I have said, an embarrassment to your alleged "philosophy". ħuman 01:01, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

However, I must say, you have been an amusing toy. ħuman 01:04, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Human, you've turned into a supervillain again. Stop it.</concerned> <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Horseshoe-shaped gonads!} 01:07, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, but an intelligent libertarian would have been an interesting addition to the site. A less-than-so one is little more than the mice my cat used to play with. A toy, not a challenge. ħuman 01:12, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

I see your point _{(although I think that expecting a libertarian's talking points to match your own idea of rationality is sort of like expecting them not to be a libertarian at all)}, but you must admit that phrase is quite silly ^_^ <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Horseshoe-shaped gonads!} 01:18, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

I am perfectly willing to continue to discuss matters, myself. I am very much enjoying our discourse.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 01:14, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Me too (enjoying it). I was not intending to shut it down, in any way. I was just suggesting to Brandy that he might want to enlist more brainz to argue his "side", since he is getting utterly pwned on every front he tries. Yeah, it's fun to watch, and you're doing well, Tom, but it is also slightly embarrassing to watch an egomaniac dig a hole for themselves as deep as he has. ħuman 01:19, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Me too. And don't worry -- he doesn't embarass me. He's not on my team. I will continue the LB:Tom_and_Rem debate after i spend a little time looking over your other page of opinions. Probably much later. It is bound to remind me of Libt views that might (maybe) be of interest to you.

-- Rem^Beau 14:36, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

I'll be waiting.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 23:43, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

This might amuse you

I grabbed a "free" paper at the locally-owned grocery store while buying some butts, happy eggs, and a steak and cheese sub tonight. It's "The New Hampshire Free Press". Seems like a lot of it is written in a style you'd appreciate, whether or not you'd agree with every word (of course not).

They are at newhampshirefreepress.com

If you want I'll mail you a copy for your amusement, there seems to be no subscription information in the issue (Aug. 08) that I got. Or, if you prefer, I'll list the www of every advertiser, etc., in this issue. ħuman 01:14, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

President

This is just my own curiosity, but who do you support for President? I was trying to puzzle it out, but can't do it. None of them seem like they would be acceptable to you.

• Bob Barr, Libt. Party nominee, is running a platform that mostly consists of opposing his own previous views. I can't imagine voting for someone whose primary goals are to get rid of all of his own previous work. He once staunchly opposed medical marijuana, but now supports it. He was a strong supporter of the USAPATRIOT Act, but now opposes it.
• Obama is a liberal, which by your comments you seem to hold in general contempt.
• McCain, a 72-year-old former victim of prolonged torture who has had multiple bouts of cancer, just picked a VP candidate who supported the Bridge to Nowhere (until it became political suicide, and now she opposes it), brought home $28 million in those earmarks you hate (although now she claims to be opposed to them), and as mayor used that eminent domain provision you so despise to get money for the city's new sports arena.

Relieve my curiosity, please, and tell me who you support?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 04:19, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Curiosity

Your logic is interesting in the way you framed the question by setting up your own set of criteria. Concerning your curiosity as to whom i will vote for, even if you haven't read my post which disclosed that, i think you know.

// Obama is a liberal, which by your comments you seem to hold in general contempt.

My comments show that i hold Obama (or Liberals) in contempt? C'mon. You can always find some kiddy-Libts that make such comments not in jest, but accusing me of that, hardly. I disagree with many Liberal ideas, but i save my contempt for those that support mass-murdering regimes. Now if it is just sarcasm on your part, fine. I am a fan of sarcasm, i usually enjoy it, and employ it myself.

His choice of Biden as a running mate was excellent. Personally, i admire his intent to reduce partisanship in America, and loved that part of his speech which went something like,"There are not two Americas ...". But the man is NO Libertarian.

I do admit taking pride in the fact that Obama could be president (will likely be) and would be breaking a "racial" barrier. Even were the election to go the other way, a gender barrier would be breached. Either way, a precedent will be set which is good for America. It was bound to happen; sooner better than later.

// McCain, a 72-year-old former victim of prolonged torture who has had multiple bouts of cancer, ...

Yeah, that's funny -- you've pulled out all the stops. You've piled on all of those things, both significant and insignificant, you consider negative about McCain, but not a single one about Obama. Let me defuse those that indicate an overwrought bias.

His age is certainly a factor. Given his health, he may not make it to his inauguration in January. (Not meant to be a glib remark.) That would pit Obama against Palin. Wow. Now it is obviously true that NO human could be qualified to be president of the US, but those two, even together, don't even come close to having the requisite experience.

But why in the world should anyone care, in a negative way, about McCain being a "former victim of prolonged torture"? Personally i am a pro-American Libt and i respect his courage and his service to his country. He and his buddy Biden would make a formidable team on the world stage.

Libertarians are no fans of McCain, and he usually dismisses Libts as being as important as vegetarians. (That has been included in several of his speeches.) The man is NO Libertarian.

As to choosing Palin as VP, that was inspired. The man was virtually without a political base, now he has one, instantly. The natives are restless, and dying to see the kind of excitement that could turn a moribund campaign around. She is a rock star to rival Obama. For two months, connoisseurs of speeches are going to be in their glory.

// Bob Barr, Libt. Party nominee, is running a platform ...

You seem to be suggesting that, due to Bob Barr's political past, a Libt shouldn't vote for him. A touch simplistic, that.

1) Where do Libts come from? Are they born Libertarian? Rarely. Most of them had statist views at some time in the past.

2) A Libt candidate must not have any non-Libt views, given that No True Liberal candidate could hold any non-Liberal views?

3) If Libts accepted 1 and 2 above, then whom could they vote for? McCain? Obama? If Libts are ever going to have a significant influence on the American political culture, they had better show up on the scoreboard with larger percentages, and that's not going to happen if they disdain the Libertarian Party's candidate.

Bob Barr has MY vote.

-- Rem^Beau 05:38, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

But now satisfy my curiosity about YOUR opinions.

Has Obama been "vetted" by the mainstream media (not Fox News) to the extent and the ferocity that they have gone after Palin?

Do you think it is proper to make a big deal about her 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy?

Is it as important that her husband was doing alcohol as what Obama was into around the same timeframe?

Do you not think it a tad arrogant that the newsies seem indignant because McCain picked someone that they hadn't had a chance to properly research?

Do Liberals really believe that Libertarians steal more votes from Pubs than Dems? If so, why would they act like Barr, as Nader, should drop out of the race?

-- Rem^Beau 05:38, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Your logic is interesting in the way you framed the question by setting up your own set of criteria. Concerning your curiosity as to whom i will vote for, even if you haven't read my post which disclosed that, i think you know.

Nope. If you posted that somewhere on the site, I didn't see it. Or if I did see it, I don't remember. Sorry, I was actually curious.

My comments show that i hold Obama (or Liberals) in contempt? C'mon. You can always find some kiddy-Libts that make such comments not in jest, but accusing me of that, hardly. I disagree with many Liberal ideas, but i save my contempt for those that support mass-murdering regimes. Now if it is just sarcasm on your part, fine. I am a fan of sarcasm, i usually enjoy it, and employ it myself.

