Nobamacare

A three-judge DC Circuit Court of Appeals panel is about to rule in Halbig v. Burwell. The case, using unclear legislative language, is challenging the existence of federal insurance subsidies which generally put the “affordable” in the Affordable Care Act.

Two of the judges, both Republican appointees, expressed varying degrees of sympathy for the challengers’ case during the open court hearing.

The ACA was left mostly unharmed by the Supreme Court’s ruling against its universal contraception mandate if the majority’s statement that the ruling is very narrow applying only to a very specific subset of businesses does, in fact, come to pass.

At issue is whether the statute permits the federal exchange (which serves residents of 34 states which opted not to build their own) to dole out premium tax credits. The challengers seized on an ambiguity in the language of the statute which says the subsidies are to be provided by “an Exchange established by the State.” The Federal exchanges are not, by definition, state exchanges.

“The administration’s loss in the Hobby Lobby case is a bitter pill to swallow, but it is not a lethal threat to Obamacare. For critics of the law, Halbig is everything that Hobby Lobby is not. Where Hobby Lobby exempts only closely held corporations from a portion of the ACA rules, Halbig could allow an mass exodus from the program. And like all insurance programs, it only works if large numbers are insured so that the risks are widely spread. Halbig could leave Obamacare on life support β€” and lead to another showdown in the Supreme Court.” writes George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0701-turley-obamacare-subsidy-halbig-20140701-story.html

The good news is that the Obama Administration would petition for an en-banc ruling in which the entire D.C. circuit would review the case and vote on it. There are 11 judges: 7 Democratic appointees; 4 Republican appointees.

The bad news is that the conservative think tank, The Cato Institute, crafted the legal argument that is the cornerstone of the case and is working on three other similar cases wherein language in the complex law is being used to undo it. And, there is no doubt that if the en-banc ruling were to go against the conservatives, they will appeal which means the Supreme Court could get yet another chance to scuttle ACA.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/halbig-obamacare-ruling-looms-dc-circuit

Previous articleThe Weekend Music Thread-Independence
Next articleMother Nature At Her Best
Proud to be an Independent Progressive. I am a progressive- a one time Eisenhower Republican (from 1965 through 2004)who is now a Democrat. I live in a very RED STATE and am a community activist with a very BLUE AGENDA. I was a professor of history, and am now a researcher and gentleman farmer. My political positions are mixed - thus my preferred identification as a Progressive Independent. I am conservative on matters of military intervention, in regard to abortion, immigration, the public school system, gun rights, taxation, voter ID. But I am a traditional conservative, a Buckley, National Review, Eisenhower Republican..... I am a liberal on matters of health care care, funding education, taxation (yes one can be both liberal and conservative on this), civil rights, and alternative energy development/climate change.

216
Leave a Comment

Please Login to comment
21 Comment threads
195 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
20 Comment authors
MopshellS-ManMisterbadexampleSallyTSueInCa Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Diane Merriam
Guest

@SueInCa From your link

Found: Libertarians’ “Lying To Liberals” Guide Book

The title of your article says Guide Book, but when you read it you find that it’s about two articles published in Reason magazine in 1977. I have told you repeatedly that there is no such “book.” Not then and not now. Repeating something over and over doesn’t make it true. Classical manipulative technique.

“a REASON article headlined “Marketing Libertarianism” written by Moshe Kroy, and published in the February 1977 issue.”

“Anyway, just in case “Marketing Libertarianism” hadn’t got the rulebook out widely enough, REASON ran a second article later in 1977 headlined “How To Get Converts Left & Right: Political Cross-Dressing Is The Answer.”

Two magazine articles from 1977. Can you not tell the difference between a headline calling something a book and it actually being one?

It’s got all the right emotional push buttons, Ayn Rand and Koch Brothers in the header image. It’s laced with adjectives like “rancid” “lying” “tricks” “sheeple” “ploy” “con” “true believers” “Randroids” “snotty” “sociopaths” “marks” “front” “narcissist” “nihilism” “crap” “flak” “suckers” “slick” “tricksters” “imbecile” “cynical” “manipulative” “bullshit” “con-artist” “credulous ” “facile” “smug” “dystopia” “assholes” “hysteria” “lobby” “dupes” “gullible” “fecklessness” “fraud” “crime” “facile”

Talk about emotional manipulation, yet somehow it’s a Libertarian thing to be manipulative. Give me a break.

I went to the Reason link you put up and found the article just fine … Two pages and most of those filled with header and ads so about 1 page of actual text. Do you really think that no one is going to actually follow up on your links? Do you really think that one page is the same as a guidebook?

@monicaangela If you already have and have read the book, then how did you know to get to it using the search text “Libertarian Handbook to Manipulate Liberals” which is a phrase that isn’t anywhere in the book. Even the word “Libertarian” isn’t in the online portions and it’s only in one place in the entire 517 pages. “Liberal” shows up in 15 places just in what’s online and 20 in the whole book.

