Ipecac said:
Geez, I wonder why people think non-Libertarians don't have a sense of humor and irony?
Browne's commercial was clearly humorous. Badnarik's is clearly ironic because it was largely these intrusive foreign policies which benefitted the enemies of these terrorists which made them target the WTC and the Pentagon in the first place.
Evolver said:
I know you're joking, but just in case someone takes you seriously, flip-flopping is when a politician switches positions back and forth as it becomes politically convenient; witness John Kerry's ever-shifting stance on war. Badnarik was convinced that a position he had held before, and rather passionately at that, was just plain wrong, based on the evidence that was presented to him.
Ipecac
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2002
- Messages
- 1,846
shanek said:
Sense of humor and irony? After Oklahoma City and 9/11, a politician using the idea of blowing up a building to try to get votes is just clueless. I don't care what party they're from, this doesn't speak well of their intelligence and judgment.
Ipecac said:
Okay, first of all, if you'd bothered to actually think about it you would have seen that Browne's campaign ad would have had to be the 2000 campaign, so it was before 9/11. Also, Badnarik is making a corrolation between the two events to make an ironic point, and you can hardly do that with an event that hasn't happened yet.
Ipecac
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2002
- Messages
- 1,846
shanek said:
I had thought about it. Browne's campaign making a joke out of blowing up a federal building post-Oklahoma City was in bad taste. Same with Badnarik's ironic point.
The Libertarian party has a problem because many people consider them to be radical, anti-government kooks. These types of ads do nothing to dispel that image. Surely you can agree that these types of images are not going to attract mainstream voters?
Well, I guess by that argument, any movie or TV show or commercial showing a sinking ship is in bad taste since the Titanic, any showing train wrecks are in bad taste since the Great Crush Collision, and Wile E. Coyote cartoons are in bad taste since the death of Karl Wallenda.
Give me a break!
Give me a break!
shanek said:
Umm...uhh...you do realize that timing is the important factor here? That WWII or Vietnam computer games are popular now when they would've been in incredibly bad taste 20 or 40 years ago? That the fact that something is fresh in peoples' memories might be in some small way relevant here?
Jeremy
The problem I have is that if every thread gets turned into a debate about Libertarianism then there are no issues discussed.
Could we have one big Libertarian debate thread?
This one was about the Republican party lying to their own people to pass a bill.
Could we have one big Libertarian debate thread?
This one was about the Republican party lying to their own people to pass a bill.
peptoabysmal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2002
- Messages
- 3,466
shanek said:
You mean the one with this disclaimer?
He's not running for office, is he?
Er. Don't know him, sorry. Paranoid was the best album that Black Sabbath ever put out.
Is that what kicking the U.N. out and blowing up the building would do? Why didn't we think of that before? America will not turn into Switzerland in our lifetimes and we all know it. Nothing is wrong with private voluntary charity unless you call upon it to rebuild a country that our government declared war on and made a promise to rebuild.
See what I mean? If a candidate from any other party used something like this for a campaign, could you imagine the media fallout?
That's class? Most politicians instinctively know that talking about fringe conspiracy theories is political suicide.
What I'm talking about is that I think Libertarians have some darned good ideas (or should I say ideals?), but your candidates really should learn how to play the game, and they also have to realize that they aren't going to turn over what has been established in the last 200 years or so in one term. It takes time and patience to effect any real and lasting change. Libertarians just seem a bit too eager to me to start tearing everything down and start over from scratch (my perception). AFAIK tearing everything down and rebuilding IS the right thing to do, but it just won't happen.
peptoabysmal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2002
- Messages
- 3,466
subgenius said:
Yeah, and we're not happy about it, okay? Got any alternatives? Please don't say John F*ing Kerry.
E.J.Armstrong
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2002
- Messages
- 3,806
Please tell me this is a joke. Everyone in Europe realises that is the definition of politicians.
Enough of the derail, now back to the topic:
WASHINGTON, March 24 — The chief Medicare actuary, Richard S. Foster, told Congress on Wednesday that last June he provided the White House with data indicating that prescription drug legislation would cost 25 percent to 50 percent more than the Bush administration's public estimates. That information did not make its way to Congress for six more months.
Mr. Foster said he had shared his cost estimates with Doug Badger, the president's special assistant for health policy, and with James C. Capretta, associate director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. But he said that Thomas A. Scully, who was then administrator of the Medicare program, directed him to withhold the information from Congress, citing orders from the White House in one instance.