Here are a couple of other quotes of yours; somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but there seems to be rather a pattern in your view of liberals: "Likely to rise no higher than Liberalism. Incredibly unlikely to reach the pinnacle of human achievement -- AKA Libertarianism", "The first hurdle is to get past the Liberal feeling that intent is destiny, and akin to that, determining a person's motivation is most important.",

His choice of Biden as a running mate was excellent. Personally, i admire his intent to reduce partisanship in America, and loved that part of his speech which went something like,"There are not two Americas ...". But the man is NO Libertarian.

Yes, he's a liberal. That's pretty much why I assumed you would disqualify him.

Yeah, that's funny -- you've pulled out all the stops. You've piled on all of those things, both significant and insignificant, you consider negative about McCain, but not a single one about Obama. Let me defuse those that indicate an overwrought bias.

I was listing the reasons I thought might disqualify the choices, not an assessment of them. I wasn't giving you a little summary of each, I was trying to figure out whom you supported. For Obama, I assumed him being liberal was sufficient. As it turns out, I was completely right.

Furthermore, that is not even approaching the immensity of things I could have said about McCain and Palin. If you think that was everything "both significant and insignificant" that I think is bad about McCain, you are wrong on a scale usually reserved for young-earth creationists.

But why in the world should anyone care, in a negative way, about McCain being a "former victim of prolonged torture"? Personally i am a pro-American Libt and i respect his courage and his service to his country. He and his buddy Biden would make a formidable team on the world stage.

...I guess I should have made it simpler. I was trying to drive home the point that a vote for McCain as President means that there is much more than a significant chance that you are also voting for Palin as President. Even without multiple bouts of cancer and five years of deprivation and physical torture in his past, just the average man of McCain's age would have a 15% mortality chance.

Libertarians are no fans of McCain, and he usually dismisses Libts as being as important as vegetarians. (That has been included in several of his speeches.) The man is NO Libertarian.

Okay, so you aren't voting for him because he's not a libertarian. That's a reason, I guess.

You seem to be suggesting that, due to Bob Barr's political past, a Libt shouldn't vote for him. A touch simplistic, that.

I suppose it was bound to be simplistic, being a brief summary of a longtime politician's career. But yes, I do actually think that people's past actions matter. I'm just a crazy loose cannon that way.

1) Where do Libts come from? Are they born Libertarian? Rarely. Most of them had statist views at some time in the past.

Have most of them written or sponsored or voted for "statist" legislation for their entire political careers right up until they run for President on the Libertarian Party ticket?

2) A Libt candidate must not have any non-Libt views, given that No True Liberal candidate could hold any non-Liberal views?

For someone who doesn't dislike liberals as a group, you sure do harbor some venom for them.

Obama caved on the FISA bill, to my immense displeasure. Yet I still support him, because his views correspond to my own in many ways - if not most.

Furthermore, I am not sure I said anything that could be interpreted like I meant that Barr must have all libertarian views to be a libertarian. If I did say anything that could be interpreted that way, I would like you to please quote me and I will happily and immediately apologize. Otherwise, it might be best to let me put words in my mouth on my own.

3) If Libts accepted 1 and 2 above, then whom could they vote for? McCain? Obama? If Libts are ever going to have a significant influence on the American political culture, they had better show up on the scoreboard with larger percentages, and that's not going to happen if they disdain the Libertarian Party's candidate.

Aha! Here we have it!

If we look at your answers above, we can see exactly how you made your decision. I invite you to reexamine them for yourself.

• Why aren't you voting Obama? The only reason you eventually gave was this: "But the man is NO Libertarian."
• Why aren't you voting McCain? The only reason you eventually gave was this: "The man is NO Libertarian."
• Why are you voting Barr? Amidst asking wounded-sounding questions, you eventually admitted: "If Libts are ever going to have a significant influence on the American political culture, they had better show up on the scoreboard with larger percentages"

Why are you voting Bob Barr? It appears to me like you aren't actually voting for a President; you just want to make the Libertarian party more powerful. Not a word on policy or past history. Just blanket assessments of whether or not a person fits in your group.

Has Obama been "vetted" by the mainstream media (not Fox News) to the extent and the ferocity that they have gone after Palin?

Palin is being attacked at this point, not vetted. And that's because the campaign was idiotic to choose her and have mishandled the entire roll-out. Did you know that McCain canceled an appearance on Larry King because of this CNN interview? And at the height of the media storm, only days after announcing her, they stopped taking interviews and Palin stayed in her hotel for two whole days to "write her speech." It was politically moronic.

But in fact, Obama has been heavily and viciously vetted. The only difference is that he has excellent political skills, and has handled the events with deftness. Consider the Rezko scandal. Do you know why that charge has stopped sticking, despite how many times McCain surrogates throw it out there? It's because early in the campaign Obama sat down with a room full of Chicago reporters, and literally promised to answer every question they had about Rezko. He admitted it was a "boneheaded decision." And he answered every question. Thereafter, the reporting was done. Since then the charge doesn't stick because the story is over and Obama dealt with it as thoroughly as anyone could have.

Of course Palin is being attacked. She was a bizarre pick and was barely vetted at all by McCain, so now skeletons come pouring out of her closet, and they are trying to accuse the media rather than actually dealing with it. Apparently, though, it's succeeding with some people.

Do you think it is proper to make a big deal about her 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy?

Well, I think it is incredibly ironic and amusing. Palin supports abstinence-only education and cut funding for a home for teenage mothers. Obama and Biden have firmly declared "hands-off" on the matter, though, which is why you hear silence from the Obama campaign about it.

I also think it is yet another moronic move by the McCain campaign as another sign they didn't vet her at all.

Is it as important that her husband was doing alcohol as what Obama was into around the same timeframe?

I hadn't even heard about this. Palin's husband is a drunk? I knew he was a registered member of the Alaskan Independence Party, which wants to secede from the Union, but this is news to me.

Do you not think it a tad arrogant that the newsies seem indignant because McCain picked someone that they hadn't had a chance to properly research?

...what? The furor is because McCain didn't research her. He didn't know that she originally ran for election supporting the Bridge to Nowhere. He didn't know her underage unwed daughter was pregnant. He didn't know her husband belonged to a party that explicitly calls for a vote to allow Alaska to secede. He didn't know that she brought $27 million in earmarks back to her city. He didn't know she ran Wasilla into debt by $20 million even with that money thanks to her mishandling of a city land deal (the same one she tried to use eminent domain on). He didn't know that she changed colleges six times in six years. He didn't know that she was under investigation for corruption by her state legislature and that the report about it was going to come out four days before the general election!

Do Liberals really believe that Libertarians steal more votes from Pubs than Dems? If so, why would they act like Barr, as Nader, should drop out of the race?

I'm not sure what that means. Is there some sort of big outcry from liberals demanding Barr drop out of the race? As far as I know, only a small number of people even know there is a Libertarian party, and only a tiny number know Barr is running under its banner.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 07:18, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Awesome!

> Your logic is interesting in the way you framed the question by setting up your own set of criteria. Concerning your curiosity as to whom i will vote for, even if you haven't read my post which disclosed that, i think you know.

