What democrats will do

Put new rules in place to break the link between lobbyists and legislation.
Enact all the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission.
Raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour.
Cut the interest rate on federally supported student loans in half.
Allow the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.
Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds.
Impose pay-as-you-go budget rules, requiring that new entitlement spending or tax cuts be offset with entitlement spending cuts or tax hikes.

Well, what do you think. There's not a lot about the gubbymint going after the guns, but maybe they will get up to some dumbshittery in the future. Anyway, I have nothing against this agenda, do you?

Sounds good to me.
As long as they keep Jack Thompson away from the Candidate.

I think they won't go beyond this, if for no other reason than that their election margin of victory will be so damned small that fucking with the libertarians would put them right back into the hell they fell into in 1994.

>>2 Yup. One can only hope that the dems from the rockies can inject some economic liberalism into them. Hilary isn't that bad, but there's something... Limousinish about her and her closest. I have no problem with intellectualism and being a feminist hard-ass, but elitism won't help solve anything. She bends over for the morals-n'-values folks too and I despise that.

>>1
No.  These are things SOME dems would LIKE to do.  When it comes down to it, however, it's painfully obvious that they are just as owned by the corporate and special interests of this country and too weak and cowardly to effect real, progressive change.

We need a fundamental change in the system to get intelligent things like that list actually enacted.

>>4
I'll settle for some incremental changes in the system, leading up to some fundamental changes later on.  Hoping for fundamental changes leads to disappointment and/or sitting on your ass waiting for someonelse to do something your too impatient to work towards.

This is from a blog. It is a sort of wishlist. Few right-wing bloggers have anything on the best left-wing bloggers, because the latter actually believe their ideology can fuck up, and think accordingly. The right try to scare people and play damage control.

"1. Fix the Patriot Act or axe it.
Does any one person in this country know what the Patriot Act actually says?  The original version passed by the House--HR 361 RDS--is a compendium of changes to other laws, and updates to the Act are a compendium of changes to the original.  It would take the work required of a doctoral thesis to hunt down the true implications of the Act on individual rights.  We shouldn't have laws so complex that the average citizen can't understand them.  If our elected representatives can't produce a version of the Act that the rest of us can understand, that means they don't understand it either, in which case what the hell were they doing when they voted for it?
If they can't produce a simplified version of the Patriot that they and their constituents can readily absorb, then they should repeal the thing entirely.

2. Impeach Donald Rumsfeld.
Article I of the Constitution gives the House of Representatives the "sole power of impeachment" and the Senate the "sole power to try all impeachments."  Judgments in impeachment cases "shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States."
That's good enough for the likes of Rumsfeld.  There's no need to put him in a cell and chain him to the ceiling, and break his legs, and water board him, and sic attack dogs on him, and put a woman's panties on his head, and lock him in a cold room, and cover him in feces, and put him in a dog pile naked with the rest of his neocon cronies, and force him to pleasure himself, and rape him with a Chemlite.  All that and much more is waiting for him in the next world.
Article II states that, "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Among Rumsfeld's many sins, treason and bribery might be difficult to justify in impeachment proceedings.  Being an arrogant jerk isn't necessarily treasonous.  Firing any general who doesn't agree with you and promoting every general who does isn't necessarily bribery.  But any Secretary of Defense who goes to war without a post-hostilities plan, as Rumsfeld did, has committed a crime as high as a crime of office can get.

3.  Impeach Alberto Gonzales. 
What Rumsfeld did to the Iraq Gonzales did to the Constitution.  As both White House Counsel and Attorney General, Gonzales was a key player in creating a virtually unchecked executive branch of government.  Almost every extra-constitutional stunt Bush has pulled was done on "authority" of a legal position written by or under the supervision of Gonzales. 
One might argue that you can't impeach someone for doing his job, but lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee--as Gonzales did regarding the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program--isn't part of anybody's job description.  It's a high crime called "perjury." 

