Plastic bags and our consumer culture/massive garbage in general are bad.

Forcing people to do X Y Z ignorant politicians' ideas of reducing said badness is even worse.

Let the free market and an educated populace fix the problem. If the populace isn't educated enough to fix the problem in a free market, neither are they educated enough to elect leaders to legislate a fix. There's no getting around it: The people need to combat the problem with their freedom in tact.

I regularly take reusable bags to the grocery store, reuse them, and throw away no bags. But some federal douchebag mandating I do so is a problem, not a solution.

The Yell,

It's not so much what Romney would say, but the general implications of swapping the VP you picked. This is compounded when you're the Messiah and capable of no wrong.

Einstein,

Yeah. He knows Hilary has a much better shot with Romney winning. If Obama won, the economy would continue its slowest "recovery" ever--at best--and Hilary would be associated with that. Better Romney is president, regardless of how well he does, for Hilary. Worst case she still has a shot with Romney '12-'16. Worst/best/only case if Obama wins a second term is rather abysmal chances for Hilary.

LOL @ McCain. Yeah. Horrible '08 choice. Horrible choice period. Horrible human being.

I support C. We're cool.

That's extreme right? Maybe I am a little extreme after all. It's not like property rights are in the Constitution and they're our law.

No consideration for the fact that changing VP's now would be to admit a less than ideal decision in '08? The Messiah can do no wrong. He has made no poor decisions.

Regardless of the fact that Obama may want to change out Biden, there'd be political fallout if he did. I'm not suggesting it's impossible, but you didn't even mention the fact that there are factors heavily favoring keeping Biden.

Would you like to place a wager?

BeoWolfe,

Yes, the Tea Party is rooted in Libertarian, not "conservative," principles. Their focus is on the Constitution and fiscal sanity, not bedroom and world policing.

I can't disagree that Libertarians tend to take more conservative than liberal votes (away from people who don't deserve them anyway). But there are certainly a significant number of more liberal minded people who vote Libertarian--as opposed to liberal--in just the same way. I don't have any numbers on the percentages, nor do I disagree it's probably more people would choose conservatives as the "lesser evil" given the choice of conservative or liberal. But they do exist.

Edit: They don't "take" conservative nor liberal votes. I worded that poorly. I just meant what I said in the second half of the above: Many libertarians see conservatives as the lesser of the two evils. They vote Libertarian because it best fits their views and values; and surely more would if they weren't sure, before most elections started, that the only feasible outcomes were Republicrat varieties. But many (not trying to argue a majority) also choose liberalism as the lesser of the two evils, because they take bigger issue with the bedroom policing and warmongering of conservatives vs the oversized nanny government of liberals. (In practice, of course, liberals are good warmongerers too--but they tend to give more lip service to not killing everyone and our kids)

Einstein,

Thanks for making up numbers. You always convince us that you're smart and educated when you make stuff up!

Yes, the majority is always right. Republicans and "conservatives" are so smart! There's more Republicans than Libertarians, so Republicans have better ideas. Just like there's more Communists than Libertarians, so Communists have better ideas. Thanks for enlightening us. Appeals to majorities aren't just fallacious reasoning when arguing/backing up your position, they're also a staple Einstein reasoning tool!

"In following what's been happening over the past few decades, it is clear that the core values of liberal democracy, specifically the value of equality of economic OPPORTUNITY, have been under attack, primarily by those in power who profit from undermining this core value, and, secondarily, by others out of sheer ignorance and stupidity."

Those in power profit from utilizing the talents and work ethic of the most talented and hardest working people they employ. The free market has done wonders for many, like me, who were raised in lower middle-class homes and have enjoyed great success because of their hard work.

Intellectual lightweights whine because they're stupid and were raised poorly. They think they're far more capable than they are. They're greedy and think everyone deserves to support 4+ human beings on their income and have a pool and cell phones and 2 cars and air conditioning and.... They're greedy and stupid. Their value is greed and their justification is stupidity. Pretty poor values for arguing morality, economics, or anything else. The fact is that economic freedoms correlate with standard of living. Positively. The fact is that nobody's wealth hurts anybody else. The fact is that higher standard of living is better lives for all, regardless of "relative" measures of wealth based in greed, not better living.

So, to help me understand what you're saying, could you be more specific? Because what you're saying is SO vague that nobody knows what you think you're talking about.

