What is your political affiliation?

[justin]

I find your agreement very agreeable.

I think we are both in agreement that concensus is very agreeable to the both of us.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I agree with your analysis with regards to concensus.

My dogs agree that chicken jerky is crack for dogs and possibly the finest thing ever made.

Can we agree that a thread dedicated solely to all of our mutual agreement should be made, and many agreements made within it?

 

[Martha]

I am interested that 9 people identify themselves as Libertarian. Does your philosophy extend only to the desire not to have the government interfer in your personal life so long as you are harming no one? Or, do you want little or no government at all? If that is the case, how would you provide for and pay for roads and other infrastructure, schools, defense? Would you spend any money on social welfare? If not, why? How about dealing with issues like drug and food safety?

 

[justin]

Can we agree that a thread dedicated solely to all of our mutual agreement should be made, and many agreements made within it?

I think you'll agree with me when I say that things here have become too agreeable. Will you agree to disagree with me at some point in the future?

 

[HFWR]

I am interested that 9 people identify themselves as Libertarian. Does your philosophy extend only to the desire  not to have the government interfer in your personal life so long as you are harming no one?  Or, do you want little or no government at all?  If that is the case, how would you provide for and  pay for roads and other infrastructure, schools, defense?  Would you spend any money on social welfare?  If not, why?  How about dealing with issues like drug and food safety? 

Call myself "independent" because I'm schizoid a little of each...

Yes, I know schizophrenia is a misnomer for multiple-personality disorder...

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I agree that things may have been overly agreeable. I will in fact heartily agree to disagree at some future time. I agree that too much agreement may be disagreeable.

 

[HFWR]

Shouldn't this be in the drunk/stoned thread?

Feel free to disagree agreeably...

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I'm neither, but if a majority believes that to be the case, I'm agreeable.

 

[justin]

Shouldn't this be in the drunk/stoned thread?

I agree.

 

[tozz]

The corporate GOP types don't have to concern themselves with early retirement. They have already made enough to be secure for life many times over. They have other things to worry about, such as maintaining an illusion that they care about the social issues important to the Guns, God, and (anti) Gays crowd, in order to maintain the GOP electoral majority that lines their pockets. So you won't find them here.

The 20% of the Republican Party that makes up the aforementioned Guns, God, and Gays gang probably lacks the intellectual horsepower to turn on a computer, let alone worry about retirement. Why retire when the rapture is nigh. Besides, a segment that consistently votes against their economic interest is suddenly going to obsess over SWR's?

Simple actually.

At first it surprised me to see there are more Ds than Rs since one would think, on average, Rs make more money than Ds and thus have more of a possibility to get to FIRE.

 

[TomSimpsonAZ]

I am interested that 9 people identify themselves as Libertarian. Does your philosophy extend only to the desire  not to have the government interfer in your personal life so long as you are harming no one?  Or, do you want little or no government at all?  If that is the case, how would you provide for and  pay for roads and other infrastructure, schools, defense?  Would you spend any money on social welfare?  If not, why?  How about dealing with issues like drug and food safety? 

For me it has to do with the diminishing marginal return of organizations as they grow too large. I feel that things need to be kept on a smaller scale. The federal government should only be there to defend the country, not provide subsidies and what not. The private sector would be relied upon to provide a lot of services efficiently, but through competition, we would eventually seen quite an improvement.

I know it sounds a little idealistic, but take the time to research the works of those who support this line of thinking. It is extremely Jeffersonian and you will find quite a few nobel prize winning economists with libertarian views. The websites in my signature are a great place to start. Obviously, there are many different levels of libertarianism, just like any other school of thought, but I find that almost anyone who takes as good of a look at it as they do republican and democrat, usually finds themselves much more aligned with typically libertarian views.

Most people just get hung up on the "but they will never win" part of it, i really don't know what to say to those people other than, making a choice between the other two candidates really doesn't matter either, they are cast from the same mold.

 

[haha]

Anyone notice the Dems have the highest percentage... 

Government workers and Minnesotans. Both well represented here numerically and with respect to articulateness.

Ha

 

[Nords]

Though we have been through many "wars" in my lifetime, this is the only one I can recall where officers and soldiers alike have been as outspoken in their criticism.

Where the heck were you during Vietnam, LF?

I was in elementary & high school but I think the history books differ from your impression. One of the most senior & outspoken warriors of the last 50 years is Hack Hackworth in "About Face" or "Steel My Soldiers' Hearts". And John Vann spent more time in Vietnam as a "civilian" than an officer but the list should include "A Bright Shining Lie"

Bush can dress up in all the flight suits he wants to, but he was still AWOL during Vietnam.

FWIW the Navy Reserve has greatly tightened its muster procedures for drill weekends. Maybe that's just a coincidence, but my spouse tells the whiners feedback producers that she doesn't want to be dealing with FOX News or Dan Rather 35 years from now...

A sad story is here: http://tinyurl.com/98k33. Using body armor purchased at soldiers' own cost ($6k) "could" lead to disciplinary action and loss of death benefits. Is this a great country or what?

I can't get that link to come up. Would you mind posting the entire URL, even if it's wider than TH's monitor?

As a guy with a BS in Political Science (talk about a prophetic oxymoron!!!)

Quote from a Rickover interview:
"Political science? What good is that?! Are you going to run for division officer?!?"

The nuclear-power candidate under discussion joined the Air Force.

 

[ladelfina]

I was a pre-teen during the Vietnam protest era. What I meant was not that there weren't any dissenting voices, but that there weren't any visible protesters 2 years in, à la Cindy Sheehan, in 1961 (the first American casualties occurring in 1959, from what I understand). Back then, for better or for worse, America did not have even the partial "real time" access to events that the media gives us now, two years into the Iraq action. Also, the "cold war" point of view pushed the protests back/forward in time -- the real protesting took ten years or more to reach its peak. Thanks for the book links to help improve our understanding.

Sorry, I was trying to be courteous with the tiny URL, but the link didn't work for me, either.

The link for "Soldiers for the Truth" is here:
http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?action...nKey=cmpDefense&htmlCategoryID=30&htmlId=4514

This has been making the rounds elsewhere as well:
http://doctorscience.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/16/133331/558
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060117/cm_huffpost/013938

The Kos post offers a sickening graph of the value of Armor Holdings, Inc.-- the exclusive official body armor supplier--a, if not the, majority stockholder of which has given the Republicans around $600,000 to date.

Follow the money.

Another sad commentary is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/o...d5b25ed71&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

I doubt that any Republican/conservative would have dared try these tactics in the '60s or '70s.. but it's a whole new ball game, people! It's not just about 'politics' anymore..

The world to me seems upside down when the "chicken hawks" can get away so easily with impugning the motives of those who actually risked their lives and fought bravely for our country. It is a sad day when they have to resort to these measures to maintain their grip on power.

I'll leave you with this telling quote:

The Bush White House sees itself as part of the "faith-based community," consciously rejecting empirical reality and inconvenient facts, considering these to be the province of what it calls the "reality-based community." As New York Times journalist Ron Suskind chillingly recounts: "In the summer of 2002 I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'" (Ron Suskind, "Without a Doubt," the New York Times Magazine , October 17, 2004.)

http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/voter_fraud.html

 

[TomSimpsonAZ]

Government workers and Minnesotans. Both well represented here numerically and with respect to articulateness.

Ha

Ya know, I didn't think of that, I guess that is a pretty important point to ponder.

I'm only 24, what the hell is a pension?