4.  Repeal the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
By passing this bill, Congress handed Mister Bush dictatorial powers.  If it's ever challenged in the Supreme Court, there's a fair chance it will be declared unconstitutional, but you never know with this Supreme Court.  And why put everybody through the bother, time and expense of a lengthy court procedure?  Just strike the bill down. 

5.  Revise the War Powers Resolution of 1973. 
The War Powers Resolution allows a president to commit troops to combat for up to 90 days before he has to get statutory authorization or a declaration of war from Congress.  As this administration has illustrated, that's entirely too much latitude for an executive with a war-centric foreign policy to have. 
I'd like to strip all authority for a president to commit troops to combat overseas, but given our global presence, I just don't think that's realistic.  Things will happen in the future that require immediate military action by the executive, but in 90 days, a president like the one we have now could start a full-scale world war from which we might never extract ourselves. 
Shrink that three-month window down to two weeks.  That gives a president sufficient time to respond to a no-notice crisis that requires a short duration air operation, an embassy evacuation, and so on.  But if he wants to do anything that might conceivably take longer than fourteen days, he'll have to go to Congress first.  So if this president decides he wants to start doing blockade ops against Korea or Iran, he'll have to get a buy in from the legislature.
And oh, the new resolution has to contain language that prevents a president from going around Congress by acting under authority of a UN resolution.  UN resolutions are fine and dandy, but they aren't a substitute for legislation by Congress.

"Enact all the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission. "

first, REDO, restaff and better fund the 9/11 commission, and give them time to find out shit. independent my ass.

PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS PRO CHOICE KILL CHRISTIANS v

>>8
PRO LIFE KILL...

"Put new rules in place to break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

I disagree with this.  People should be allowed to lobby for things they want.  The NRA, for example, is known as a 'gun-lobby', as is GOA.  They should be allowed to lobby for our 2nd amendment, clearly, as should others with other political agendas.

"Enact all the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission."

Fuck the 9/11 commission.  Terrorism poses about as much threat to your average american as a peanut allergy.

"Raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour."

Stupid.  The minimum wage is a horrible idea for a few reasons: 

*Makes starting new & small businesses more difficult & expensive.

*Increases the price of American-made products, goods, and services (and thus increases the trade-deficit, since other countries that pay their workers lower wages will then overtake the USA in the marketplace.)

*Increases outsourcing and the price of employing more people.  (Higher paying jobs for some, less jobs to go around, and more job loss to outsourcing.)

"Cut the interest rate on federally supported student loans in half."

Not sure.

"Allow the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients."


"Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds."

Stupid.  I am not against stem cell research, I'm against GOVERNMENT stem cell research.  Fuck the government.  Let the private sector do it if they like.  The government shouldn't be giving any funding to this. 

"Impose pay-as-you-go budget rules, requiring that new entitlement spending or tax cuts be offset with entitlement spending cuts or tax hikes."

I'm all for putting tight rules on when the government can borrow money.  The budget is currently out of control.

"Well, what do you think. There's not a lot about the gubbymint going after the guns, but maybe they will get up to some dumbshittery in the future."

Of course they will.  I've heard rumours that they might be looking to create a new Assault Weapons ban if the democrats take solid control of the Senate, the House, and the presidency.  Combine that with John Conyer's ramblings about how we need a National ban on handguns, and not to mention the recent movement to ban various kinds of hunting, and I honestly wouldn't trust those assholes for a second.

"Anyway, I have nothing against this agenda, do you?"

Yes, I do, by and large.  The only decent thing they had to say that comes to mind was the pay-as-you-go government, if this is what I THINK it is. 

>>10 "People should be allowed to lobby for things they want." This could become unsustainable even with checks and balances.
"The NRA, for example, is known as a 'gun-lobby', as is GOA." Money shouldn't even be a factor for the decisionmaking of legislators.
"They should be allowed to lobby for our 2nd amendment." They shouldn't have to anyway.
"Fuck the 9/11 commission.  Terrorism poses about as much threat to your average american as a peanut allergy." So even though this isn't an issue to you you'll let the right control the entire trifecta for two more years?
"*Makes starting new & small businesses more difficult & expensive.

