Are you against the wars? How about opposing the Patriot Act? How about supporting rights guaranteed to everyone by the US Constitution?

So, how do you hate America?

I hate the speed limits, helmet laws, gun laws, fat chicks.

THE wars? I'm not sure what that means.

I do it by pointing out that it really is possible to support the troops, while decrying the fool's errands that America's goofy political class sends them on.

After all, one can be in favor of unqualified gun rights, yet be against armed robbery.

This is about the point I usually break with the Libertarians. If there were some HONEST world cop and court that answered global armed robbery calls and prosecuted the bad guys, then maybe I'd consider a lot more US interventions "fools errands". As is, it's pretty much us or nobody answering the call.

And when nobody answers, sooner or later the robber gets to your house.

The problem is, America is the one stirring it up.

Yeah, buying their oil and telling them not to attack Israel really stirs them up.

I hate Amerika by sending my sons to private school and trying my hardest to get all my friends to take their kids out of the public indoctrination camps.

I went to a private school a couple years and my history teacher ended up being a Marxist anyway.

Heh.

And sending them to private indoctrination camps?



You say that like it's necessarily a bad thing.

He was ok I guess. I got As in the two classes I took from him. Luckily they were history and not economics.

Interesting--

Does one hate America--or does one hate those Americans that are intent upon destroying America?

I don't hate America--hate is such a strong word, anyway--however, on the other hand, I loathe greedy, lying, tyrannical war-mongers & despise deceiving, ego-maniacle opportunists that will stoop to any depth to prey upon others--both within America's borders & outside America's borders--

And I find clouded, poorly conceived, semi-delusional, muddy, sanctimonious & self-rightous thinking extremely vexing...especially that of the alarmist, "watch out for the big, bad boogie man over there, and over there, and maybe even over there" variety that the indoctrinated are constantly & continuously regurgitating.

A lot less fear & a little more sophistication would work wonders for the state of affairs, imo.

Again, there are "Marxist" (Marxisant, there aren't any 'pure Marxist' economists, anyway) economists that are FANTASTIC, first-rate economists. 9 times out of ten, the non-orthodox economists are much better at presenting orthodox economics, by far, than vice-versa.

It's a lot easier for anyone to present something orthodox and logical than drivel.

Good.

My parents did the same, and now I am a "flaming Liberal."



Private indoctrination, indeed. I was "indoctrinated to consider others above myself."



Damn.

And that service above self, thang.

So pesky. I get labeled a communist for it regularly. They taught me well, however. I pay it no mind.

Good luck with that "private" education.

I hope you understand what you are in for.

It's a lot easier to post nonsense than to actually know what the fark you're talking about.

Which, when it comes to actual economics, at the level of technical detail, you certainly do not.

So, keep replying with cowdoody one-liners.

That's all your knowledge-base is good for.

Good comeback. My one-liners are four times as good as your four-liners. Maybe one day you'll include some actual economics.

The American Hater

. . . . . a person who actually does fit the neocon stereotype has at last shown his face. It is none other than our old friend Bill Clinton.

Speaking at Georgetown University, Clinton indulged in a flight of fancy about all the things America has done to call down these attacks on us. In particular he named the fact that "we were founded as a nation that practiced slavery, and slaves quite frequently were killed even though they were innocent."

If that isn’t bad enough: "this country once looked the other way when a significant number of native Americans were dispossessed and killed to get their land or their mineral rights or because they were thought of as less than fully human."

Finally the clincher: "And we are still paying a price today."

So there you have it: a blame America Firster, someone who actually believes that the attacks are the price we pay for our original sin, as well as events a century and a half old. When you hear this kind of drivel, it’s enough to get the old patriotic juices flowing. It tempts one to observe that this man, this former president of the United States, secretly hates this country. That sure would explain much about the Clinton regime.

Or perhaps it’s not a psychological state at all. It’s all the more gripping when you realize that the real reason for the attacks were the policies carried out under his administration. So he more than anyone else would have a good reason for wanting to distract people from events of the last 10 years to events of ancient history–events that no one can control now.