Were you the one who did the manipulation that linked that phrase to the book or were you taken in and hiding it? Those are the only two explanations I can think of that fit the facts. Especially after you said to Kes, “The book I posted is a book that these people use to learn the art of human manipulation.”

Edited to add the link again:
http://books.google.com/books?id=60WUoMnCBMsC&pg=PT201&lpg=PT201&dq=Libertarian+handbook+to+manipulate+liberals&source=bl&ots=XAEW14f0Bt&sig=4M0NrLToV0amjTRX2hLOtx6nOdQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-bnCU6fbOJSuyATroIFI&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

and it’s the first book to come up on google under that search phrase.

But it’s not a book on how to use manipulation, it’s a book on how to recognize it and defend yourself from it. If you had actually read it, you would have known that. It’s written by a very liberal Brit who is described in Author’s notes: “He is active in European environmental politics and was the successful private complainant in the European Court of Justice in several cases of national breaches of European environmental law.”

Coxall, Malcolm (2013-02-19). Human Manipulation – A Handbook (Kindle Locations 9017-9018). Malcolm Coxall. Kindle Edition.

What a hotbed of hidden Libertarianism there must be in the European environmental movement. It’s just amazing how well they hid their influence on this book. Praising examples of rioting and looting as an acceptable social response and denigrating the “capitalist aristocracy.”

Diane Merriam
Guest

@kesmarn @SueInCa @monicaangela

The three of you have been taken in by someone who tied your search phrase to a book that has no relation to what you think. So you don’t have to look it up again, here it is:
http://books.google.com/books?id=60WUoMnCBMsC&pg=PT201&lpg=PT201&dq=Libertarian+handbook+to+manipulate+liberals&source=bl&ots=XAEW14f0Bt&sig=4M0NrLToV0amjTRX2hLOtx6nOdQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-bnCU6fbOJSuyATroIFI&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

or simply:
http://books.google.com/books?id=60WUoMnCBMsC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

It’s called Human Manipulation – A Handbook, by Malcolm Coxall, edited by Gary Caswell originally published in 1985 with copyright renewed in 2013. It is a book on recognizing and protecting yourself from manipulation. It’s an interesting book and I’m about halfway through it.

You guys really got taken in.

monicaangela
Member

You are missing the point entirely. The book is not an elementary school textbook used to debate how Libertarians manipulate Liberals, it is a book discussing human manipulation, if you have almost finished it you should recognize many of the methods the Libertarian Right uses to try to manipulate the population in this nation, Liberals, Conservatives, Socialist, and all others.

Anyone can use these methods, but if you would just step back and look at what the supposed Libertarian Right movement in this nation under the auspices of people like Ayn Rand, The Koch Brothers, Ron and Rand Paul, etc., are doing, you would understand what the book is discussing and would be able to apply it to what your understanding of the Libertarian Right movement (because that is what you are, Libertarian Right, not just Libertarian) in this nation is all about.

I’ve read the book, and believe me I see how those on the right, Libertarian, Republican, Conservative or whatever they wish to call themselves, are doing. They are using many of the manipulative practices that are being discussed in the book you are almost finished reading to destroy this nation as we know it. They want this to be a plutocratic corporatocracy. You can’t just read, you have to comprehend and apply. πŸ™‚

Diane Merriam
Guest

How long is it?

monicaangela
Member

The book? Depends, for me it was relatively short, only 517 pages. If you will notice, all pages are not included in the version I linked you to. It is a good read, and a book I am proud to have in my library.

Diane Merriam
Guest

Do you have anything on TA? The Parent-Adult-Child? I remember reading that, probably 40 years ago now and haven’t seen it in a long time. That was an interesting way of looking at a lot of interactions.

monicaangela
Member

The Libertarian movement is this country has become a bastardized version of what Libertarian-ism is supposed to be. I will allow Noam Chompsky to describe what Libertarian was and has become in this nation.

So, as we can see, there are left leaning Libertarians, right leaning Libertarians, Socialist Leaning Libertarians, and confused Libertarians who have usurped Libertarian-ism and are picking and choosing the things they find in the Libertarian world platform and trying to apply them here in U.S. politics. This reminds me of how Right Wing Christian organizations manipulate religion in order to practice their predatory capitalism, nothing more.

kesmarn
Admin

Monica, Chomsky put it in a nutshell (with emphasis on the “nut” part) when he referred to the Rand Paul (Ayn Rand/Koch Bros) current brand of libertarianism as “savagery.”

The word “libertarian” might have had a more benign meaning in Europe at one time, but once Rand and the Kochs seized on it, it became the monstrosity that Chomsky says even most corporations would “never allow to happen. Because it would completely destroy the economy.”