*Increases the price of American-made products, goods, and services (and thus increases the trade-deficit, since other countries that pay their workers lower wages will then overtake the USA in the marketplace.)

*Increases outsourcing and the price of employing more people.  (Higher paying jobs for some, less jobs to go around, and more job loss to outsourcing.)" There were a fuckload of economists including some nobel laureates that supported the idea of a raise recently. But I am sure they just haven't read your arguments.

"Stupid.  I am not against stem cell research, I'm against GOVERNMENT stem cell research.  Fuck the government.  Let the private sector do it if they like.  The government shouldn't be giving any funding to this." Sometimes some things have to be done without direct interest of profit. Preparing for global climate changes is another such consideration.
"I've heard rumours that they might be looking to create a new Assault Weapons ban if the democrats take solid control of the Senate, the House, and the presidency." I've heard rumors that the man has an entire colony of grays hidden in Area 51.
"Combine that with John Conyer's ramblings about how we need a National ban on handguns" There are these racists that are running in the south. So the republicans can't be trusted.
"not to mention the recent movement to ban various kinds of hunting" What forms of hunting? I am against abortion after a certain limit.
"I honestly wouldn't trust those assholes for a second." I'm sure the dehumanized women of South Dakota are glad they can at least get a lawgiver without any back-up check. Not impressed.

Fuck the republicans - at least if they are going to suck jesusmeat at this rate. Vote for Paul or Tester - kill the evangelicals and rigid socialists.

I should point out that I ony accept democrat majority in order to put Bush down. But these are critical times. Worse still, without the influence of grass-roots level dems like Tester (a democrat a left-of-center libertarian like myself would take a bullet for) the dems will turn more towards the right - which is just sick and sad... http://www.counterpunch.org/sharon10312006.html    http://www.counterpunch.org/taylor10312006.html

Vote for Tester if you can, protest against redundant gun control and abortion bans *in equal measure and with equal fervor* and, most importantly, kill the dixiewhistling southpaws and parent-politicians. KILL-THEM-WITH-FIRE.

The dems will be bending over like an LV prositute in the senate...

>>11
Paul? Ron Paul, the republican from Texas? He fucking rules!  I have to agree there if you were pointing to him, I'd vote for him in a fucking heartbeat.  Ron Paul is one of the few decent people we have elected.  Tester is a pretty refreshing thing to see coming from the ranks of the otherwise seemingly statist anti-gun, anti-bill of rights democrats.  In my state, I get to choose between Debbie Stabenow (F rating from the NRA, F-- Rating from GOA), and Mike Bouchard (A rating from NRA, B rating from GOA.) 

"I've heard rumors that the man has an entire colony of grays hidden in Area 51."

Considering that the very last democratic administration we elected pushed for, supported, and passed into law a massive gun ban, as well as several gun control acts, I'd say it is far more plausible that the democrats will push for more gun bans in the future than whatever you were talking about regarding aliens and area 51.

"There are these racists that are running in the south. So the republicans can't be trusted."

I'm from Michigan, and to my knowledge the republican candidate isn't racist.  On the other hand, we have democrats here who want to fortify and strengthen racist affirmative action programs.

"What forms of hunting?"

Just an example..  In our state we are considering the allowing of a dove hunting season.  If we don't make the season, dove hunting will be banned essentially.  There are other places that don't allow hunting on Sundays for some reason.. religious nuts I'd presume? Anyhow, those are just two examples I happen to know of off the top of my head from my very own state.

"Sometimes some things have to be done without direct interest of profit. Preparing for global climate changes is another such consideration."

Nah, I'd rather just leave it to the marketplace.  I see no reason why the profit motive wouldn't be enough to make companies go forward with this.  If the rewards for such research are really truly there for the taking, the greed of businessmen will have them flocking to it to search for cures for various diseases.  I see no reason why the government should be involved in this one way or another.  Leave it to the market.

"There were a fuckload of economists including some nobel laureates that supported the idea of a raise recently. But I am sure they just haven't read your arguments."