Clinton is pleased to promote the hatred of America, especially among college students, so long as it averts people’s eyes from the US government’s actions in the 1990s. So there we have the motive for the first genuine case of anti-Americanism I’ve seen. Wouldn’t you know that it comes from the mouth of the former president, whom historians will probably someday consider "near great" for his policies that got us into this war.

When Jerry Falwell said the attacks might be God’s judgment for Americans’ sins of abortion, the whole world came crashing down on him. That hasn’t happened and won’t happen to Clinton. The most the Wall Street Journal could muster was a pathetic: "wartime is hardly the time for an American politician to be harping on America's shortcomings."

The problem isn’t the harping as such; it’s Clinton’s theory itself, that the US was born in sin, and terror is the price we pay. I’m willing to bet that the hijackers didn’t care a flip about slavery or Indian policies, and Clinton doesn’t believe they did. His is a metaphysical argument, an anti-American argument. We are paying the price for Bill Clinton and those like him.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/hater.html

Right after you do.

I'll have a response sometime next month. If I can just remember where this discussion started. Von Mises perhaps?

He'd be as good a start as any.

It would be nice if there were a perfect link for every answer, or I was willing to do a lot of typing. But sometimes it's easier to make a basic statement and Google a longer article illustrative of the point. Somebody will bitch regardless.

I guess I should have specified that my sons attend a private Christian school, so no, there will be no collectivism, communitarianism, Gaia worship, or New Age paganism pushed down on them. I see no problem with kids realizing that God created, and loves, everyone equally. There is something wrong with people who confuse that with communism. It becomes socialist or communist when money for the poor is confisgated rather than acquired via donation.

I'm not sure where Christ, Socialism and America connect. As I understand it, the Essenes were collectivist, and Jesus was not know as a capitalist, but as a carpenter and preacher.

I know you ain't no religious buff but that's like saying Washington was known for his wooden teeth.

That is on par with the "They hate us for our freedom" argument.

The guys that want to establish a Caliphate DO hate us for our freedom. That may be a small part of Islam, but it's a violent portion of over a billion people. We can hardly ignore it just to have more business partners or avoid conflict.

But the more business partners there are, the less interest there will be in enabling those who would interfere with that trade.

The McDonald's effect. But terrorists live outside the domain of possible trading partners, and want to stifle trade with infidels. They only need enough profit to sustain their activities, and they can get that through extortion and donations from like-minded psychotics. Add to that the fact most of their enablers own a commodity the west will sell it's soul for.

This isn't as easy as maximizing profits in a free market.

I really love America, but, at this point in time, being the best country in the word is like being hottest Denny's waitress in the world. Your cute, but it is nothing to write home about. Having lived in Italy for years, I can attest to that fact.

I am familiar with the Caliphate, but like Pat Robertson and his band of nuts, it is mostly cowdoody. Your are being sold fear by the media. Remember, they hide in caves.

The Mullahs use religious propaganda to whip the useful idiots(see: religious nuts) into a messianic fervor. It is done here by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk(see: Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Randi Rhodes etc..)

If you study the overthrow of Mossedegh, you will see it was MI6/CIA, which activated the Mullahs and convinced them democracy was anti-Islamic. Kermit Roosevelt wrote a book about it called CounterCoup and spilled the beans on radio. MI6/CIA went in and staged false-flag terror events in Iran for the benefit of Anglo-Iranian Oil, since Mossedegh decided Iran would no longer benefit from being a British petroleum colony. This is all freely available at the National Archives and declassified.

I'm a great believer in people being able to live where and how they want. Generally I'm not into Italian women, but at this point beggars can't be choosers.




Rosie O'Donnell's greatest fear. (outside of a Twinkie shortage)

ROFL....

I tend to think it is more because of our "invasion" of their lands with our "sinful" society, oil and gas companies control of their resources, and capitalism motivating their people to leave the strict values behind. Don't forget our less than equal treatment of Israel. Until we start acting as the "fair broker" in that region, it will always be something the Mullahs can say we are "wronging" them with.

I agree we can't ignore it. We do have to hunt down those that attack us, but we have to talk softly while we carry that big stick. When you are top dog, you have to make all efforts to tread lightly so as not to become the bully. When there are obvious threats/ attacks, we should take appropriate action. For example, there wasn't so much as a whimper from any but the kooks when we went after AQ directly.

