Who scares you more?

[Mechaman]

Well yeah, but we're HUGE parts of both organizations and they ain't going if we aren't willing to go.  Well, we HAVE to go if a fellow NATO state is attacked.

So lets say Israel is on the brink and some of our buddies in Europe decide they don't want to see another holocaust and attempt to assist the Israelis, would you be up for assisting them?  What if they just wanted to use our transportation infrastructure?  Would you be cool with using C5s to ship German Leopards to Tel Aviv?

We should drop out of both organizations. The US should be a symbol of neutrality the world over. Unless American lives are lost, I don't see any reason for intervention.

Your trade positions suggest pro-interventionism.

There is a difference between interventionism of the trade and interventionism of the gun.

That, in turn, suggests a lack of neutrality.

What me and dead0man are discussing is US military intervention, whether through aid or direct. Trade is a natural function of society, any nation that doesn't trade is on the fast track to extinction. I can not same the same for the nation that uses intervention of force when it doesn't concern them.

[dead0man]

There is a difference between interventionism of the trade and interventionism of the gun.

I'm confused, are you anti free trade?  If so that is much more non-libertarian than being pro-Isreal....at least to me.


(also, your sig is WAY to tall)

[Alexander Hamilton]

Well yeah, but we're HUGE parts of both organizations and they ain't going if we aren't willing to go.  Well, we HAVE to go if a fellow NATO state is attacked.

So lets say Israel is on the brink and some of our buddies in Europe decide they don't want to see another holocaust and attempt to assist the Israelis, would you be up for assisting them?  What if they just wanted to use our transportation infrastructure?  Would you be cool with using C5s to ship German Leopards to Tel Aviv?

We should drop out of both organizations. The US should be a symbol of neutrality the world over. Unless American lives are lost, I don't see any reason for intervention.

Your trade positions suggest pro-interventionism.

There is a difference between interventionism of the trade and interventionism of the gun.

That, in turn, suggests a lack of neutrality.

What me and dead0man are discussing is US military intervention, whether through aid or direct. Trade is a natural function of society, any nation that doesn't trade is on the fast track to extinction. I can not same the same for the nation that uses intervention of force when it doesn't concern them.

I understand that. But I am referring to you assertion that the US should be a symbol of neutrality. I see your current idea of neutrality (based on stated positions) as being US in 1939-1941. It may not be true, but is easy to infer from previous statements.

[Alexander Hamilton]

There is a difference between interventionism of the trade and interventionism of the gun.

I'm confused, are you anti free trade?  If so that is much more non-libertarian than being pro-Isreal....at least to me.


(also, your sig is WAY to tall)

He said it's okay to use trade as leverage against nations that committ violations of human rights -a form of interventionism, I believe.

[Mechaman]

There is a difference between interventionism of the trade and interventionism of the gun.

I'm confused, are you anti free trade?  If so that is much more non-libertarian than being pro-Isreal....at least to me.


(also, your sig is WAY to tall)

I will admit I'm hesitant for freely signing away on free trade agreements if the nations in question have a poor record on human rights. I have never admitted to being a pure blooded libertarian.

[Mechaman]

Well yeah, but we're HUGE parts of both organizations and they ain't going if we aren't willing to go.  Well, we HAVE to go if a fellow NATO state is attacked.

So lets say Israel is on the brink and some of our buddies in Europe decide they don't want to see another holocaust and attempt to assist the Israelis, would you be up for assisting them?  What if they just wanted to use our transportation infrastructure?  Would you be cool with using C5s to ship German Leopards to Tel Aviv?

We should drop out of both organizations. The US should be a symbol of neutrality the world over. Unless American lives are lost, I don't see any reason for intervention.

Your trade positions suggest pro-interventionism.

There is a difference between interventionism of the trade and interventionism of the gun.

That, in turn, suggests a lack of neutrality.

What me and dead0man are discussing is US military intervention, whether through aid or direct. Trade is a natural function of society, any nation that doesn't trade is on the fast track to extinction. I can not same the same for the nation that uses intervention of force when it doesn't concern them.

I understand that. But I am referring to you assertion that the US should be a symbol of neutrality. I see your current idea of neutrality (based on stated positions) as being US in 1939-1941. It may not be true, but is easy to infer from previous statements.

Minus the part about secretly helping one side over the other, yes.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I'd like to point out to dead0man and Mechman, and numerous others, that libertarianism and the Liibertarian Party will never grow if it continues to be defined as real libertarianism and "moralf****try." It is the equivalent of RINO and DINO purging (aka political suicide).

[dead0man]

There is a difference between interventionism of the trade and interventionism of the gun.

I'm confused, are you anti free trade?  If so that is much more non-libertarian than being pro-Isreal....at least to me.


(also, your sig is WAY to tall)

He said it's okay to use trade as leverage against nations that committ violations of human rights -a form of interventionism, I believe.

Ahh, I agree with Mechman then.  We shouldn't trade with states that are horrible to their people and that includes the PRC and the Fundies on the Arabian peninsula even it means a drop in the quality of life of Americans and others in the West.

I will admit I'm hesitant for freely signing away on free trade agreements if the nations in question have a poor record on human rights.

Agreed.

[Alexander Hamilton]

There is a difference between interventionism of the trade and interventionism of the gun.