Right.. and I'm sure there aren't any credible economists who argue against the minimum wage, right? *note the sarcasm*

"So even though this isn't an issue to you you'll let the right control the entire trifecta for two more years?"

I think you misunderstand me.  It is an issue to me.  I don't want the government to throw away money on stupid programs that aren't necessary, and infringing on liberties.  The so-called 'war on terror' is something I dissaprove of.  Not that I'm an anti-war hippy or anything, it is just ridiculously expensive, and I don't see any benefits coming to me, so there's no reason for me to support it, simply.  Likewise, considering how insignificant a threat terrorism is to the average american, I think funding all sorts of programs to fight such an insignificant threat while in the midst of a budget crunch is plain stupid.  It isn't a big issue, but yeah.  I'd be far happier with the left if they would stop trying to act all republican-like regarding terrorism.

"They shouldn't have to anyway."

But with swarms of gun hating liberals running to the polls and politicians who will turn a deaf ear to advocates for the bill of rights, it might help, no?

"This could become unsustainable even with checks and balances."

Explain. 

"Considering that the very last democratic administration we elected pushed for, supported, and passed into law a massive gun ban, as well as several gun control acts, I'd say it is far more plausible that the democrats will push for more gun bans in the future than whatever you were talking about regarding aliens and area 51." Humph. But those are just facts. Anyway, you can't call yourself a patriot if you sacrifice women's rights to abortions on the altar of the gun (and I can't do vice versa).
"I'm from Michigan, and to my knowledge the republican candidate isn't racist.  On the other hand, we have democrats here who want to fortify and strengthen racist affirmative action programs." That is Michigan, and while AA is not intrinsically racist, the candidates I speak of sure are: http://c2ore.com/archives/?itemid=2287
"In our state we are considering the allowing of a dove hunting season.  If we don't make the season, dove hunting will be banned essentially." Doves are... Causing damage? Fucking up the ecosystem? Being ugly? They are not the most edible fowl you know.
"There are other places that don't allow hunting on Sundays for some reason.. religious nuts I'd presume?" Ayup. And the penis-centered phalanx of american libertarianism (not implying you, you seem normal) will gladly jump into their bosoms as long as they get them there guns.
"Nah, I'd rather just leave it to the marketplace.  I see no reason why the profit motive wouldn't be enough to make companies go forward with this." Yeah, I can picture how the market would gladly have done work on catalysts and limiting CFCs in case the public *didn't* demand it.
"If the rewards for such research are really truly there for the taking, the greed of businessmen will have them flocking to it to search for cures for various diseases." Sure, rather than treat syndromes (like they do now) they'd much rather make a cure that will remove their source of income and will mostly be given to lazy Africans anyway.
"I see no reason why the government should be involved in this one way or another.  Leave it to the market." Last time I checked the pharmaceutical consumers didn't demand such cures enough to make it profitable, and most of the pro-gun republicans would gladly ban it as a *private* practice if they could.
"Right.. and I'm sure there aren't any credible economists who argue against the minimum wage, right? *note the sarcasm*" Yeah, show their arguing and then compare yours and their arguments to the work of Kash: http://streetlightblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/changing-minimum-wage-some-evidence.html Most of the people who argue against the minimum wage do so without thinking - they are dogmatists, not reality-based (objectivists spring to mind).
"I'd be far happier with the left if they would stop trying to act all republican-like regarding terrorism." They can't do that, pragmatically or politically.
"But with swarms of gun hating liberals running to the polls and politicians who will turn a deaf ear to advocates for the bill of rights, it might help, no?" Well, guns aren't the only thing on the founding papers, and I believe dems are more capable of finding a rational position on guns and AA than reps on abortions and same-sex marriage.
"Explain." In a non-meritocratic society letting those with more money run the show can create schizophrenic policies that do not represent the will of the people - the zionist influence of U.S. foreign policy springs to mind. I am adverse to the idea of people influencing politics with money as well but since I am not allowed to believe in intrinsicalities I have to do some research and thinking on that.