It seems to be a political stance that says that if you have a problem with mice, the solution is to burn the house down.

Oh, and btw here’s a link to the “How to Sell Libertarianism” article that some were interested in:

https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/lying-to-liberals/

In that article is a further link to the guide for the “salesmen” selected to spread the faith: “Marketing Libertarianism,” by Moshe Kroy:

http://64.62.200.70/PERIODICAL/PDF/Reason-1977feb/30-32/

Modern American libertarianism strikes me as less a political philosophy than a religion — or maybe more accurately — a cult.

In a discussion elsewhere, I asked a group of a half dozen libertarians whom they planned to vote for in November. Just to see if they had any actual candidates in the pipeline. Not a single one of them could name one name. Not one.

Even I was surprised. Their most common answer was “anyone but the incumbent.” Do they have any clue of what kind of psychos and nincompoops they could get elected with that plan? Just as an example, here in Ohio Rep. Marcy Kaptur — an experienced, brilliant and compassionate person — was a few years ago up against Rich (“Nazi Boy”) Iott. A complete knucklehead, who spent his weekends playing dressup with a lot of other fantasists (WWII re-enactments in which he played a Nazi) and who had not the faintest notion of what policies he supported in any area. The only thing he “knew” was that “guv’mint was bad.”

What would the “vote out the incumbent” plan have gotten us there? Certainly not any improvement. Thank goodness, Kaptur crushed him in the election. Although they were very attention-grabbing — his supporters were extremely small in numbers. And I suspect are even smaller now.

monicaangela
Member

Thanks for the links Kesmarn !!! We are on the same page when it comes to this “Cult like version of Libertarian-ism.” The book I posted is a book that these people use to learn the art of human manipulation.

I see we live in the same state. I am in Ohio’s 1st Congressional district, and unfortunately represented by Steve Chabot, hopefully we will soon be rid of him.

I love Marcy Kaptur, and Rich Lott…how he even had the nerve to run against someone like Marcy is beyond me. I’m so glad she was re-elected. πŸ™‚

kesmarn
Admin

I didn’t know you were in Ohio, Monica! That’s great.

Unfortunately I was gerrymandered out of Marcy’s district by those “lovely people” who were voted in in 2010. I miss her so much. Totally ethical and so hard-working. She’s done so much to try to help this area.

And — yes — it’s a sign of Iott’s level of intelligence that he thought he was going to take that seat away from her. He lives in a total fantasy world. But then — he was born into money and has never had to work a day in his life. A perpetual child.

Also from this area is the notorious “Joe the Plumber.” Don’t even get me started on him! πŸ˜†

monicaangela
Member

Yes, I am in Cincinnati, I take it you are in Toledo since you mentioned the infamous Joe the Plumber. πŸ™‚

kesmarn
Admin

Yes, in a ‘burb a bit away from Toledo, but close enough to be affected by the “malarkey” as Joe Biden calls it!

Diane Merriam
Guest

@kesmarn I hope I’m doing this right πŸ™‚

Compendium of replies to the various replies to the various replies to …

Maybe not as currently constituted, but I agree we still need something like the FBI and maybe CIA. Those are both legitimate and necessary governmental functions as part of defending us from outside harm and police power to find criminals. We also still need the Department of Defense by the same reasoning. The Department of State also serves a necessary national government function.

I’ve said before that we have our own wacko far wing … the anarchists. I go after them wherever I meet them. The bottom line on anything that has anything to do with a government is that they are the organization that is authorized to use force, deadly force if needed, to back up their rules and rulings within a given geographical area. Competing groups using force are best described as gangs and thugs, not governments. Governments may be a necessary evil, but they are necessary for the continuation of any civilized society.

I simply believe that we need to keep them as small as possible while serving those needs. I also believe that the ones that act at the farthest level from the people should be the most controlled and limited. There’s the old saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I add an addendum to it: Power attracts the corrupt and the corruptible. The smaller the group a government acts on and the less power they are allowed to wield, the more limited the damage corrupt people can do.

That was the whole idea of the way our Constitution was set up. A government of few and limited powers and those powers split up so that they are controlling each other. The 17th Amendment knocked one of those out. The Senate was originally appointed by the State governments and they were supposed to represent the States as governments against a would be encroaching National government – one more power group set against the others. Gridlock was intended to be central to the system. A national law had to get past the People’s House of Representatives, the State’s Senate, the Executive’s President and past the muster, if needed, of the Federal Judiciary. That’s a pretty high bar, or at least it used to be.

One of my personal tests for any legislation I’m thinking about being behind is to ask myself: “If the worst person I can imagine got into control of this, would I still be ok with it?” Sooner or later, if not the absolute worst, but definitely someone I wouldn’t approve of will wind up in charge of or enforcing that legislation.

Back to replies at point.