// Nope. If you posted that somewhere on the site, I didn't see it. Or if I did see it, I don't remember. Sorry, I was actually curious.

It seems like it is i who should apologize -- i thought you were taking the Mickey out of me. I really did assume you knew.

But this is nuts -- all these apologies aren't really necessary -- why don't we just relax a bit, and have a mature debate.

Face it, we are not going to convince each other of the superiority of our principles, and we'll both feel like our points are better than the other, and from time to time you will declare victory and say obnoxious stuff about Libertarians and about me, but that's par for the course for many Liberals. No big deal.

What i don't like is the Fallacy of Extension -- exagerrating my positions. I simply can't get to them all to correct them.

// Here are a couple of other quotes of yours; somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but there seems to be rather a pattern in your view of liberals: "Likely to rise no higher than Liberalism. Incredibly unlikely to reach the pinnacle of human achievement -- AKA Libertarianism", ...

Please, please tell me you have a sense of humor and understand that humor was my intent, in response to Susan's comments on waffling. That is surely what you mean by tongue-in-cheek, and hardly qualifies as "contempt".

"Contempt is an intense feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless—it is similar to scorn."

// "The first hurdle is to get past the Liberal feeling that intent is destiny, and akin to that, determining a person's motivation is most important."

That indicates CONTEMPT? That is just my perception from many a discussion with Liberals, and that hardly qualifies as an example of "intense feeling". You can admit that much, can you not?

You may have conjured up a personality i don't really have -- i assure you i'm not much into contempt, and i even have difficulty holding a grudge (it's a personality flaw). I would even continue responding to some of Human's posts if i could only figure out what it is that i say that sets him off.

// For Obama, I assumed him being liberal was sufficient. As it turns out, I was completely right.

Well, it is more precisely that he holds many anti-Libertarian views. It is always possible that someone who calls himself Liberal will actually be mostly Libertarian, or at the very least, not want to increase taxes or throw drug-users in jail.

// Even without multiple bouts of cancer and five years of deprivation and physical torture in his past, just the average man of McCain's age would have a 15% mortality chance.

Ah, okay. I understand what you meant and i also wonder if he'd finish his first term should he win. (I've heard his supporters say they anticipate he wouldn't run for a second term -- that is NOT what i believe.)

// ... being a brief summary of a longtime politician's career. But yes, I do actually think that people's past actions matter. I'm just a crazy loose cannon that way.

While i don't disagree that you are a crazy loose cannon, i do take issue with your view that people can't change and mean it. Robert Byrd, oldest member of the US Senate, was a Grand Kleagle(?) as a member of the Ku Klux Klan -- should Liberals not vote for him? The most convincing anti-Communist writers were once Communists themselves, and i wouldn't hesitate to include them in our ranks.

It seems to me that you're setting up ridiculously high standards for Libts, which would mean we'd have NOBODY to vote for -- that just doesn't make sense. Even you ... if you were to renounce your least Libt policies and accept the principles laid out on Bob Barr's web page, i could vote for you -- and would, if you became the LP nominee. Even crazy loose cannon Liberals can straighten up and fly right. And altho you are not a Libt, you do have some healthy Libt impulses.

> 2) A Libt candidate must not have any non-Libt views, given that No True Liberal candidate could hold any non-Liberal views?

// For someone who doesn't dislike Liberals as a group, you sure do harbor some venom for them.

What is your problem, anyhow? You seem bound and determined to afix a label to me. First "contempt", now "dislike" -- it is just that i disagree with Liberals, individually or in a group, because i am a Libt. But "harboring venom"? Wow, is that a stretch. Maybe it is because you harbor intense partisan feelings toward your political opponents, that you are projecting them onto me.

Better to stick to issues and use my quotes to argue against them, and resist characterizing how i think. It colors our discussions unfairly.

> Obama caved on the FISA bill, to my immense displeasure. Yet I still support him, because his views correspond to my own in many ways - if not most.

Exactly! That is pretty much how everybody thinks when it comes to supporting someone. You and i might have some problem being somebody's VP tho, don't you think? Having to pretend to agree with the president on EVERY issue, and be a spokesman for him.

Has it not occurred to you that those that voted for FISA, both Dems and Pubs, may believe it is the right thing to vote for? And maybe because they are privy to security issues we know nothing about? Just speculating.

It's the hypocrisy that bugs me. If you're going to vote for something, don't pretend to be against it for public consumption. It misleads people, and gets them worked up.

-- Rem^Beau 00:08, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

"from time to time you will declare victory and say obnoxious stuff about Libertarians and about me, but that's par for the course for many Liberals." "It's the hypocrisy that bugs me." ħuman 00:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Face it, we are not going to convince each other of the superiority of our principles, and we'll both feel like our points are better than the other, and from time to time you will declare victory and say obnoxious stuff about Libertarians and about me, but that's par for the course for many Liberals. No big deal.

Yeah, you don't feel any contempt for liberals. I don't know what I was thinking.

That indicates CONTEMPT? That is just my perception from many a discussion with Liberals, and that hardly qualifies as an example of "intense feeling". You can admit that much, can you not?

I gotta tell you, that dictionary doesn't look big enough for refuge about this. But it's not important, and I don't care, so I'm going to drop it.

Well, it is more precisely [Obama] holds many anti-Libertarian views. It is always possible that someone who calls himself Liberal will actually be mostly Libertarian, or at the very least, not want to increase taxes or throw drug-users in jail.

Still not a word about policy or specific views. Customarily, someone who has a problem with a politician's views names at least one at some point. You have chosen simply to call them "anti-libertarian." I maintain that to all appearances and in spite of protests to the contrary, you are primarily concerned with increasing the profile of your own "political" group, rather than picking the best leader for the country.

While i don't disagree that you are a crazy loose cannon, i do take issue with your view that people can't change and mean it. Robert Byrd, oldest member of the US Senate, was a Grand Kleagle(?) as a member of the Ku Klux Klan -- should Liberals not vote for him? The most convincing anti-Communist writers were once Communists themselves, and i wouldn't hesitate to include them in our ranks.

Just because some people do change, doesn't mean everyone changes. For example, if one of those former Communists was a Communist right up until he decided to run for President on the Anti-Communist ticket, I think it would not be untoward to question his motives just like I am questioning those of Barr's.

Byrd is a great contrast with Barr, so I'm glad you brought him up. First of all, he was elected the leader of his local chapter, not the whole Klan. Consider also that he had ceased active participation in the Klan for years before he ran for his first office. And yet that association has plagued him; he has called it an "albatross around his neck." It was accompanied with other actions like filibustering a civil rights bill, also a hindrance for him.

But - and this is the important distinction - he did not immediately follow that filibuster with an attempt to become President on the Black Panther ticket.

It seems to me that you're setting up ridiculously high standards for Libts, which would mean we'd have NOBODY to vote for -- that just doesn't make sense. Even you ... if you were to renounce your least Libt policies and accept the principles laid out on Bob Barr's web page, i could vote for you -- and would, if you became the LP nominee.

You are implying this is some sort of unusual standard. But if Richard Dawkins renounced atheism and ran on the Dominionist ticket for President, I assure you I would have absolutely the same laughing skepticism.