Republicans get emotional and submissive very quickly due to their authoritarian tendencies, so the founding documents are not safe http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Oct06/Hall31.htm
Still, if they try to suppress you Americans *too* much you'll break out the guns and revolt in a purple guerrilla blaze of liberty and resistance, right? You'll even have raccoon hats! Right?

Xel, please learn to put gaps between paragraphs? Some of us tend to skip the unreadable.

Before bed (I live in Stockholm. It is cold here but the new "free-blowjobs-and-spa-weekend"-program the state recently executed helps to cheer things up) I will give youse a slice of interesting numbers that - while not proving causation- show some interesting correlation... Are left-wing presidents better at the economy? What about congress? Well, statistics aren't much but they are something: http://www.vankampen.com/vksite/news/commentary/insightline103006.asp

>>17 If you look at the left-hand margin you can see the quotations - my responses follow every one. But, I will from now on start my amateurish responses on the row below the quotation rather than directly after it. 

>>19
I'm not blind, thanks.

I happen to like having some nice gaps between paragraphs. Space in a page is important you know, it really enhances readability.

Also, I absolutely HATE the way you quote. Please do it the way everyone else does it. It really makes things easier to read. Why do you think this feature is here?

Are you really that scared of a "Click here to read more" occurring in your post? Why? I'm probably not the only person who just skips over your posts because of the clutter.

>>15
"Humph. But those are just facts. Anyway, you can't call yourself a patriot if you sacrifice women's rights to abortions on the altar of the gun (and I can't do vice versa)."

I'm not sacrificing anything.  Take a look at this counterpunch article I read recently: 

http://www.counterpunch.org/husseini10192006.html

The solution is pretty simple: 

If you lean to the left & prefer 3rd parties, go find someone who leans to the right & prefers 3rd parties.  If one of you votes dem, and the other votes repub out of fear that one main party or the other will win if you don't vote for one of the main parties, what you do is both agree NOT to vote for either main party, since if you did, your votes would just cancel each other out anyway.  Instead, you both agree to vote 3rd party.  This eliminates the 'spoiler' concept, and is an effective way to siphon off votes from the main two parties who seem to be becoming increasingly disconnected with their respective bases.

If you trust each other, just go by word of honor.  If not, you can always fill out absentee ballots together, and mail them together. 

"That is Michigan, and while AA is not intrinsically racist, the candidates I speak of sure are: http://c2ore.com/archives/?itemid=2287";

Not all republicans are like that.  In fact, I'd be pretty surprised if even a majority of elected repubs are.  They seem pretty proud of the fact that they are the party of Abe Lincoln that emancipated the slaves.

"Doves are... Causing damage? Fucking up the ecosystem? Being ugly? They are not the most edible fowl you know."

I don't hunt doves.  I am not a hunter.  I *do* however sympathize with the right to hunt.  Again, it doesn't harm anyone.  Banning it is kindof ridiculous.  You telling a hunter they can't hunt doves because you don't see a reason to is like telling a pot smoker they can't smoke pot because you can't see why they would want to.  The same thing is the case with any freedom.  You shouldn't have to explain why you 'need' or 'want' a liberty in order to have it.  The burden of proof should be pushed onto those who would want to take AWAY that liberty to proove why the liberty should be taken away, not the other way around.  We are supposed to be a generally 'free' country, and if we are going to start forcing people to give justifications for having their liberty, rather than having to justify bans, we are going to turn into ban-land/police state real fast.  A similar type of argument is frequently heard about assault weapons...

'Why do you 'need' an assault weapon?'

'Why do you 'need' an SUV?'

'Why do you gay folks 'need' to get married?'

'Why do you 'need' to eat ice cream?'

'Why do you 'need' to smoke?'

'Why do you 'need' to play computer games?'

'Why do you 'need' to watch pornography?'

You shouldn't have to justify your liberties to others.  They should have to justify taking them away, and any proposed infringements should take the harshest of critisism.  Furthermore, simply because I personally don't see the fun in dove hunting doesn't mean other people don't.  If I don't see why some people like ice cream, should we impliment a national ban on ice cream? Ridiculous.