You agreed with Sue’s “bait and switch” reference. Did you go to the link she gave and actually read it? It was a very badly slanted description of a 37 year old article.

I did get myself to the middle class for a while. Not any more. As I think I said, if I could bring myself to accept it, I qualify for Section 8 housing and quite a few other government welfare programs. Fortunately I had disability insurance as part of my employment package when the car accident happened, especially since the guy who hit me had no insurance and was in the middle of filing for bankruptcy. That’s enough to cover my rent and utilities and a few other bills and I make and sell jewelry on eBay and tutor algebra online to cover (usually) the groceries. I just deleted a whole bunch of my background because I’m not looking for pity, a lot of people don’t believe it all happened to one person and I don’t really want the whole thing on the web for all time. If you’re interested I’ll email it to you. Even without it, what I’ve said above and elsewhere here should be sufficient to prove that I’m not some greedy rich bitch that’s never gone without a meal.

I say it because I’m being accused of lying, of promoting issues while (secrecy being implied) working for the opposite, of being selfish and uncaring about the poor, of not understanding what those “on the bottom” go through and I’m tired of it.

Is it embarrassing for an atheist or agnostic to ask for help from a church? It is a bit, but you know, not one of them ever asked me anything about my religion (or lack thereof). I’ve had to listen to a sermon over dinner on occasion, but if that’s their price for giving me a place to sleep indoors and a meal, I’ll give them their 10 or 15 minutes (not that it’s going to change anything). There are also many charities that aren’t church related, United Way being the biggest one. We had an umbrella organization called Seven Counties when I lived near Louisville that was totally secular. There are many others.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to on standards being more of a problem with charity. It’s not like there’s just one charity like there’s just one government. If you get someone with a bad hair day in a government office you’ve got no where else to go. If it’s at a private charity, you just go to the next one. Kid’s nanny? I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone in any charity I’ve gone to over the years that would be in any position to worry about a nanny. The rich donate. They don’t sit out front or do the cooking. Or at least if they did anywhere I’ve been, they did a pretty good job of not looking it.

Bait and switch? Have I ever dodged a question? I wasn’t even here to talk about politics. I got here via Zemanta looking for a post to link one of my posts on my blog to and it looked interesting. The biggest problem we have, as Libertarians, is that we can’t and don’t promise the moon to everyone. It takes time to explain WHY we believe what we do, to build up the background as to why what a lot of people think is good, in the long run really isn’t. It’s not easy and if a person isn’t willing to listen and give you even half a chance to explain, then you’re just spinning your wheels. Time to move on.

There are a couple of people here that I think might be at least interested in listening, which is why I take the time, even in the face of open antagonism and personal insults, to try to give those reasons. Right now I just got an email that eBay is having a free listing week, so I won’t have as much time for a bit, but I still will be putting a couple of posts together. That will have to suffice.

SueInCa
Member

Miriam

You wrote:

You agreed with Sue’s β€œbait and switch” reference. Did you go to the link she gave and actually read it? It was a very badly slanted description of a 37 year old article.

How so? How is it very badly slanted? Are you saying it is as badly slanted as the article you posted for me to read by Forbes?

Diane Merriam
Guest

Quick FYI – It’s Diane. πŸ™‚

SueInCa
Member

Oh so it is, honest mistake.

Diane Merriam
Guest

No problem πŸ™‚

SueInCa
Member

Miriam

Do you have any proof that the guide book mentioned in the article of 2013 that I posted is no longer in use?

I noticed you dismissed the article so I am hoping that you do have something to show that guide book is no longer being used.

kesmarn
Admin

Sue, that’s one thing I had meant to mention in my comment above. The mere fact that the handbook on how to manipulate liberals is 37 years old is hardly an argument that it isn’t taken seriously by Libertarians today.

After all, how old is the Constitution?

SueInCa
Member

Kes

I am always going to question controversial statements made with out any citation to back them up. I am also going to question links provided where research shows the writer writes nothing but derogatory stuff about one entity.

As you stated, the Constitution is very old, so is the Bible but people still believe it and share it every single day.

Diane Merriam
Guest

It will be 227 Years on September 17th since it was approved by the convention and was ratified by the minimum number of states less than a year later on June 21st. I’m a bit of a history buff too.

I’ve got Madison’s notes on the convention and all the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers and private correspondence and minutes from state ratifying conventions. I’ve also got a large percentage of both the contemporary and ancient political and philosophical books and papers the ideas of the Founders came from.

I’ve got a lot of them in electronic form you can download at http://mygauntlet.com/book-list/ if you’re interested.

kesmarn
Admin

Thanks, Diane. I do know how old the Constitution is. But of course, it was a rhetorical question. The point being that if just the age of a document (37 years in the case of the Libertarian handbook) is enough to invalidate it, then by the same logic a 227 year old Constitution should be totally out of date and irrelevant.

