Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[xoxoxoBruce]

Most definitly... even Radar would sign up for that one.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

An invasion is the single strongest justification for war, by all measures. So if my nation were invaded and I found myself courageous enough, I would attack the invader.

I agree, if invaded I have no issue with killing all invaders and those cooperating with them until the invasion is over.
That means all invaders are out of the nation, no other terms.
Self-defense is fully justifiable in my definition of pacifism.

[DanaC]

Damn right.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Bruce, there's never been a fascist duck.

Man, about any smilie would work after a line like that!

And I'm here to tell you what you must do to be good, and that's not by sticking up for the undemocrats. And if you fuckin' want to be a democracy-unfriendly shithead just to exhibit the bullheadedness of your own ego, don't get upset if I call you on it, Bruce. You'd do the same were our debating positions reversed.

[Griff]

.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And I'm here to tell you what you must do to be good, and that's not by sticking up for the undemocrats. And if you fuckin' want to be a democracy-unfriendly shithead just to exhibit the bullheadedness of your own ego, don't get upset if I call you on it, Bruce. You'd do the same were our debating positions reversed.

Undemocrats? Oh, Republicans. No I won't stick up for them.

Then again, I won't stick up for the Democrats either. I'm registered Independent so I can bitch about or support, both of them.

Your, Republicans=good, Democrats=bad, the world must conform or die, rhetoric is just...well... Ducky.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Bruce, I'd appreciate your not talking like a full-on fool. Republicans, quotha!

And I have fifteen years of disgust and disappointment with the Democrats to back my opinion up. When was the last time a Democrat was selling something I wanted to buy -- enough that I bought it? I've remarked on how long it's been, before.

At the moment, I hear one Democratic Congressman with any sense, and that's Senator Lieberman. He is wise enough not to wish for substitutes for victory. The rest of the bunch -- ashes. Dust.

The Republicans, at least, consistently believe in the value of an assertive foreign policy. Having seen mush from the wimp Carter, and the actions of Clinton who as Presidential timber goes was balsa wood, I reckon the Republican paradigm is not only less trouble but actually less dangerous. But Republican notions of domestic policy and mine don't mesh as much, save that more of them are pro-gun, which indicates they really mean it when they say they're antigenocide and anticrime. The big problem I have with the national Republican leadership is they do so little to shrink Federal bureaucracy and officious overregulation -- or the Federal deficit, which is a continuous debaser of the currency through being a driver of inflation. This is why I'm a Libertarian rather than a Republican. The smaller the public sector, the less parasitic drag there is on the economy.

The Republicans, just like me, like kicking sundry dictators and oppressor states right in the chops. Can't imagine why you won't stand up and cheer that, at least... actually, I can imagine, but the imaginings DON'T do you the least credit, Bruce. They would cast you too far into the tw camp -- and you don't like that anti-American son of a bitch either.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

This is why I'm a Libertarian rather than a Republican.

LP platform
IV. Foreign Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. Provision of such defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere.

The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by Griff

LP platform
IV. Foreign Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. Provision of such defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere.

So far, I agree.

The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.

Got some issues with this part though.

[xoxoxoBruce]

So everybody is on board with "unrestricted immigration"?

[Griff]

I'm expecting a huge fight on that next time around, but I'm still an open borders guy.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Bruce, I'd appreciate your not talking like a full-on fool.

Gosh, I better reread what I wrote if you're saying I sounding like a full-on fool. After all, you are the expert in that category, as you keep demonstrating.

Well I do agree the Democrats have been weak in conducting fascist campaigns to make as many enemies as possible. They seem to have lost that fire that got us into Korea and Vietnam, why with a couple more years they might have been able to draw China into Vietnam, too. But alas, the Republicans took over and lost them both.

And you are also right about the Republican lack of desire to shrink Federal bureaucracy, officious overregulation and the Federal deficit.
Remember the SURPLUS? The Republicans thankfully took care of that scary monster for us. ... by the cleverly contrived... er, conceived plan to partner the public treasury and private Hallibur... uh, industry, to save the taxpayer the expense of building more of those expensive vaults to contain that nasty old surplus.
Whew, that was close.

Quotha? What the hell is that? Oh yes, forsooth. As in;
Forsooth! what light through yonder window breaks?
It's the 5 cell maglight of the Feds, without warrant,
and Fatherland Security with gizmos set on stun.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Griff

I'm expecting a huge fight on that next time around, but I'm still an open borders guy.

That's because you've got attack goats and gators in the moat.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

So everybody is on board with "unrestricted immigration"?

Count me out!

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Nothing we do north of the border will materially affect illegal immigration, even if we construct two thousand miles of fence. It does not strike at the root of the problem: Mexico does not have a middle class. The opportunity to bootstrap yourself up is north of the Rio Grande.

Griff, don't become too attached to Article IV, there: the very minute the Libertarian Party accedes to a position of national responsibility, it becomes a dead letter. The most to be hoped for is some reduction of number and type of alliances entered into and cutting off foreign aid to one or two dubious candidates before the Department of State convinces a Libertarian Administration of the foreign-policy effectiveness of bribery.

Too, there's also the matter -- one not examined by you, among others -- of just how libertarianism may come to those places, generally despotisms, where libertarianism would bring the greatest benefits to the greatest number. Despots do not respond well to moral examples or righteous indignation. I figure it'll take shooting -- done by people who believe in libertarianism enough to do that.