Honestly, I find your attitude a little bizarre. Libertarians generally claim that liberals are naive about human nature and the basic selfishness that universally motivates individuals... yet here you are being blithely willing to assume that Bob Barr's complete reversal on a dozen positions is honest, and not in any way related to the immediate attempt to run for the most powerful office in the land.

Better to stick to issues and use my quotes to argue against them, and resist characterizing how i think. It colors our discussions unfairly.

It would be good to stick to issues, I agree. But you generally flee them at a flat-out run.

Has it not occurred to you that those that voted for FISA, both Dems and Pubs, may believe it is the right thing to vote for? And maybe because they are privy to security issues we know nothing about? Just speculating.

It's conceivable that retroactive immunity for the telecoms stopped an invasion of carnivorous griffins, too. I generally require reasons to believe in things, though.

Just so we're up to date, here are some things you might consider replying to, if you have the time:

• The parts of this conversation where I answered the questions you gave me about Palin.
• The conversation where you were allegedly going to propose and defend libertarian policies, although that seems to have been abandoned.
• The conversation about the specific issues of economics, located here.

I know you're probably busy, and that libertarianism is a hard thing to defend, so I understand if you can't. I just thought I'd remind you.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 01:42, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

// ... and that libertarianism is a hard thing to defend, ...

Ha. Nice shot. Unfortunately you would seem to be correct.

// ... so I understand if you can't

Cute, but not true. Now as to why more people don't agree with me that freedom is the way to go, i can only speculate. Perhaps i'm using the wrong style of argument, or i'm up against people with vested interests in the status quo (govt employees, maybe), or possibly it is just that many people believe we need to be controlled and maybe see themselves as the controllers.

That last describes my grandfather (i was practically the only one in the family that got along with him) to a tee. I assume (i wished i had asked him) that he picked up his Communist views while attending college in Boston, MA (a hotbed of Leftist professors -- he studied math under a known Communist of the period), and was convinced that were there to be a Communist govt in the US, he would be tapped as one of the controllers.

But, i know, you have absolutely no interest in knowing why i think as i do -- you want only policies. My major interest is in HOW people come to political conclusions, given the diversity of opinions and how strongly they are held.

It is definitely true that making a case for Libertarianism is much harder when it has to be done thru posts rather than face to face.

You wanted a policy, and i promised you one -- you will find it on Debate:Liberal_beliefs/Tom_and_Rem

-- Rem^Beau 23:00, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

I addressed your proposal about school vouchers there, whenever you want to reply. And of course there's still the other things I listed, as well as the example of Byrd v Barr which you introduced and subsequently have not answered. Lot of stuff.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 23:41, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Even if i were to dedicate all my RW time to your posts, i wouldn't be able to keep up with your prolificacy. There are still several of your comments from earlier i've been wanting to address, and i hope to get to them. I did, however, just tackle your post on education, and i don't regret the time i've spent on it. Any minute now you will mimic the Pope's response to the non-verbal debate with Moishele. (Can't remember where that page was.)

-- Rem^Beau 21:04, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Replied. Respond at your leisure.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 00:10, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

My responses to your last post are there now, at length (and how!), which i hope recovers some lost ground, a bit. There is definitely no rush for your response.

-- Rem^Beau 22:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Waiting on you

At your convenience.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 08:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Replied again. At your convenience.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 08:20, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

Something I've been wanting to ask you

You initially joined our fine site when you were advised that the world would end if your brave group of Libs didn't propose a new RW article on their favourite subject. I seem to recall your saying that they set themselves the task of writing such a proposed replacement article explaining Lib philosophy. Did they ever manage to get such a thing onto a couple of A4 sheets - or did they fall fowl of the almost certainly unfair charge that no two Libs can agree on anything? --Bob^{bing up} 14:32, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

What i recall saying was that some "web Libertarians" were complaining that they were told they had only until Sunday to edit the definition of Libertarianism (i never found out if that was true), so i decided not to wait and did it myself. Afterward i told them i had done it, posted what i did, and invited one or to of them to join me over here and add their own edits. They never did.

I refer to them as web Libertarians because most of them bear little resemblance to actual Libts, the ones that i meet with periodically. The LP web group increasingly consists of kiddy-Libts (let's burn the flag) and trolls that pretend to be Libts (Obama is a Libt), so i don't post there very often anymore. When i first joined them, there were a fair number of people that actually debated Libt issues -- very few now.

// or did they fall fowl of the almost certainly unfair charge that no two Libs can agree on anything?

Ha. Now that's the kind of thing i like; does that qualify as British dry humour?

I would have to say you guys seem to be pretty much unified on issues, obviously when compared with web Libertarians, but maybe even more than flesh and blood Libts; the jury is still out on that one.

Would you say that folks on RW pretty much support Socialized medicine? I don't know any Libts that do, even those that may vote for Obama. Libts are unified in support of free markets with minimal govt interference, in fact on most issues -- the clear exceptions would be abortion and illegal immigration. What are the biggest issues Liberals here disagree on?

-- Rem^Beau 08:49, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Why is it that the clear exceptions would be abortion and illegal immigration? If free market forces are the answer to everything why do these two have special dispensation? Silver Sloth 08:55, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

The line: the clear exceptions would be abortion and illegal immigration also piqued my interest? Why should there not be minimal government interference with these two issues? Rem, are you making a personal moral statement or would you say that you are speaking for Libts in general? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 10:41, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Rem:What are the biggest issues Liberals here disagree on? I don't know. I guess that you'd have to find some self-identified liberals and ask them. :-) I don't use that identification myself.--Bob^{bing up} 11:03, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Maybe we've all misread you, that you're saying there's little disagreement within the Libt community except on those issues. From a little quick research I think you would have to add capital punishment, use of natural resources and intellectual property. Indeed the whole Libt movement is split into a range of political view points and the only thing they seem to have in common is a dislike in paying taxes. Silver Sloth 11:04, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

I can answer the immigration one - most, if not all, libertarians agree that one of the few "projects" expected of the federal-level government is national defense - to secure the borders. So some would see such immigration as a national security issue and be against it, while others might see such interference as government encroaching on individual freedom. The abortion one makes no sense to me, what right does the government have to intrude on personal health issues, especially from a libertarian perspective? ħuman 16:25, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

As I understand it the abortion conflict is, as ever, the conflict between the rights of the fetus against the rights of the mother. Naturally Libts are no better at coming up with a rational coherent answer to this one than the rest of us. The immigration aspect seems to be the philosophical argument that governments shouldn't interfere with the free movement of people against the 'Oh myGod, that means all those damn Mexicans can come over here and steal our jobs!' (not that it's ever expressed that way). Silver Sloth 04:32, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

Silver: // If free market forces are the answer to everything ...

Free market forces are NOT the answer to everything -- the free market primarily deals with economics, altho it does definitely apply to ideas as well. Most Libts support the Constitution and the rights it guarantees to citizens. This ensures that govts are not free to do whatever they feel like.

// Naturally Libts are no better at coming up with a rational coherent answer to [the abortion issue] than the rest of us.