Diane Merriam
Guest

There’s a big difference between a one page article in a magazine almost no one had ever heard of at the time 37 years ago and the founding document of our nation.

False equivalence manipulation.

Diane Merriam
Guest

There was no handbook, not 37 years ago and not today so there is nothing to be taken seriously.

SueInCa
Member

Diane I am not sure how you deny something in black and white but go ahead and believe what you will.

kesmarn
Admin

Monica, thanks so much for these valuable links.

I glanced through a few pages and –wow– talk about beyond cynical…

Diane Merriam
Guest

Read your own link. It was two articles in Reason Magazine in 1977. It’s there in black and white as you put it.

Diane Merriam
Guest

I just went to Monica’s link. Go there and put in the book search box on the left the supposed text “Libertarian handbook to manipulate liberals.” It’s not anywhere in the book or the title.

In fact, do a search on just “Libertarian.” What do you get? No result found in this book for Libertarian.

Someone set it up as a link text, maybe in a comment or on another site, but has absolutely nothing to do with anything Libertarian.

I’m thinking that maybe it’s Progressives doing the manipulation, using loaded emotional terminology and making unsupported claims trying to create a mental state of fear. Heck, running down the table of contents, I’m sure seeing a lot of those very techniques used in all the sites you’ve sent me to and a lot of what’s being written here.

Agenda control
Moving the goalposts
Propaganda
Overload
Linguistic manipulation
Rigging the obvious
Institutional inertia
Timing games
Reputation control
Media-Techno
Cultural manipulation
Political/organizational tricks
Judicial manipulation
Rhetorical manipulation
Historical manipulation
Statistical manipulation of several kinds
Loaded questions
Data dredging
Data manipulation
Discard unfavorable data
Overgeneralization
Null hypothesis
Politicization of science
Logical manipulation
Manipulation of morality
Emotional manipulation
Self delusion
Fear is the enemy
Social manipulation
Group manipulation
Induced animosity
Induced unity

This could actually be a pretty good reference for me for identifying all sorts of manipulative propaganda. I’m not saying you have used all of these personally, but you definitely have on a few of them.

Diane Merriam
Guest

That book is really interesting. I may even buy it. You should read it before you make any other categorizations of it though. It’s actually aimed at recognizing and avoiding being manipulated, not how to do it. πŸ™‚

monicaangela
Member

I am placing this comment here because the thread has run out and I don’t feel like starting a new conversation. In regards to Diane’s assumption that the link I provided does not include the language “Libertarian manipulation of Liberals,” she is correct. You have to read the book to understand how this theory of human manipulation is being used by Libertarians and others to try to manipulate the populace.

Oh well, in the interest of saving the thread, look for my comment and video at the top of the thread.

SueInCa
Member

The Progressive magazine and Center for Media and Democracy have released new documents that show billionaire oil industrialist Charles Koch was an active member of the controversial right-wing John Birch Society during its campaigns against the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Charles Koch was following in the footsteps of his father, Fred Koch, a leader of the John Birch Society from its founding.
https://www.freespeech.org/video/new-docs-expose-charles-kochs-ties-john-birch-society

Diane Merriam
Guest

Once again, not my responsibility. If you search the comments you’ll see that I put the Koch/John Birch info up two or three days ago.

SueInCa
Member

See my comment below, has Charles Koch ever apologized for these activities like Senator Byrd did? If he did, I would love to see his apology.

Diane Merriam
Guest

I have no idea. I’m not responsible for what Charles Koch does or doesn’t do because he was our vice presidential candidate 34 years ago.

Diane Merriam
Guest

Are we talking about the same link that was about two articles in Reason magazine? There’s no way to prove a negative, but I’ve never read or even heard of what the article you sent me to was describing. I was active enough in the early ’80s that I was 3rd District Rep and then vice chair of the Libertarian Party of Kentucky and that was just a few years after these articles (from what the link said) were published. I would think if they were actually any sort of guidebook or even a training source I would have at least heard of it. It’s not being used anywhere now that I know of and it was never used then either. There was about 15 years after that where I wasn’t active at all other than voting. I got active again in the late ’90s for a few years when the Indiana party needed a district candidate. Then again about a year ago when I moved back to Kentucky.

Personally, I agree that some of what they quoted (I’d like to read it myself to make sure they are accurate quotes) is pretty bad. It’s true that you have to find some points of agreement from which to start talking to someone, but to pretend that those specific points are the total of what the party is about? That seems to me not only unethical, but pretty stupid, even in the short run.

The Kochs are Republicans now, not Libertarians. The Tea Partiers are Republicans, not Libertarians. Even the Pauls are Republicans, not Libertarians. I don’t know that the Kochs are all above board. I have no way of knowing that, one way or another. Other than the fact that David was our vice presidential candidate in 1980 and that they had a lot of personal money, all I’ve learned of them is what I’ve picked up online in the last 6 months or so. They are neither devils nor angels, but the way they are being used as a straw man whipping boy pisses me off. It’s setting them up as demonized figure which can then be used as a verbal shorthand to avoid specifics.