"Ayup. And the penis-centered phalanx of american libertarianism (not implying you, you seem normal) will gladly jump into their bosoms as long as they get them there guns."

The NRA is actually standing up to the evangelicals on this one, believe it or not.  They are pushing to get Sunday-hunting legalized in said areas.  I'm fairly sure the libertarian party would be pro-legalization on this as well.

"Yeah, I can picture how the market would gladly have done work on catalysts and limiting CFCs in case the public *didn't* demand it."

This is something different entirely.  The found cures from research could cure who knows how many diseases.  There is enormous demand potential, and with that comes enormous profit potential.  The market'll do fine.

"Sure, rather than treat syndromes (like they do now) they'd much rather make a cure that will remove their source of income and will mostly be given to lazy Africans anyway."

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. 

"Last time I checked the pharmaceutical consumers didn't demand such cures enough to make it profitable, and most of the pro-gun republicans would gladly ban it as a *private* practice if they could."

I'd fight banning private stem cell research.  I would support banning government stem cell research.  I don't care what the republican party says, I'm my own person and am capable of thinking for myself.  Just because the republican party supports something doesn't mean I do as well.

"Yeah, show their arguing and then compare yours and their arguments to the work of Kash: http://streetlightblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/changing-minimum-wage-some-evidence.html Most of the people who argue against the minimum wage do so without thinking - they are dogmatists, not reality-based (objectivists spring to mind)."

Aside from the objectivists, there are plenty of economists who are against raising the minimum wage... just go read the works of some conservative/libertarian economist.  Anyhow, objectivism is a philosophy, not a study of economics.  I'm not talking about philosophers and what they think of the minimum wage, I'm talking about economists.  Find some conservative or libertarian economists.

Here you go, as a simple and quick example: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

A nobel prize-winning economist, and an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism.  Doesn't exactly sound like a supporter of the minimum wage, eh?

"They can't do that, pragmatically or politically."

The libertarian party supports me on this though.  Thus, they are the party for me, and I am definitely not going to be impressed by anti-gun liberals who start barking up the "SUPPORT THE PATRIOT ACT DEFEAT THE TERRORISTS IT IS A SERIOUS THREAT!" tree. 

"Well, guns aren't the only thing on the founding papers, and I believe dems are more capable of finding a rational position on guns and AA than reps on abortions and same-sex marriage."

The democrats' position on guns is totally irrational.  It is based on nothing but raw emotion, and is actually caused by our own drug policy that they won't admit HAS FAILED (again, see above).

And also, the democrats are lacking the spine to oppose the Patriot Act, fight for Habeus Corpus (or however you spell it) etc, AS WELL as supporting gun control.  So not only do they support the constitutionally questionable actions of the republicans, they have their own constitutionally questionable actions on top of it all that they should be punished for.

If a pro-gun anti-tax republican who at least supports less spending, lowering of cigarette & alcohol taxes, the 1st, 2nd, and a good chunk of the rest (note:  this is already as much, if not more than the dems tend to support and uphold), and if that isn't good enough, supports border security, national sovereignty, and opposes the U.N. runs and wins, I'm definitely not going to cry over it....:)

The point? Both parties suck, and there is no reasonable solution but a votepact to vote libertarian so we don't waste our votes on major party shitheads.  See my comments above as well as link regarding votepact...  (http://www.counterpunch.org/husseini10192006.html)

"I'm not sacrificing anything."
You do if you vote for pro-gun, anti-abortion candidates. But I liked that counterpunch article and was intrigued by the prospect as well so you seem reasonable.

"Not all republicans are like that.  In fact, I'd be pretty surprised if even a majority of elected repubs are."
Well, we'll see. I think it is shameful that they are on the ballots.

Regarding your good arguments for dove hunting - I just don't know the background on the proposed ban. I know of the slippery slope notion but maybe they have a reason to ban dove hunting (*except* for being pussies).

"The NRA is actually standing up to the evangelicals on this one, believe it or not."
Talking about abortion here, I didn't expect the NRA to secede an inch, they do not roll like that.