Good analysis. The abortion issue arguments used by those on the Left, the Middle, and the Right differ very little from those Libts use.

Those that consider it murder are understandably against it, and want abortionists jailed -- those that don't, see it as a freedom issue: what i do to my own body is nobody else's business.

// The immigration aspect ...

No Libertarians that i know of are against immigration, in fact most are very much in favor of it. The issue we do differ on is illegal immigration -- should there be no restrictions concerning immigration.

The "stealing our jobs" perception is shared by those that make low wages and by most unions. Some argue that xenophobia to the point of bigotry is a big factor. Anarchists argue there is no such thing as a state. And some consider it valid for citizens to care about the effect of illegal immigration on culture. (Chris Matthews, a non-Libt TV pundit takes this view.)

Human: // I can answer the immigration one - most, if not all, libertarians agree that one of the few "projects" expected of the federal-level government is national defense - to secure the borders. So some would see such immigration as a national security issue and be against it, while others might see such interference as government encroaching on individual freedom.

Very well put.

-- Rem^Beau 08:31, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

Debate: Pink and Rem

I'm taking up your suggestion. Here are two three questions to start off the debate:

1. Do you like dragons? I like dragons.
2. My apologies, but I haven't really followed the other debates in which you've outlined your views on libertarianism because I find your posting style quite impenetrable. Therefore, I'm going to make this question nice and broad: How small is a small government?
3. Why did you kill L? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 08:20, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

Oi. Still here, you know. And one of those questions was actually serious. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 08:55, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

Have a care, he'll fill the page with one prolix (I do love that word), obfuscating, condescending comment which'll leave you no wiser (unless it's about dragons of course)   ^Contribs_Talk 09:03, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

Dragons? I can take 'em or leave 'em.

// I find your posting style quite impenetrable.

Okay. Just a general criticism or do you have specifics?

// question nice and broad: How small is a small government?

Too broad for me to figure out what you want. Should you wish to home in a little on what you want, fine, else i'll have to work out an appropriate response.

// Why did you kill L?

Hmm. Something tells me you're about to mock my opinions. I'm ready, and enjoy good humor.

-- Rem^Beau 09:09, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

Dragons: There is no fence-sitting on this issue. You're with us or against us!

Posting style: You break your comments into dozens of little bits (much like I'm doing now), but, quite paradoxically, this somehow makes them harder to digest. I'm hoping it'll be easier if I'm actually part of the conversation.

Small government: I mean, which parts of government are necessary, and how are they immune from the corruption/moral imbalance that puts you off the rest?

L: Don't play innocent, Rem. I know you murdered L! Confess and we may be lenient! Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 09:14, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

Okay, i did hang out with Puff a little bit, but NEVER with any other dragons, and if you produce a pic i'll swear it was photoShopped.

As to your gummint question, this time you gave me a hook; okay, i can run with it. The US govt has to provide for the common defense. (I know, you've read about Libts that believe we can handle national defense ourselves, and for the rilly big pricey weapons we could form a covenant [if i have that right] to buy them. Obviously extreme and unworkable. It is a licit and essential role for government.

NO entity having coercive power is immune from the corruption/moral imbalance, especially a huge govt department. And don't forget incompetence; all bureaucracies are shot thru with it, the military is no exception. Problem is, nobody else can do that job.

I doubt that i killed L, but if he was a bad dude i probably tried. (I NEVER kill anybody without a good reason, altho you ARE starting to get on my nerves. A word to the wise is sufficient.) But if i did kill him, it was inadvertent, perhaps while i was cleaning a loaded gun.

Please note that i intended to be gender-specific in my confession -- that is because i'm pretty sure i never killed a female. It's just my moral code. I know, it's kinda quaint, but that's just me.

-- Rem^Beau 19:05, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

(forget - edit conflict without edit conflict, strange). Editor at CP^{Oh, Finland! Why?} 09:15, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

Killing L

Hehe, presumably because he refused to wear socks. --Kels 19:20, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

Mmmm. There must be some gag I'm missing here. L? l? Perhaps vitamin "L"? If you've tasted it once you never forget it. You always know if something tastes like L.--Bob^{bing up} 19:29, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm making an assumption that Pink knows what I'm talking about, or she knows what I'm talking about, or nobody knows what Rem is talking about, or something. --Kels 19:30, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

That's an L of an assumption.--Bob^{bing up} 19:34, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

We'll see if Lily sees the Light. --Kels 19:36, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

I vote to have Bob cast out -- i'm not sure i could handle another sub-prime joke.

-- Rem^Beau 19:40, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

For those who are not in the know, I must inform you that Rem did indeed kill L, but I doubt it was from sock-related exasperation :P Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 06:34, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

That reference is as obscure as L.--Bob^{bing up} 08:56, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

I disagree!

L is not obscure! He's the world's greatest detective! Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 08:59, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Correction: L was the world's greatest. Now he's dead, and the personality-less Near is #1 now. I stopped reading the books 'cuz after Light's dad bit it, there were no characters I actually wanted to see live to the end. --Kels 12:27, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

I quite like Near, actually. But he certainly isn't L... :( Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 12:34, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

That's pretty damning evidence, indeed! --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 07:40, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Pink -- That picture of me was taken before my sex-change operation -- i'm not that good-looking anymore.

Rem declares her love for Misa

The soup, not the person.

Rem "supposedly" experiences difficulty while writing the Japanese language.

True. I just can't get the hang of holding a pen with my chopsticks.

Obata said that Rem is his favorite Shinigami since she is a Shinigami and "a good person."

Also true, they don't make 'em gooder. Would Obata's first name be Barack?

-- Rem^Beau 08:01, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Chopsticks: *winces*

Good person: Not so! I myself am much gooder than you!

And I notice you are avoiding the subject of your vicious and brutal murder. Come now, Rem, why not make it easy for yourself? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 08:07, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Does that make me a Buddhist if i'm the most goodest?

So ... if i admit to the murder, you'll fix it up with the DA, and i'll walk?

-- Rem^Beau 23:20, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Bailout

Hi Rem. Our of curiosity, where do you (or libs in general) stand on the bailout?--Bob^{bing up} 15:42, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

As to how to do the bailout, all over the map, because nobody is sure how (or even if) it needs to be done. In this way, we are no different than Dems and Reps.

The only thing Libts agree on is that govt shouldn't have created a need for a bailout, and they are dead right. Once Bush said it was necessary to have the bailout, businesses wait for govt largesse, rather than let the marketplace sort this out, which is what would happen absent Uncle Sugar. That mistake compounds the problem that Congress caused in the first place.

And Senator Schumer PROMISED the bailout bill wouldn't become a Christmas Tree -- a $700B bill wasn't enough to hit the taxpayers with -- over $100B more was earmarked for pork! We have a right to be furious with Congress.

-- Rem^Beau 23:16, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

We sure do. To start with, they never should have deregulated the financial markets - and probably should have kept closer track on what "new stuff" the gamblers invented needed regulating. ħuman 01:04, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Rem, you write: The only thing Libts agree on is that govt shouldn't have created a need for a bailout, and they are dead right. Once Bush said it was necessary to have the bailout, businesses wait for govt largesse, rather than let the marketplace sort this out, which is what would happen absent Uncle Sugar..