You don’t have to know if a position is good or bad, right or wrong, you just need to be told that the Kochs are behind it or in favor of it and it’s defined as necessarily evil. It shuts down discussion and answers all questions, no matter what the issue is. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, but if the Koch name can be inserted into something, there can be nothing else to say. That’s bad. That’s wrong. It stifles reasonable discussion and debate and that can never be good.

I can make no excuses for Bush’s spending. I didn’t vote for him. I didn’t support him other than those days right after 9/11 when we were all together. He and his Republican Congress were just as wasteful as any Democratic administration usually is. We had no business in Iraq and while I think we did have the right to go after Al Qaeda we fiddled around too long pretending that we weren’t all out going after them and missed our best shots. By the time we publicly ramped up in Afghanistan they were scattered and we mired ourselves in another nation building mess that we should never have been in.

If you go into the CA budget you can select the summary, then select Statewide Issues and Various Departments. About a third of the way down that .pdf it discusses the unfunded benefits problem. Apparently there’s a proposal on the table to deal with it, but nothing has actually been done about it. The state is also saying that they are not responsible for paying for any increased benefit packages since 1990, even though they were passed by the legislature. So, at least on that point, he was right in the Forbes article.

SueInCa
Member

If you have never heard of the guide to manipulate liberals, perhaps you are not as much in the know in the Libertarian party as you think? As for you supporting Bush after 9/11, you might want to check your “all of us were supporting” because I know I was not and never supported the war in Iraq because I knew it was based on lies. I also never supported the war in Afghanistan, I learned from the Russian incursion in to Afghanistan besides it was Saudis that made up the bulk of those terrorists yet Bush continued to hold hands with them and trade kisses, literally. How do you not declare war on the very country that most of the terrorists came from yet decide to go after one that had no terrorists until we got there?

Diane Merriam
Guest

After 9/11 as in the first few weeks, not 3 years later. You have a habit of putting words in my mouth that I never said. Does that fall under Moving the Goalposts or Overgeneralization or maybe Manipulation of Memory?

Diane Merriam
Guest

No terrorists in Afghanistan until we got there? Bin Laden wasn’t in Afghanistan and didn’t have his training camps there and wasn’t under the protection of the Taliban?

Diane Merriam
Guest

Just on terminology – something that caught my eye in re-reading this. You’ve phrased it like “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

This pair of magazine articles has *never*, to the best of my knowledge, being in a position 4 or 5 years after it was published that I would know if it was, been used as anything, official or unofficial. I have never seen it or even heard of it or read anything even similar to it until I followed your link.

Diane Merriam
Guest

“Do you have any proof that the guide book mentioned in the article of 2013 that I posted is no longer in use?”

Perfect example of a loaded question or more formally,
Shifting the Burden of Proof: A fallacy that challenges opponents to disprove a claim, rather than asking the person making the claim to defend his/her own argument. E.g., “Space-aliens are everywhere among us, even here on campus, masquerading as true humans! I dare you prove it isn’t so! See? You can’t! That means you have to accept that what I say is true.”

SueInCa
Member

Hey you made the claim if you cannot prove something why would you claim it? Nice try trying to flip this back on me, won’t work. And at this time I have to tell you I will not be responding to you any further. You answer very few questions asked of you, and quite frankly I do not have time to respond to every post you add here without answering the questions that are asked of you.

I am bowing out of this now. Have a good life in your utopian world.

Diane Merriam
Guest

Once again, I never said that anywhere. You’re pretending I said things that I haven’t and then attacking that. Classic Straw Man manipulative argument.

kesmarn
Admin

Diane, thanks for taking the time to respond at length. And it’s good to hear that at least you’re okay with keeping the FBI and the CIA. I know some folks who veer extremely close to the total anarchy end of the Libertarian spectrum, and I think we’d be in Somalia for sure if they get in the driver’s seat.

How about the FDA and the public schools? Are those acceptable? OSHA?

We already know that you’re not in favor of the minimum wage, Social Security or Medicare.

It’s interesting that you (and by “you” I mean that I’m making a sort of extension to Libertarians in general because I do believe you’re trying to represent the whole party to a degree here) feel that government is such a potential source of “corruption” that it needs to be monitored and regulated closely. And yet imply that corporations aren’t (potential corruptors) and don’t (need regulation). I suppose that Libertarians would argue that the Invisible Hand automatically takes care of corporate corruption. The theory being that corrupt corporations are always found out and they inevitably go out of business in a free market. Sigh… if only. Not in this world, unfortunately. But then I can hear the Libertarian argument that “we’ve never really had a true free market.” Perhaps. But we never will either. Not with the Kochs in charge.

