The Cellar - View Single Post

Urbane Guerrilla · 01-01-2006, 01:04 AM

No, HM, Clinton wasn't remotely a libertarian of any stripe: his political instincts were formed in an essentially one-party State, which isn't going to make a libertarian. Even worse, the only thing Clinton ever cared about was the convenience of Clinton -- a bad habit in a President. This is how you can explain both his Administration's approach to foreign policy and to domestic policy: what conveniences the Clintons? Just the most conspicuous proof of this is in the behavior of the senior echelon of the DoJ during the Clinton era -- they largely confined themselves to running interference for the one-party-state operations of the Clintons.

Over and above the objections of those who think they have solid grounds to object on, I overtly assess George W. Bush as substantially more libertarian (small L) than his too-statist predecessor. Because of this contrast, as well as the incompetence of the national Democratic Party in general, his predecessor never got my vote, while GWB did, and repeatedly. The Republicans are just more satisfactory in time of war, and it's been that way since the late Sixties.

I haven't seen this aired, but is not what the Bush Administration trying to do is function under war powers? This would be simpler had a formal state of war been declared, true, but does it not behoove us to all actually prosecute the war on Terror? I think it does, yet there are those who would confine their efforts to fighting a war on Republicans instead. WTF, you guys?! Do you have even the smallest hope of explaining and justifying that to a skeptic like me? Lame, half-thought reasons might be enough to satisfy your fellow travelers, but how about the people who regard your behavior with stony expressions?

01-01-2006, 01:04 AM	#105
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	No, HM, Clinton wasn't remotely a libertarian of any stripe: his political instincts were formed in an essentially one-party State, which isn't going to make a libertarian. Even worse, the only thing Clinton ever cared about was the convenience of Clinton -- a bad habit in a President. This is how you can explain both his Administration's approach to foreign policy and to domestic policy: what conveniences the Clintons? Just the most conspicuous proof of this is in the behavior of the senior echelon of the DoJ during the Clinton era -- they largely confined themselves to running interference for the one-party-state operations of the Clintons. Over and above the objections of those who think they have solid grounds to object on, I overtly assess George W. Bush as substantially more libertarian (small L) than his too-statist predecessor. Because of this contrast, as well as the incompetence of the national Democratic Party in general, his predecessor never got my vote, while GWB did, and repeatedly. The Republicans are just more satisfactory in time of war, and it's been that way since the late Sixties. I haven't seen this aired, but is not what the Bush Administration trying to do is function under war powers? This would be simpler had a formal state of war been declared, true, but does it not behoove us to all actually prosecute the war on Terror? I think it does, yet there are those who would confine their efforts to fighting a war on Republicans instead. WTF, you guys?! Do you have even the smallest hope of explaining and justifying that to a skeptic like me? Lame, half-thought reasons might be enough to satisfy your fellow travelers, but how about the people who regard your behavior with stony expressions? __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course. Last edited by Urbane Guerrilla; 01-01-2006 at 01:08 AM.