So you're saying that the the bailout was unnecessary initially, but now is necessary because Bush stated there was going to be one?--Bob^{bing up} 04:59, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

I think Rimble means he is (or was) against it, but once Bush essentially promised it, he compromised the ability of the markets to self-correct, making it necessary. ħuman 18:07, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Bob: // So you're saying that the the bailout was unnecessary initially, but now is necessary because Bush stated there was going to be one?

PROBABLY the bailout was unnecessary initially, but probably it is now. It's something i'm not certain about and i don't trust anyone that claims to be -- es muy complicado.

IFF it is the best course of action now but wasn't before Bush suggested it, then the fault lies with Bush for bringing it up, because it creates a market dependency. Businesses will wait for the bailout rather than getting down to business. Early on, the free market would have sorted it out, that is CERTAIN, and that would have been the ONLY route to stave off the freeze.

BUT, before Bush was even born, the seeds of destruction were planted -- FDR started up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. RR bailed out Chrysler and supported (i think) tariffs on foreign imports (Pubs were the big protectionists, originally). Once businesses get the idea that govt welfare is available, that puts them off their mission, and they no longer serve consumers.

Then in more recent years, govt greatly accelerated the process with the 1977 CRA, which Clinton followed up with pressure on Freddie and Fannie (GSEs) to push loans to people that could pay them back only if welfare is increased. And to push it all over the precipice, when tighter regulation of the govt-sponsored Freddie and Fannie bills was proposed, the main culprits fought it, saying Freddie and Fannie were doing just fine, more regulation isn't necessary.

The irony is that they are the SAME guys that WANT to regulate the free marketplace, but laissez faire when it comes to govt entities. Just backwards, and if the same ignoranti have their way, bailouts will continue unabated.

-- Rem^Beau 19:03, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

At least Chrysler paid off their loans. (And didn't Iacocca get paid like a dollar a year during that period? Symbolic, I know, but a worthwhile symbol).

Another comment: the magical FM wouldn't necessarily have got things cooking again quickly. Before your hated FDR developed massive interventions into the marketplace, depressions were a common feature of capitalism. Now we worry about recessions. ħuman 19:12, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Thomas Friedman, NY Times on Thursday, 2 October 2008 wrote:

“I’ve always believed that America’s government was a unique political system — one designed by geniuses so that it could be run by idiots. I was wrong. No system can be smart enough to survive this level of incompetence and recklessness by the people charged to run it."

-- Rem^Beau 19:14, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

NYT is a good paper. Here's a great article they ran about how the free market pushed Freddie and Fannie into taking increasingly more risky loans as they lost 56% of their market share.

“You’re becoming irrelevant,” Mr. Mozilo [of Countrywide Financial] told [the chief of Fannie Mae] Mr. Mudd, according to two people with knowledge of the meeting who requested anonymity because the talks were confidential. In the previous year, Fannie had already lost 56 percent of its loan-reselling business to Wall Street and other competitors. “You need us more than we need you,” Mr. Mozilo said, “and if you don’t take these loans, you’ll find you can lose much more.”

Yup. Good reporting ;) --Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 11:06, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Tom: // NYT is a good paper. ... Yup. Good reporting ;)

Tom's NYT link: // CHARLES DUHIGG October 4, 2008 -- “The market was changing, and it’s our job to buy loans, so we had to change as well.” -Daniel H. Mudd, former chief executive of Fannie Mae, the government-chartered mortgage company. -- “Almost no one expected what was coming. It’s not fair to blame us for not predicting the unthinkable.“— Daniel H. Mudd, former chief executive, Fannie Mae

Tom -- your NYT link was to the October 4, 2008 article, but the NYT article that refutes Mudd's comment was published way back in September 30, 1999 -- and it clearly DID "predict the unthinkable", by many years. (I already posted -- RemBeau 07:06, 27 September 2008 -- that link on the banking crisis page. The full article is worth reading.)

And if i'm not mistaken, it was Mudd that had a long-standing romantic relationship with a powerful Congress member that opposed Fannie Mae regulation -- a CLEAR conflict of interest. Some might consider that corruption.

Here's just one quote from the 1999 article: Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits [2]

-- Rem^Beau 00:05, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

...did you read your own article?

It details at some length exactly how right I am, with things like noting: In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers.

The article is entirely corroborative of my point. I indicated that the pressures the of free market and competition pushed Fannie Mae into the same exceedingly unwise risk as the private firms. This is noted in your article when it talks about the shareholder's pressure and the competition from mortgage companies. To be sure, the Clinton administration may have had a hand in it as well in pressuring it to remain competitive, but it sure seems to me like you are pretty much just helping argue my own point.

In what bizarrely convoluted way is this a "refutation?"--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 00:32, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

And here's another essay on point. Still waiting for an explanation, by the way.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 04:45, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

It may SEEM to you that the NYT article cited helps your argument, and i may not be able to talk you out of it, but it clearly DOESN'T exonerate Congress's role since 1977 in this financial collapse. And MY point is that govt initiated, precipitated, and incentivized this debacle. Are you denying that?

But i can clear up one misconception you seem to have. If the govt opens a window for you to increase your income, would you do it? Maybe a Conservative (and the odd Liberal) would feel it would be wrong to avail yourself of such an opportunity, but a Libertarian would have no such compunction.

Govt is at fault in this situation -- you can blame people for taking advantage if you wish, but the fact remains that govt pushed them into it. So it is with subprime lenders.

My friends on the Right get mad at the individuals on welfare, but every time i point out it is silly to blame them, the fault lies with the govt system. Now the Left is chiming in the same way -- blaming those that benefitted from govt policy.

Pols get to stay in office and increase their power by redistributing wealth -- that, i'm sure you won't deny. And Liberals to THIS day, even in the middle of this crisis, are STILL pushing for loans for people that are high risk and unlikely to be able to make payments.

Look, i can point to actual govt policies that got us into this mess -- you can't refute that.

-- Rem^Beau 08:23, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Magical free marketplace ?

Magical FM? You mean because you don't understand how the free market works as opposed to your favored top-down control which fails miserably in comparison?

Of course in order to maintain your faith in govt control you have to believe Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae not to be govt entities, given they were a major cause of the recent bailout. Do you STILL believe that?

In reviewing the harmful trend of govt interfering with the FM i mentioned 3 presidents, none of whom i hated -- i could have included Nixon and his wage-and-price controls (FDR was his model for this). So do you think you gain some polemical advantage by claiming i'm a hater? Tiresome. I'll stack my text up against yours anytime and let others decide who the hater is.

You WOULD be impressed by Iacocca accepting only a dollar, when actually he should be ashamed for not resigning while driving Chrysler into the ground instead of bragging. A question that would be asked by someone who understands economics: why hit up taxpayers for a loan rather than getting loans from the private sector? Thinking that thru might help you to understand the marketplace.

So ... getting "things cooking again quickly" is what FDR did? He managed to drag the depression out for years and years -- is that the kind of quick fix you want? You can worry about recessions, but if we don't remove the idiots in Congress, we're facing a govt-inspired depression.