"There is enormous demand potential, and with that comes enormous profit potential.  The market'll do fine."
I think I believe you here.

"I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here."
Pharmaceutical companis prefer treating syndromes rather than curing diseases.

"Find some conservative or libertarian economists." Why don't you do that and look at their arguments? Preferably reality-based ones. Kash has given his.

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

A nobel prize-winning economist, and an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism.  Doesn't exactly sound like a supporter of the minimum wage, eh?"
I like that dude because he made people realize that to spend is to tax, meaning -among other things- that Bush's tax cuts will come to nothing in the long run. Still, some of the economists who signed support for a raised minimum wage were nobel laureates as well.

"I am definitely not going to be impressed by anti-gun liberals who start barking up the "SUPPORT THE PATRIOT ACT DEFEAT THE TERRORISTS IT IS A SERIOUS THREAT!" tree."
Neither do I.

"The democrats' position on guns is totally irrational.  It is based on nothing but raw emotion, and is actually caused by our own drug policy that they won't admit HAS FAILED (again, see above)."
These emotions are not compounded by the power of the belief in a supernatural being, therefore probably making them more capable of sense on this one. But I dunno, I live in a country where a majority believes in evolution.

>>22
Wow, that's readable. Win!

>>21
"SUPPORT THE PATRIOT ACT DEFEAT THE TERRORISTS" seems out of place. All the liberals and lefties I know loathe it with a passion. Then again, most liberals are pissed off at the Democrat leadership too.

Please, if you're referring to Democrat politicians, label it as such. The vast majority of people you referred to (them evil liberals) believe nothing of the kind; read a few blogs from that end of the spectrum, don't just believe everything you're told by your own ideologically-inclined kind.

Liberal = high personal freedom, moderate-low economic freedom
Libertarian = high personal freedom, high economic freedom

Moral of the story: if a person supports such a violation of personal rights as the Patriot Act, then they are simply neither a liberal nor a libertarian.

Liberals and libertarians only differ on economic issues. This isn't an economic issue.

>>16
That's the ultimate Justification for us keeping the guns, essentially.  Revolution must always remain in the cards.
Racoon hats? That's...just so...appealing to our instincts
It makes the idea of a second civil war seem disturbingly cute.

>>24 This is why I deplore limousine democrats like Hilary or Barack. Not because they are "intellectuals" or "elitist" (such adjectives are neutral to those with some common sense) but because they play a political, calculating game rather than a non-centrist, enlightenment game. I want progressives who try to reconcile market and middle-class, to choke the life out of social conservatism and try to make sure that neither the market nor the government has sway over things these forces should stay away from. Abortions and same-sex marriage shouldn't even be issues...

>>24
Wrong.  Liberals don't support personal freedoms.  If they did, why are they so vehemently anti-gun? Why do they tend to want to ban dove hunting? Why are a bunch of them pushing for bans on trans fats? The only party that has a consistent track record of support for all personal freedoms is the libertarian party. 

>>22
"You do if you vote for pro-gun, anti-abortion candidates. But I liked that counterpunch article and was intrigued by the prospect as well so you seem reasonable."

I don't want a complete ban of abortion, but I see a happy medium between the democrats and republicans on this issue.  I agree with the Partial Birth Abortion ban, but think it should stop there.  Following that, I say there shouldn't be any more abortion laws.  As long as the libertarians don't push for a repeal, and people get in a votepact with me, I have few if any qualms with voting for them rather than the repubs.  Also, if you vote for the democrats over the repubs, you are guilty of the same thing, so stop encouraging people to vote democrat, since you are telling me not to support republicans for a list of reasons which could be applicable the other way around, and would prevent one from voting democrat, if one were to be consistent and principled.  And of course you know I am opposed to any kind of ban on gay marriage, and opposed to preventing loving responsible gay people from being allowed to adopt children.

>>27
You're missing the forest for the trees. That's like saying granite isn't a rock, because it's not exactly the same as obsidian. No kidding? Freedom is a continuum, guy.