The truth is, the game is rigged. But the threat is not from a corrupt government. (Except for the SCOTUS, which I will grant you is corrupt with its current make-up.) It is from people like the Kochs who spent $14 million trying to defeat my Senator — Sherrod Brown — by meddling in an election in a State in which they are not even residents. Why do they want to throw out my senator? And Ohio is not the only State in which they’ve meddled.

The game is rigged on Wall Street because Anthony “Koch-owned” Scalia’s son Eugene Scalia is working tirelessly to sabotage Dodd-Frank reform measures on Wall Street. Nice “free market” principles going there, with a Scalia-Koch partnership!

The game is rigged because favored firms on Wall Street provide ultra-high speed trading opportunities to insiders and skim off billions to go into the pockets of day traders. But let’s get rid of the “big government” SEC that might stop it, because that is “too much regulation.”

Interesting how all the parts of the government that allegedly need to be lopped off are the ones who might just happen to put a dent in the obscene level of profits the Kochs, Waltons and other dynasties might enjoy. The bloated and highly profitable Defense Department seems to be relatively safe – although the uber-wealthy are currently more interested in selling arms to both sides of conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere, while hiding behind a Rand Paul front of “pacifism” here on the home front.

This is what I mean by bait-and-switch. Not that you personally are doing that; one person hardly could pull off what they’re doing. But I’m very much afraid you may have fallen for it. The Libertarian Party I’ve seen wears a PR version of a hippy costume that screams “peace,love and weed,” in order to win votes, but acts like a thug when it comes to the poor, the disabled and the elderly.

It’s a good thing that you got a decent lump sum settlement from what must have been a very bad accident. But I suspect the Kochs would like to do a version of tort-reform and/or revision of employment benefits (especially union ones) that would make getting a settlement like that almost impossible for anyone down the road in the future.

I’m glad that you met with compassionate and humble people at the churches where you’ve gone for help. But I can tell you that I personally know people who’ve had to sit through humiliating lectures on how “you have chosen a life of poverty for yourself because of your inability to manage your money and because of your own poor choices.” This — to a 60 year old woman who had worked like a dog all her life and then had the nerve to develop liver failure. And this same “pastor” then announced that he was about to leave for a vacation in Tahiti and if she had only run her life more wisely, she would be rich like him. Did his kids have a nanny? Indeed they did. And he drove a Lexus and wore a Rolex watch.

And our United Way is so totally overwhelmed here… All I can say is “good luck” to anyone who has any hope of getting on their waiting list. This goes for housing assistance, health care, home winterization, You name it. Reaganomics have virtually destroyed this rustbelt area.

No, I would never call you a liar, Diane. I honestly don’t think you are. I think the trouble is — and I’m sorry to say this — that you have believed liars.

Libertarianism is long on rhetoric and appeals to gun-rights, marijuana and isolationist activists but short on practical programs to help the working poor and the disabled poor. My friend with liver failure has no settlement to fall back on. She wouldn’t be able to begin to buy jewelry making supplies (and please understand that I’m not putting you down for either of those things, just saying her circumstances are different).

All she has is SS Disability and Medicaid.

And all she knows is that the Libertarians want to take that away.

At least that’s what it says up there on the platform that the Kochs wrote.

Can anyone assure her that they won’t?

Diane Merriam
Guest

I’ve mentioned the anarchist wing of the party before. Anarchists pissed me off 35 years ago and they still do to this day. I’ve gotten in some pretty heavy arguments with them. If all people were angels, then anarchy and socialism would work equally well. But they won’t and they never can. Basing a societal structure in the belief that “the right people” will be running them and that people will do the “right thing” are doomed to fail. Yet, like the perennial weed that you can never seem to completely get the roots dug out, the idea keeps popping up, saying “But this time it’s different. This time we really do have the solution.”

The Roman Empire tried to buy off the common people with free “Bread and Circuses” while they devalued the currency and Caesar after Caesar grew ever more wasteful. It didn’t work then and no variant of it ever has. It probably wasn’t helped by the fact that a lot of them were drinking water delivered by lead lined aqueducts πŸ™‚

FDA? It’s kind of a tossup whether they have killed or saved more people by keeping drugs off the market for years and years of testing, even though the rest of the world is able to take them. As to food, just like many other “regulating” agencies or licensing boards, there are two huge problems. First, they give the public a false sense of security. It must be safe if it’s being sold. The government will take care of us so I don’t have to worry about it. Bernie Madoff has to be above board. The elevator has to be safe. The restaurant must be clean enough. He’s a doctor. He has to be competent. The building inspector checked off on it. You don’t need to worry about a company’s reputation. They meet the minimum codes.