Face some obvious facts -- Congress is baffled how to handle the current situation, and should have learned the lesson by now, that they DON'T know how to control an economy.

And the political claim that, "We need this bailout to protect American jobs" -- do you REALLY believe that govt can keep our jobs?

-- Rem^Beau 08:42, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

You mean because you don't understand how the free market works - but it blatantly obviously doesn't work. There are far too many who believe that the free market is the only solution, without any evidence to support this. That's why it's considered magical, because it's purported to work without supporting evidence. It's finance woo. Silver Sloth 08:52, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

"Magical FM? You mean because you don't understand how the free market works as opposed to your favored top-down control which fails miserably in comparison?" No, I mean the way you wave it as a magic wand, assuming it always produces the best outcomes for the most people - it doesn't. I don't favor "top-down control" as you imply, I favor sensible, strong regulation, especially of complex things like the financial markets.

"you have to believe Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae not to be govt entities" - they started off that way, got privatized, and now bailed out...

As far as the hate, you're right, I imputed that to you, rather than quoting you. Can we agree on "disapprove of"?

"that they DON'T know how to control an economy." it's not about "controlling" the economy. It's about preventing actors in the free markets from tearing the whole system down through deceit, greed, subterfuge, etc. And I think we have a pretty good track record in preventing any (world-wide, at least) depressions since WW2. ħuman 15:35, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

// Can we agree on "disapprove of"?

Absolutely, and i think i made it clear of four actions that i disapprove of involving four presidents. Hate doesn't fit.

When you say, "got privatized", does that mean no govt strings attached?

No, FM is not a magic wand, but it is better than all the controlled schemes which is why i always bring it up -- do you know of anything that creates wealth anywhere near as well as the FM?

// It's about preventing actors in the free markets ... deceit, greed, subterfuge ...

Govt enterprises are not guilty of deceit, greed, subterfuge ... ?

-- Rem^Beau 18:14, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Okay guys, let's take this a step at a time.

Was the corruption and failure of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae a major factor in the current economic crisis?

Silver? Human? Anybody?

-- Rem^Beau 18:14, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm "anybody." I'm certainly not "somebody," after all.

Sure, their failure was a major factor. They were not, however, that corrupt. Instead, the massive deregulation of the industry forced these government-run and clumsy entities to try to compete in the free market - a free market that was rapidly trending towards insane amounts of risk courtesy of Republican deregulation. I direct you to the NYT article above.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 23:25, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Also that directs you to the 1999 NYT article that refutes it.

-- Rem^Beau 00:15, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Except that it doesn't refute it, it supports it. It details how nine years ago the stockholders and competition from the private sector in the free market (as well as some unspecified pressure from the Clinton admin.) forced Fannie Mae into the incredibly risky business decisions about subprimes. Honest, you should read it.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 00:35, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

One minor thing, the FMs were privatized ages ago. Their financial requirements (like cash on hand requirements, assets vs. whatever) were looser than the rest of the financial markets, however. Although that seems to perhaps be getting changed back again. ħuman 23:50, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure what it means to be "privatized" if they are still GSEs (government sponsored enterprises). Not "fully" privatized, right? Govt still is responsible for it, yes?

-- Rem^Beau 00:27, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

More FM Magic

do you know of anything that creates wealth anywhere near as well as the FM?

The FM does indeed create wealth. It also creates a situation where 20% of the children in the worlds most powerful economy live in poverty. It also creates Enron, it creates Amoco Cadiz, it creates all the obscenity that comes where greed runs unchecked. The Herald of Free Enterprise doesn't work, it's lying on it's side in Zeebrugge Harbour. For those who are prepared to live in luxury whilst their brother starves this is fine, but for some of us it simply won't do. FM is the "I'm all right jack" monetary philosophy, always promoted by the haves, never by the have nots. Well, it may be the best at creating wealth but some of us find it morally repugnant. Silver Sloth 19:40, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Sure, you can make up more stuff, fog up the issue rather than address it, but the ONE thing you CANNOT afford to do is take one issue at a time and tell the truth, because then your game will be up. Your tactics are obvious.

If you were REALLY intereested in arriving at the truth, you would have answered the question above. Here it is again:

Was the corruption and failure of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae a major factor in the current economic crisis?

-- Rem^Beau 23:13, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

What corruption? They made a bet on the prevailing economic conditions that they thought would be best for shareholder value. That bet did not pay off. This combined with an inability to secure credit on the open market left them vulnerable to insolvency. They may be guilty of failing to properly assess risk, but you can hardly call it corruption. --JeevesMkII 23:44, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

// What corruption?

Beyond the stuff i already mentioned, Fannie was fined $400M for accounting violations and had to restate earnings from 2001 to 2004. Also $6.3B in profit disappeared up to the 2007 reinstatement.

They were considered to have "cooked the books", but so far as i know, nobody went to jail over it. I expect that to come tho.

-- Rem^Beau 00:56, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Rem - I'm a Brit and do not know enough to comment on corruption in Fanny this or Freddy that. That's why I can't answer your points on that one. That doesn't take away from my contention, which you fail to address, that Libertarian free markets are, in my view, fundamentally obscene. The 'I can do anything I like because any form of control is inherently wrong' means that the big bastards go unchecked, and when the big bastards go unchecked greed rules. This is why periods where systems move towards a Free Market model are always followed by periods where the excesses are reined in and checks re-imposed. What actually works, back in the real world is a mixed economy, a balance between a free market and government control. Silver Sloth 05:36, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Incidentally, before you deride me for not knowing details about the Federal National Mortgage Association or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, quickly, without Googling, which was the first UK building society to suffer and how much did it cost the British taxpayer to bail it out? Silver Sloth 07:02, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

I'll bet it was that outfit in Swindon that was fined about one million pounds -- am i close? Okay, point made, but ... i bet i could find England on a world globe ... near the Netherlands, i think ... just call me your typical Yank.

Far be it from me to expect you to know the intracacies of American political double-dealing, especially when most of us over here know practically nothing, getting our news from TV, and those TV newsies are ignorant of everything except Wash DC gossip. So many of them were involved in political campaigns before they became newsies, that not only do they know nothing, but they bring their bias to the job.

All that most Americans do know about our economic crisis is that everybody says it IS an economic crisis -- that's it. Pols blame the crisis on US, private citizens and private businesses, not THEMSELVES and their govt enterprises, even tho there is a direct link from govt actions to the crisis.

Only the free marketplace produces wealth and it is the govt's licit role to KEEP it free (prevent monopolies), but many political types have a heavy bias against it. Mostly because they have no idea how the FM works and why it produces wealth, and don't want to know, and couple that with a bias toward big govt control ... they are dedicated to ignoring the obvious causes of the crisis.

Problem is, if we don't acknowledge the actual causes, the future will hold only bailouts and job losses.

My question is aimed at the locals that are in denial.