And there's a wide variety of views in the liberal world, resulting in a fair bit of debate. I happen to support gun ownership, but for the reasons of the founding fathers, not something silly like dove hunting. I find your obsession with dove hunting disturbing. Of all the trivial things to focus on...

"o stop encouraging people to vote democrat, since you are telling me not to support republicans for a list of reasons which could be applicable the other way around, and would prevent one from voting democrat, if one were to be consistent and principled."

Absolutely. You're right and I haven't contested that point. But in this case voting democrat would put an end to the "no-tax-and-spend"-regime (remember, the tax cuts will swiftly be eaten away once people start paying for the evangelical/militarist binge), and believe me; that would be the best thing to do.
         As much as I know the democrats aren't moving towards my progressive, left-of-center libertarian position, leaving Bush untethered after '06 would spell absolute disaster.
         I'm not propagating them unconditionally (not even gladly), I've just weighed what I know and I think the dems should get a majority in the House and the Senate come Nov. 7.

>>29 You can't have a partial set of freedoms, even when it comes to superficially useless ones like dove hunting.

>>30
You most certainly can. Freedom isn't absolute.

Unless you'd like to argue that Sweden is the same as Stalinist USSR? No? Why not?

>>29

"And there's a wide variety of views in the liberal world, resulting in a fair bit of debate. I happen to support gun ownership, but for the reasons of the founding fathers, not something silly like dove hunting. I find your obsession with dove hunting disturbing. Of all the trivial things to focus on..."

Ok, firstly, I am not obsessed with dove hunting.  I am not a dove hunter.  In fact, I am not even a hunter, nor a gun owner.  

I am well aware the 2nd amendment isn't there for hunting.  The  2nd amendment is clearly there as a deterrant to tyranny.

>>31 We're not the same as USSR because we are not dead, and I would argument that while some freedoms can be prioritized over others depending on urgency, people affected and other parameters, they all have the same value. You can have a partial set of freedoms, you should have all of them.

>>33
Just wow. How far can you stuff your head up your ass?

Are you telling me you don't see the difference in living in Stalin's USSR and Sweden? How about North and South Korea? Are you telling me they're the fucking same?

And if you want all those freedoms, move to an anarchy. I hear there are several in Africa at the moment, filled with massacres, rape, and the law of the gun. That's your full set of freedoms kid. Following through with your brilliant reasoning, that pansy libertarianism isn't free either since it's not complete. Yeah, great reasoning there, dumb shit, time to read some Hobbes.

Seriously, what is wrong with you? Next you'll tell me the sky is magic pink! What the fuckity fuck?

Uh, I overreacted in >>34. Sorry about that.

It was just a bit surreal, that's all.

>>33
Read some John Stewart Mill aswell.

>>>>"Well, guns aren't the only thing on the founding papers, and I believe dems are more capable of finding a rational position on guns and AA than reps on abortions and same-sex marriage."

>>The democrats' position on guns is totally irrational.  It is based on nothing but raw emotion, and is actually caused by our own drug policy that they won't admit HAS FAILED (again, see above).

It's worth pointing out that John Kerry, two years ago, campaigned in some part on his wish to protect the rights of gun owners. A lot of people took it as inauthentic and insincere, but it was his position for sure. Sure, his support of hand guns wasn't a core value for him, but it was an issue where he was willing to let sleeping dogs lie.  Many Dems, like him and myself don't really feel like gun control is a goal worth fighting for, and will gladly table it in exchange for support on more important issues. 

He's not the only one who's willing to give ground.  Ironicly, our willingness to give ground is what keeps moving this country further to the right, by making Dems feel the need to reposition ourselves as the true guardians of "family values"

>>37
Are you talking about that little incident where Kerry went out for some photo ops with a gun and some hunting gear or something or other? Don't make me laugh... Kerry is very anti-gun, just look at his voting record in the senate.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but just a few months ago he cast his first pro-gun vote in all his history as a senator.  Kerry is no friend of gun owners or the 2nd amendment.

>>38
Didn't say he was a friend.  Said he didn't give a big enough of a shit about it to take your stuff away.  You can trust a man with other things on his mind to behave appropriately for that situation.