You Sir/Madame make a lot of sense. Let me invite you to join the rest of us in the 'regular' threads. It's not always 'polite' but we sometimes actually come close to changing our own minds in response to being repeatedly exposed to the arguments of another.

OTOH, we have some not-so-classy flame-wars, too.

In any case, please join us. It goes without saying, that I am not suggesting that you 'vacate' these here parts, in the least.

Or maybe you could converse here a little more often, if for no other reason than to pretend that you can carry on a discourse without your customary string of profanities and epithets?

Thank you for that oh so fair and balanced, let alone accurate, presentation of me and my 'custom'.

Next thing you'll claim is that I am simply unable to carry on a discourse.

Folks are free to judge for themselves.

This particular little choice of yours though will be remembered. Never forgotten and never forgiven.

You want fairness you've come to the wrong place, and your forgivness is of no value to me.

But thanks for stopping by to prove once again, with your own attitude, what an egocentric jackass you can be.

Just feel the love.

Everyone is welcome on the main board. Servo and anyone else can have their own sections and "do it their way" as well. All I ever ask is people don't attack the site on the site. Rant at me, or bitch about the board in PMs. I'll listen and nobody has ever been banned.

Of couse all are welcome on the other fora. All are welcome to participate here as well. I just refuse to accept the aforementioned flaming and poo flinging that sometimes occurs over in the Political Sandbox, let alone take some overbearing windbag coming around here, boring me with some pedantic tripe about whether or not I'm on his "never gonna forgive or forget you" list.

One of the many reasons I took you up on your gracious offer to launch the SoL was to offer a little outpost for like-minded freedom lovers to exchange ideas and information, relatively free from the petty sniping and pious derision from the usual collectivist mob rule suspects. So far, I've managed to accumulate a handful of new citizens of the realm, who at least post sporadically.....which is way more of an effort than the perfesser can lay claim to contributing around here. That being so, I'll be dipped in interstellar ectoplasm before I let my friends and loyal subjects get run off by some of the specimens of the short bus petting zoo that can be found over in the sandbox.

Judging from the roster of folx who've already been run off (anyone seen buntzy lately?) or have taken extended hiatuses, I think you may well be able to appreciate my position.

Please re-read my original post, and the bolded addition.

I didn't mean to do anything of the sort you're accusing me of.

I just thought that poster would do 'our' forums some good.





Where is this all coming from?

I just told the poster that he made a lot of sense, and invited him to join us in participating in the other fora.

I gave fair warning that it gets ugly over there.

Who attacked the site on the site? Surely, it wasn't I.



Who ran off buntzy?

And I let it be known that you can feel free to dialogue with Highstreet, or any of my other friends, up here, provided you leave at the door your sometimes famously crappy attitude towards those with whom you may *gasp* disagree or have misunderstandings.

Is that really so difficult to live with??

I truly appreciate your effort to invite participation elsewhere. Sorry if I didn't come right out and say so, but I don't think it's fair for me to pressure Servo's invitees, just reiterate all are welcome everywhere, and are welcome to participate, moderate, or just lurk if they choose.

Buntzy comes and goes, came and went, and told me he was into some sort of technical site when he left for a while the first time, then came back.

To EVERYONE. There's lots of room, my PM is always open, and Servo can run his area as he sees fit, as can anyone else who wants their own area. I'm happy to have folks post on the main site, but it isn't necessary. Just trying to get as much use as I can from the available bandwidth and promote the site as a whole the best I can.

10-4.

Tancredo joins the other 8 in the debates as a supporter of the Iraq war though. That is where he fails.

The debate is over. Even a withdrawal has to be done with some thought. Paul has some forceful sound bites, but not an answer to terror or Iraq.

Sounds just like the anthropogenic climate change whack jobs.

Wouldn't his answer to 'terror in Iraq' be that it is the business of the government of Iraq to deal with it?

Pretty much.

I'm also left wondering how many "terrorists" there are in Germany, Japan, the Philippines, Panama, and the other 100-odd countries where American troops are deployed.