OK, sure. That too.
Well, there was that time the House Republicans abused their power to destroy ACORN.
Check out this thread. It’s from Democratic Underground, a liberal message board. It may give you some idea.
Forgive my ignorance, please. Reading up on anarchism.
This post doesn’t seem to have been well received at all by the other posters. This is a pretty extreme position, and not at all common among US liberals.
Do we have any reason to care, beyond historical curiosity? What matters is what it means now.
It’s brought up as what libertarianism would get you, not as the ideal; the ideal is impossible. Libertarianism is like communism; an ideology that promises a utopia but would in reality create a dystopia because it completely ignores what human beings and human societies are actually like.
Yes, because that’s what it still means in most of the world, and many of us in the US are trying to preserve that meaning, because it makes more sense, and because we started it!
Not really. Marx had no patience for utopians.
As liberal message boards go, it’s a piece of shit. I’ve always had problems with it’s censorship of unpopular opinions and the obviously biased moderators. It is not at the forefront of liberal thought.
Taking the broader view, I think most people, liberal or conservative, are prone to letting power corrupt them. Add in a dash of “But I’m censuring/oppressing my opponents for the common GOOD; their influence is corrosive to society!” or “Time for payback, I’m going to enjoy this!” and you have the ingredients for tyranny.
It’s human nature.
That’s one of the reasons freedom of speech is so important – other rights can’t be protected without freedom of speech.
No they didn’t. They subpoenaed the records of a subset of pastors in the City of Houston.
Citation, please. Not to say that I don’t believe you, but your track record is pretty abysmal when it comes to making accurate statements of fact.
Good question! Two better questions:
- Why the fuck does it matter?
- Why did the independent senate investigation come back with no evidence of politically motivated wrongdoing?
Conspiracy-monger all you want, it doesn’t change the fact that the most authoritative statement on the subject boils down to “the lists were inappropriate but there was no politically motivated misconduct”. Beyond that, I don’t particularly care who decided not to testify or why.
Good question! Is it advocating that its members sign a specific position or endorse a specific political candidate or party? There are rules in place here, and the suggestion is that various churches in Houston violated them.
Okay, so I was wrong. This does nothing to dispel the larger point - the IRS was doing its job in investigating these tax-exempt political organizations. Such organizations run a fine line between political campaigning and political donorship. One is taxable; the other is not. Given the way these c4s ballooned in number at that time, the IRS was absolutely justified in checking them out. Can we please not rehash this stupid debate again? Let the asinine right-wing conspiracy theory die already.
Were any groups actually “shut down”? It was my understanding the groups had applied for special tax status and such status was delayed or denied, though the groups’ operations were not affected.
I admit my understanding may not be correct.
Saddest story in the world right there. That place just worked, didn’t it ? Fukken bolshos ruining everything… bassards, allbassards… oi barkeep, two of the same !
But it means what it means here in America, and when it comes to American politics I don’t care what the word means in some other country.
And? He’s been dead a long time, and wasn’t an actual leader of anything while he was alive anyway. What matters is what actual communists promised, and what they delivered.
That’s why decentralization is so important.
Yes!
It’s a global movement, dealing with global issues, and besides, I don’t want to surrender to Randroids and the like.
How many serious Communists have ever promised utopias? Do Randroids, for that matter? I don’t like to accuse my opponents of things they haven’t done. Straw men, and such.
Hey Cornopean, does this still accurately represent your position on liberalism?
- Why was Lois held in contempt of Congress?
- Why wouldn’t Holder do anything about it?
“God damn America” is a pretty specific political position. But somehow, he gets a pass. Why is that?
You know who else has a (c)(4)?
Organizing for America, aka barackobama.com Did they receive extra scrutiny from Lois Lerner? Did Senator Durbin write the IRS to request extra examination of that organization? Why not?
It’s already been pointed out that this is wrong: the subpoena didn’t target ALL pastors. Moreover, the subpoena emanates from a lawsuit brought against the city by a group affiliated with the pastors. In other words, they brought on the investigation themselves by virtue of suing in court. It wasn’t merely a case of the city deciding to target “minority” Christians.
I presume that a proponent of libertarianism is ok with the bringing of a lawsuit for an attempted redress of grievances. Or else how are private individuals supposed to enforce their property rights (without resorting to vigilante justice)? If you choose to do so, however, then it’s only reasonable to expect the defendant to defend their side; as part and parcel of that defense is the requesting of documents and information that might lead to admissible evidence beneficial to their case (and discovery requests are always written to be as broad and all encompassing as possible. The respondent then raises as many objections as they can legitimately justify, and a judge is left to find the middle ground).
You want to play ball, then you have to be willing to let your opponent take a few swings.
That’s why we have laws, democratic processes, constitutional principles, and judicial oversight. Eliminate those safeguards, and tyranny of economically powerful self-interested individuals replaces governance. Because it’s human nature. That’s why anti-government crusaders and libertarian idealists are not just fools, but dangerous fools.