...
Mr. Foster was calm and even-tempered in his testimony. "I did not especially want to be fired, but I was not afraid of it," he said. Last summer, he said, "I ultimately decided to resign in protest." But he added, "the staff talked me out of that."
Mr. Scully denies threatening Mr. Foster, but confirms having told him to withhold certain information from Congress.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/25/politics/25MEDI.html
There's a clear pattern. Fast and loose with facts. Get people to tell you what you want to hear. Ends justify means.
EPA report. Highway bill. WMD. Medicare bill.
WASHINGTON, March 24 — The chief Medicare actuary, Richard S. Foster, told Congress on Wednesday that last June he provided the White House with data indicating that prescription drug legislation would cost 25 percent to 50 percent more than the Bush administration's public estimates. That information did not make its way to Congress for six more months.
Mr. Foster said he had shared his cost estimates with Doug Badger, the president's special assistant for health policy, and with James C. Capretta, associate director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. But he said that Thomas A. Scully, who was then administrator of the Medicare program, directed him to withhold the information from Congress, citing orders from the White House in one instance.
...
Mr. Foster was calm and even-tempered in his testimony. "I did not especially want to be fired, but I was not afraid of it," he said. Last summer, he said, "I ultimately decided to resign in protest." But he added, "the staff talked me out of that."
Mr. Scully denies threatening Mr. Foster, but confirms having told him to withhold certain information from Congress.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/25/politics/25MEDI.html
There's a clear pattern. Fast and loose with facts. Get people to tell you what you want to hear. Ends justify means.
EPA report. Highway bill. WMD. Medicare bill.
shanek said:
Enough that depicting the demolition of a federal building is probably not the best idea. 9/11 will be over three years old by the next election, and it will sure be in people's memories. The Oklahoma City bombing wasn't on the same level as the WTC destruction, of course, but as far as I know no one is <strike>depicting</strike> threatening the collapse of landmark New York buildings in their campaign. Well, except Badnarik of course.
There's a substantial difference between five years ago and thirty, sixty, or ninety years ago. In general, it's a good idea to make sure your target audience won't be old enough to have been personally affected by the type of event depicted. Really, this seems like common sense.
Jeremy
peptoabysmal said:
He was a very prominent Libertarian Presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000; he broadcasts a very successful libertarian radio show, will speak at the 2004 Libertarian National Convention, and is involved in a prominent libertarian organization. Perhaps you'd like to stop evading and answer the question?
He's just one example, BTW. Feel free to select others; Gary Nolan, for example, since he seems to be the one who will likely win the nomination in May.
Uh-huh. Nice argument. Brief, but riddled with fallacies.
As much as I agree that we have a responsibility for what happens in Iraq, what could we really do there that won't end up making the situation worse? I think if we had any sense we'd make Iraq a Republic with states drawn along ethnic lines and equal representation in a small central government. But that's not likely to happen.
No, not really. It's the IRS building. It's not like it's a hospital or a daycare center. It's something that people really wouldn't mind seeing go.
Yes, admitting that you're wrong when confronted with the evidence is class. But apparently you don't want to give any Libertarian even an inch.
If we do that, we would betray those good ideas and ideals you just mentioned.
No one's saying they will. And it's really what's been established in the last 50-100 years.
And we're doing that, having the patience and taking the time to build the movement from the grass roots up, instead of cheating like the Reform or Green parties and running a celebrity as a candidate, which gets you media attention but doesn't really help get your ideas to the public or get elected. Rarely do you get a Jesse Ventura, who has the celebrity status and the idea, but you can't depend on that.
Ipecac
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2002
- Messages
- 1,846
Shanek,
Just to clarify.
You don't see anything inappropriate, questionable, or ill-advised with a presidential candidate running an ad depicting the willful destruction of a federal building within a few years after Oklahoma City?
On the practical side, do you think such an ad would be effective in garnering votes? Is there a downside to the candidate airing such an ad?
Just to clarify.
You don't see anything inappropriate, questionable, or ill-advised with a presidential candidate running an ad depicting the willful destruction of a federal building within a few years after Oklahoma City?
On the practical side, do you think such an ad would be effective in garnering votes? Is there a downside to the candidate airing such an ad?
Ipecac said:
Considering that the ad got a huge response the few times it aired, with hardly any complaints at all (if any), I'd have to say, "No." His "Battered Voter Syndrome" ad got a LOT of complaints, but his IRS ad didn't. Neither did his Social Security ad.