-- Rem^Beau 09:12, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

The problem is that your analysis of the root causes is different from most of the others I read. Because the failures of the US economy is dragging down everyone else we're kind of interested in what's happening and what the root cause is. Most of the analysis I've read sees the US housing bubble as a major contributing factor. As long as you believe that house prices will always rise then it makes sense to lend using housing as collateral. When the bubble bursts then... see also The South Sea Co, Dutch Tulip bulbs, the dotcom boom, the eighties UK housing boom, etc. etc. All perfect examples of how the Free Market failed to create wealth for all.

The blame game is an interesting one. If someone, maybe not the sharpest knife in the draw, is persuaded by a high pressure salesperson to take on a financial responsibility far beyond their true capability then who's to blame? It is precisely because there are people who need protecting from predators that some feel that there is a need for regulation. I'm sure you, as a Libertarian, would say that it's their fault, that the weak should go to the wall, that it's their problem that they need protecting and not yours. I say 'Ask not for whom the bell tolls - it tolls for you.' It's here that we touch on the root of our disagreement.

We can argue till we're blue in the face about details, about how many angels can dance on the head of this, or any other, financial pin. We will never agree because our root philosophies are diametrically opposed. Excuse the broad brush generalities, but it seems to me that you see as an inalienable right to run your own life as you feel fit. I see it as society's duty to protect and enable all its citizens. These are often incompatible.

This is why we end up with mixed economies - it's an attempt to compromise between these ideals. Every society chooses where it draws the line, where it finds the balance. It's slightly different depending which society you look at. We Brits are a long way to the left of you Yanks for example. The natural outcome is the two party system, each slightly to one side or the other of the line society has drawn. That's why there's really not much between the Democrats and the Republicans or between Labour and Conservative. They've both got to be close to the line that society has drawn.

So, where does this put the outliers like you? Sorry, but your not going to change the world. It just doesn't happen. You can go and live in the wilderness and create your own world, Walden or whatever, but, if you want to live with the rest of us then you have to live with how it is. Of course, if you really believe that you, and the handful of Libertarians who agree with you are the only ones who know the truth... well, it's time to put on your tin foil hat. Silver Sloth 10:13, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

All that's Silver doesn't glitter

// The problem is that your analysis of the root causes is different from most of the others I read.

True, my view is a minority one, and i bring up information few are interested it -- that i can't help; wish i could.

When cause and effect is clear, the question should be asked, why have those others ignored it?

// Most of the analysis I've read sees the US housing bubble as a major contributing factor.

And that is absolutely true, but that begs the question -- what feeds the housing bubble? That is the very thing i am addressing. Greed was always there, but maybe there's another incentive to be considered.

// ... the Free Market failed to create wealth for all.

NOW you ask too much, depending on how you define "all". If by "all" you mean no human left behind, NO economic system can deliver that this side of paradise. That kind of Utopian thinking leads us in the wrong direction: regress as opposed to progress.

// I say 'Ask not for whom the bell tolls - it tolls for you.' [ nice -- great title for a book ] It's here that we touch on the root of our disagreement.

Not quite. Our disagreement has more to do with starting points -- you see it at the point of sale, i see it well before that. I ask, what would induce the lending industry to make obviously super-risky loans, ones that make no financial sense from a business view. You don't care about that, you ASSUME greed did it. And your worldview includes only private sector greed -- govt greed doesn't even show up on your radar.

// We will never agree because our root philosophies are diametrically opposed.

It ain't necessarily so. Let's say your root philosophy rested on a set of facts that weren't true, and i was able to show you that ... you MIGHT rethink your philosophy. Now perhaps you inherited that philosophy and facts had nothing to do with it, THEN you may be correct.

These are not idle thoughts -- this is a major interest of mine -- i have been thinking about it for quite some time. What i haven't figured out is how to measure those parameters.

// I'm sure you, as a Libertarian, would say that it's their fault, that the weak should go to the wall, that it's their problem that they need protecting and not yours.

Wow. What a scum i must be!

Believing that about me, it's no wonder you are so anti-Libt. To put it tactfully, you have no idea what Libertarianism is about. Wow. Social Darwinism at its worst. That would help to explain why Liberals are so grumpy.

// Excuse the broad brush generalities, but it seems to me that you see as an inalienable right to run your own life as you feel fit.

Well yeah, as long as you don't extend that to include crushing my fellow man. That is the VERY thing that Libertarianism guards against.

Look, even Liberals recognize to some extent that majorities shouldn't be able to run roughshod over minorities, it's just that as a Libt i'm even more sensitive to that problem. Think in terms of individuals being the ultimate minorities. I hope we find time to delve into this at some point.

// I see it as society's duty to protect and enable all its citizens.

It is a laudible goal that i also share, and you think Liberalism best achieves that, and i think Libertarianism does it best. That, when you get down to it, is our major disagreement. Which approach is better, that is the question.

I wasn't raised Libertarian, i chose it. I should add, my parents aren't anti-Libertarian either.

// This is why we end up with mixed economies - it's an attempt to compromise between these ideals.

If i may, we have mixed economies because some believe we need govt control because the FM has warts, and some believe we can snip those warts and improve the economy, and some believe that we can keep snipping, that there need be no end to it.

To most, it's a simple proposition -- it's a problem, and like all problems, we can keep working at it with the hope that we'll eventually be able to solve it. Here's a problem: the FM is inequitable -- let's fix it.

No thought is given that the cure may be worse than the malady, no one considers we might want to apply some science to it, like comparing two or more systems and measuring the results over time, we gotta do something NOW, and foist it on everybody (no refuseniks allowed), no time for a control group.

// So, where does this put the outliers like you?

Maslow would put me at the tippy-top. Da Vinci would call me goomba. Newton would ask my opinion on The Calculus. Friedman would offer to share his Nobel prize.

// if you want to live with the rest of us then you have to live with how it is.

Go along to get along, eh? How about if i may be allowed to work for change? Libertarian thought resists the drift toward societies i am certain we both agree would be intolerable. Love it or leave it isn't the way i think. Dems and Pubs think that way, Libts don't.

One suspects that you are cocksure you are right as part of a majority, and i am wrong. I hope at the very least to disabuse you of the idea that majorities are the last word. I have no interest in "living in the wilderness", nor do i think a majority should have the right to force the issue.

// it's time to put on your tin foil hat.

I'm already wearing it. Last night i punched eyeholes into it. I'm watching you.

-- Rem^Beau 21:07, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

We obviously don't speak the same language

There are none so blind... There is simply no point in continuing this conversation. All we're doing is shouting 'Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Black, White which gets a little boring. You're not hearing what I'm saying and I guess you feel the same way. Bye Silver Sloth 06:49, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

That's dishonest.

You're quitting so that you can continue to vent your prejudice against Libertarians, whereas if you have a civilized discussion with me, you won't be able to.

Most of the shots you took at me you are unable to defend. A couple of the most offensive i simply made light of. No doubt you tell others you are open-minded -- you might want to think that over.

It is a conceit that you are the more compassionate -- you have to cling to that in order to justify some of your views, since they cannot stand on their own two feet. Is your approach to helping the poor more effective than mine? If not, then your claim to being more compassionate isn't worth much, is it? That is just one instance.

So yeah, "There is simply no point in continuing this conversation" on your part if all you've got is attacks.

-- Rem^Beau 13:20, 11 October 2008 (EDT)