The recent tweets of one swgalibertarian:
I'm sporting blue in protest of the #iranelection hysteria, since the US is no better and we need to concentrate on our own home firstSo. Our south Georgia friend's thesis is the chair's of our political parties are the equivalent of theocratic dictators and our elections are no better than those held in an Islamic theocracy.
@griftdrift the only proof you offered was the two parter about mullahs and blood, but I showed that mullahs == Party Chairmen
For a moment, let's put aside how that plays and simply compare two contested elections - 2000 in the U.S. and 2009 in Iran
2009 Iran - Elections (like all elections) are verified by a religious leader who proclaims it is the will of God.
2000 U.S. - Disputed results in Florida are ultimately ajudicated by the U.S. Supreme Court and then validated by the U.S. Electoral College
2009 Iran - People are killed
2000 U.S. - People in various states of dress scream a lot at each other and some faint from the Florida heat
2009 Iran - The military is a visible presence in the streets.
2000 U.S. - The only military involvement is a dispute over the counting of absentee ballots from overseas bases.
2009 Iran - Paramilitary organizations invade dorm rooms and terrorize students
2000 U.S. - Student activists invade party offices and generally make asses of themselves
Yep. Exactly the same.
8 comments:
Amen grift.
~snark alert..But the US election in 2000 wasn't on twitter... so really we don't "actually" know if all the same stuff happened. :)
Again, just because cultures are different does not mean the process is.
There, two mullahs chose opposing candidates where with little difference other than one was slightly less status quo than the other.
Here, two parties do exactly the same thing.
BOTH countries are going to Hades in a handbasket, and only the determined efforts of genuine lovers of liberty stand a CHANCE at changing anything in either country.
To paraphrase JD Talley of the MHD, the fight is between Control and Freedom.
Which side are you on?
Have you ever read Peach Pundit? How do you do that and conclude Batman is reasonable or however you described him.
Jeff: "There, two mullahs chose opposing candidates where with little difference other than one was slightly less status quo than the other.
Here, two parties do exactly the same thing."
Do you really think McCain would have proposed such healthcare policies as Obama did, and judging by his comments thus far, do you think he would have responded to the results in the same way as POTUS? Please, there is no way you could think that
It is interesting, you are saying your way is the only way to save the country (bullshit if there ever was any) and discount the fact that many individuals want the large social state you despise. Win an election, then you can impact the discussion.
Anonymous:
McCain was also proposing the State being involved in healthcare, just in a SLIGHTLY less onerous way than Obama.
His argument wasn't that government shouldn't be involved in providing healthcare, it was that it should be involved in doing it HIS way.
The criticisms of him - and the GOP in general - being nothing but Democrat-lite are well founded - and right at 150 years old.
If the Democrat model has this country failing in 2 decades, the GOP model has it failing in 3. No real difference there, only prolonging the misery.
The Freedom model has this country prospering, not failing.
Again: The battle is Control vs Freedom. Which side are you on?
Daniel N. Adams is having trouble with the word verification program and asked me to copy his comment.
Daniel N. Adams:
This is a problem the Libertarian party has had and the freedom movement will continue to have. Those of us that have been in the "Freedom Fighting" business for a while can attest to it (for most of us behaved similarly at one time or another). However, instead of attacking them, we are going to have to come up with a way to help folks, like Jeff, make the transition.
When people finally see the light that neither the Republican nor Democratic parties are and have not been their "friends" and are not what they espouse to be... it pisses people off to a point that it is going to take some time and assistance for those recently awakened to get back in control of their emotional outburst. People feel so hurt and betrayed, combined with the feeling of "How could I have been so gullible?", that some tend to go to the extreme from time to time in lashing out against those that they see are to blame. Some react by becoming political recluses. However, most, in the American tradition, become fighters.
The problem is, that at first, they become fighters with a hair pin trigger towards the rhetorical extreme. We saw this with the Ron Paul republicans. Even though they were physically harmless, at the drop of the hat , some were willing to, rhetorically speaking, grab one by the lapels and scream in the faces of those that "didn't get it." Many who have voted republicans all their lives, all of a sudden saw their own party as as much of the problem as their past opposition. Some were completely new to politics, for in their past, they weren't involved and just trusted that their elected official would do what's right for America. But events of late have led them to be more frugal in the trust giving business, and they got involved.
I agree that this behavior doesn't help the cause. But I also understand why the behavior happens; frustration combined with a little since of guilt. I also understand that we'll be seeing more of it in the future.
Especially as more and more people come to realize that even though personal freedom and liberty are very difficult to obtain, it usually takes a revolutionary war, the Democratic Party seems to be willing to easily take them away for the "common good" or "for the children" and the Republican party, willy nilly take them without serious discussion, in the name of "national security" (or cooperate security), or either of them for some "crisis" that they deem freedom grabbing as a "necessity." As more and more discover what's happening, they will lash out in a similar fashion.
I don't fault them for being misled or for their initial behavior once they become aware, for I understood and it is understandable. However, I do see it as something the Libertarian Party and the freedom movement will have to work hard to come up with a way to help people like Jeff make that transition, so that they don't hurt the cause and/or their own credibility. Because we, the party, needs them and they need us.... and America, needs all the freedom lovers she can get, if she is to survive.
I think there is a great deal of wisdom in Daniel's comment.
It took me 20 years to go from your standard college liberal to deep into libertarian territory to a moderate with what I describe as a libertarian filter.
20 years and I still consider myself growing. And learning. And never quite sure where the journey will take me next.
It's not about this moment, it's about every moment. Or to get even more zen, it's not about where you are or where you are going but simply going.
One more thought I'd like to tag on here.
To often, the traditional parties have painted libertarians as a monolithic caricature.
As I've written before, it is simply not true.
But the bottom line is "we" should not make it easy for "them" to cast this aspersion.
Post a Comment