What happens in practice is that the minimums become the maximums. There’s little economic benefit to doing anything more. In a lot of cases it’s easier and cheaper to bribe the inspector or cheat on the test than to do it right. Where there’s a path to corruption on either side, people WILL be on it.

One accidental delay on Thalidomide over 50 years ago raised the FDA to hero status. It also taught them that you don’t get noticed for the things you approve, only for the ones that you don’t pass that may or may not actually do harm. So they sit and demand test after test, study after study. And people die waiting.

If you’re looking for a utopia where nothing bad ever happens, it’s a fantasy. No one can promise that. The question is what are the costs for that imagined safety? What products, what jobs, what entire industries are never created because of the artificial roadblocks put up in the name of safety (and in reality, it’s control that’s being sought)?

We’ll never know about most of them. However here’s a sample: One of the pharmaceutical companies has developed a vaccine for herpes. They decided not to even try to bring it to market. Too expensive to get FDA approval and too fraught with potential legal dangers under the deep pocket theory of liability. Multiply that by 100 or 1000 to guess at what we’ve lost.

OSHA? Workplace accidents were already consistently declining, even before OSHA came into being. They didn’t even change the slope of the trend line. All they’ve done is add more and more layers of added cost to everything you buy.

Sure, you can almost always come up with some example or another of a regulator turning up a problem and saving the day, but again, at what cost? They say that you can’t put a value on a human life, yet courts do it every day in legal settlements.

Let’s make the airlines put in this and that new feature. So what if it all adds up to double the cost of a ticket? It will save lives. But does it really? If people can’t afford to fly, then they drive. Cars are way more dangerous than flying. You wind up with more deaths overall, not fewer.

These kinds of questions aren’t easy to think about. They’re uncomfortable. Reality is like that. You think you sound cynical and uncaring even talking like this. You don’t want to make those kinds of admissions and choices. We’ve changed from believing in an all powerful, all knowing, beneficent God to take care of us and put in its place an all powerful, all knowing, beneficent government to take care of us run by the elites who must know better than you so you can trust them to make your choices for you. I don’t believe in either.

Diane Merriam
Guest

Even if I was elected President tomorrow with a Libertarian majority in both houses of Congress. it’s not like we’d just chop everything off overnight. Social Security would have to go down some sort of buy down process. Various welfare programs would have to be phased out. Even corporate welfare would have to be given a year or two to totally wind down (remember, I’m imagining a situation where the Libertarians get voted in overnight with no warning). New legal structures would have to be worked out to handle class action suits or something similar for taking care of problems like pollution or wanton endangerment on the part of companies towards their employees.

Once people know that they’re going to be able to keep a lot more of their own money and also that the thought “My taxes are paying to take care of them. I can’t afford to give much more on top of that.” isn’t operative any more, a lot more organizations and probably more specialized ones, will be created.

We wouldn’t have bailed out Wall Street. Let them stew in the juices of their own making and if they go under … let ’em. There’s a term for it in free market economics, “Creative destruction.” If a company has so badly mismanaged their money and plans, then their demise opens up the resources that they were using to be put to better uses, better as defined by the people who are actually buying the end products with the money that they’ve earned, not what some third party has decided that they “should” want.

A defense department that is actually just that, for defense, would be far smaller than the behemoth we have today. After WWII Europe and the Pacific had been decimated. We were the only western country that still had an undamaged manufacturing structure. Those decades were the American heyday while the rest of the world put itself back together, and in large part with our help. But they are capable of defending themselves now. We spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined and the largest part of that is continuing to pay for everyone else. Again, it would take a few years to wind down, but we don’t need NATO. If Europe wants to maintain it for their own purposes on their own nickel, then fine. It’s not our responsibility.

As to love, peace and weed … kids have been saying that for a long time. College students don’t usually think of the responsibilities that go along with the freedoms. The freedom to succeed requires the freedom to fail. The freedom to make your own choices means the responsibility for the consequences of making bad ones. It also means that sometimes semi-solid fecal matter happens and if there’s rotating air movement machinery in the area it can spread it far and wide.

Overall, Americans are a pretty generous crowd and almost always willing to help when they can. They’re usually willing to give second or even third chances even if a person causes their own misery if they believe they’ve learned to stop doing whatever it was that got them into trouble in the first place. But there are limits. If an adult person is capable of making better choices but doesn’t because they expect someone else to keep taking care of them, there comes a point of saying no. “Sorry son, you’re on your own this time.”

My sister’s old mega-church in Vegas did pretty much the same thing (although not as bad circumstances) to her. It was quite a shock to her that all the money she’d been giving to them wouldn’t be so easily available when she was on the needing side. She had a pretty rough few weeks trying to put together the money to keep the power on. For some strange reason she also quit tithing and started giving to some other charities instead.

My accident? The guy who was driving and the guy who owned the truck had no insurance and were already in the middle of filing for bankruptcy. Nothing there to get a set