I'm confused, are you anti free trade?  If so that is much more non-libertarian than being pro-Isreal....at least to me.


(also, your sig is WAY to tall)

He said it's okay to use trade as leverage against nations that committ violations of human rights -a form of interventionism, I believe.

Ahh, I agree with Mechman then.  We shouldn't trade with states that are horrible to their people and that includes the PRC and the Fundies on the Arabian peninsula even it means a drop in the quality of life of Americans and others in the West.

I will admit I'm hesitant for freely signing away on free trade agreements if the nations in question have a poor record on human rights.

Agreed.

I don't disagree with that position, ftr.

[dead0man]

I'd like to point out to dead0man and Mechman, and numerous others, that libertarianism and the Liibertarian Party will never grow if it continues to be defined as real libertarianism and "moralf****try." It is the equivalent of RINO and DINO purging (aka political suicide).

I don't expect the Libertarian Party to ever grow.  I expect (hope?) the Dems or the Pubs will turn more towards libertarianism to win people like me over or a new party springs up after the death of one of the big boys with a strong streak of liberty and small govt.

[Mechaman]

I'd like to point out to dead0man and Mechman, and numerous others, that libertarianism and the Liibertarian Party will never grow if it continues to be defined as real libertarianism and "moralf****try." It is the equivalent of RINO and DINO purging (aka political suicide).

I don't expect the Libertarian Party to ever grow.  I expect (hope?) the Dems or the Pubs will turn more towards libertarianism to win people like me over or a new party springs up after the death of one of the big boys with a strong streak of liberty and small govt.

Exactly.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I'd like to point out to dead0man and Mechman, and numerous others, that libertarianism and the Liibertarian Party will never grow if it continues to be defined as real libertarianism and "moralf****try." It is the equivalent of RINO and DINO purging (aka political suicide).

I don't expect the Libertarian Party to ever grow.  I expect (hope?) the Dems or the Pubs will turn more towards libertarianism to win people like me over or a new party springs up after the death of one of the big boys with a strong streak of liberty and small govt.

Exactly.

Ideology as well.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Both are just as bad, but a far right nutjob is more likely to have a gun than a far left nutjob.

The far left nutjob will be too high on LSD to do anything, now that I think about it.

[Scam of God]

Well we all have our idiots (I keep mine in my back pocket) the far right just has more people willing to admit to being far right.

I still don't really understand why it's funny to be libertarian and pro-Isreal, but I suppose that should be left for another thread.  This thread is about making fun of people on the extreme ends of a made up metric and denying the existence of half of them.

Because pro-Israeli intervention is a violation of the principle of the self-sovereignty of peoples - the same argument which you might use against letting the United Nations dictate laws within America's borders is the self-same one to be used against American Zionism. Moreover, our Zionist foreign policy entails the acceptance and promotion of a military-industrial complex larger than every other in the history of the world, paid for by my taxes in the name of a cause I don't support. Let Israel burn if it keeps the State from violating the sanctity of my possessions. 

Not, of course, that you'd understand or accept this, because you aren't a libertarian. But you have to embrace Zionism because it makes your political allies cream their pants, and your entire political raison d'etre is servicing the corrupt fusionist-right establishment with your mouth.

[Frodo]

The far-right -these are the guys who are actually capable of assassinating someone, whether it's the members of a liberal church, an abortionist, or even the President of the United States (especially if he happens to be a black Democrat). 

[Sensei]

The far right, simply because they house the vast majority of the scary birther-types.

[Torie]

The faction which has more power at any given time.

[Ronnie]

The faction which has more power at any given time.

^^

The terms "far-left" and "far-right" are too unspecific.  By far-left, do you mean Dennis Kucinich or Fidel Castro; and by far-right, do you mean Jim De-Mint or Hitler?

[Psychic Octopus]

The faction which has more power at any given time.

Yes.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The faction which has more power at any given time.

Yes.

More often than not it's the far right, no matter who is President or controlling Congress.

[Ronnie]

The faction which has more power at any given time.

Yes.

More often than not it's the far right, no matter who is President or controlling Congress.

What about right now?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The faction which has more power at any given time.

Yes.

More often than not it's the far right, no matter who is President or controlling Congress.

What about right now?

Well it seems to me the minority is doing one helluva job of mucking up the filibuster proof majority. 

[Ronnie]

The faction which has more power at any given time.

Yes.

More often than not it's the far right, no matter who is President or controlling Congress.

What about right now?

Well it seems to me the minority is doing one helluva job of mucking up the filibuster proof majority. 

Well, that is true.  This really seems like a lose-lose for the Dems.  I think that if they eliminate the filibuster, they will receive a lot of backlash, but on the other hand, if they don't, it will be much harder for them to get any of their legislation passed.

Well, at least it's good for us Repubs.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

The faction which has more power at any given time.

This is effectively the best answer I think.

Though concerning France today, even if that's the far-left which has the most of influence here, the far-right being for one part eaten by the majority, for the other part (the most extreme, Le Pen followers) with less and less influence in the population, I'd say that this is the far-right that scares me more by their attitude, by what they can say and propose, than the far-left, especially since Besancenot, the guy can be harsh but remains very "middle class", politically correct in some ways I'd say.

[pogo stick]

Far Left. But not by a huge amount.