"Their common ploy is to equate the core value of equality of economic OPPORTUNITY with the value of equality of economic outcome, upon which communism is founded. By labeling the value of equality of opportunity a communist value, they can then quell any discussion on how the value of equality of opportunity is being undermined. "

Examples of this ploy? Not even 1? What are you talking about? Who's ever done this? I've never seen anyone "label" the "value of equality of opportunity" as communist. That sounds ridiculous to me. So please, enlighten us. What are you talking about? Can we get some examples?

"The Lockean school of thought and thus the American system of democratic governance itself was founded on this core value of equality of economic OPPORTUNITY."

America was founded upon ideas of equality under the law. The free market gives us equality of opportunity all by itself. America's founders believed in equality under the law, freedom (rights), and individualism. They guaranteed equality under the law and freedom and let the free market sort out the rest. The notion that they believed in some sort of government [babysitter] enforced "equality of economic opportunity" as some sort of regulated right is laughable.

If you want to provide examples of how your suggestion is not laughable, I'd love to see them.

"I attribute this to their ignorance of their own history.  It is, I suppose, simply a sign of the times: those who don't study history are doomed repeat the mistakes of history.  Such is the effect of people becoming ignorant of the values upon which their freedoms and liberties are based. "

Which values? Based on what texts/evidence? You're being vague in literally everything you say. There's literally nothing concrete you've posted. You've made literally 0 references to evidence in documents/history to back up your... extremely vague claims. You're making ambiguous, vague claims and giving us absolutely no basis for them. Great job. That's spam.

"For the last time, then, equality of opportunity is essential to the functioning of any sustainable civilization; it is a quintessential UNIVERSAL human value, one upon which all values of liberal democracies everywhere depend."

Not really. Equality under the law is. To guarantee "equality of opportunity" would be to guarantee that nobody is rewarded for their success (ie wealth). To claim that "equality of opportunity" is paramount suggests you think EVERYONE should have access to EVERYTHING that ANY amount of wealth provides to ANYBODY. That's a positive right which is economically impossible. Nevermind that the implications of attempts at it would harm the free market and the standard of living of all.

"To those who would out of either ignorance of malevolence equate this value of economic opportunity with the value of equality of outcome:  Anyone who does so PURPOSEFULLY, sabotages the very values upon which free, liberal democratic nations EVERYWHERE were founded...."

You need to learn history before you can tell anyone about it.

"Never have I called for equality of outcome.  All this time I have merely been standing up and calling out against how the core values of equality of opportunity is being undermined by how our societies are functioning; it simply can't going the way it has been going..."

Could you try to be more vague? Someone might ignorantly think you're making sense. It's not likely. But just in case.

"To the IC community:  that the only person who seems to be listening, insults me and calls me a communist for standing up for the values of his OWN LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC state, is astonishing."

I simply call your communist thoughts communist. You've openly stated them previously a number of times. To deny this is just stupid, ignorant, insulting, and RETARDED. Your post above only suggests your communist ideology; but you're overly vague and not intellectually capable of following your simple thoughts to their logical and necessary conclusions, so in this post you're probably legitimately ignorant of the communist values you have espoused. On many instances in the past, which I have called you on and quoted you, you've openly stated that you're a communist.

"This is a poll thread.  Choose a or b.  If no one does, this will be my last post in this forum."

Nevermind your false (and stupid) dichotomy. I'm not answering on the grounds that, on the .0001% chance you're being honest, I need to do what's best for the forum.

How are you going to show me flaws in my reasoning when you refuse to comment on it?

"To Kemp that represents Government."

I'm in the company of America's founders. You're not. They never imagined the behemoth government you support.

"They even won't cry if the people involved are killed for they are the willing slaves of evil."

Stupid straw man argument because you're a coward who won't debate their actual views. Government is a necessary evil. The uber police nanny state you support is not necessary nor beneficial nor moral.

"Others of us do not see it at these extremes."

Not everyone thinks freedom and the law are extreme.

"However when you look at either extreme they are unwilling to listen to arguments that defeat their ideas. They are unwilling to communicate in full and result to behavior seen as 'trolling' to try to force their views on others."

Says the baby who won't even respond to arguments made against his positions. Says the baby who responds with fallacious reasoning a middle schooler could identify misses the point.

That has to be the dumbest, most hypocritical thing you've ever said.

"However we can see in the polls how effective their 'efforts' are. Neither is an effective party, each has a few people they can point at who get nothing done."

Appeal to majority.

"The few times they get someone up high the effect is usually a running away from that principle as fast as society can."

Examples? Gary Johnson is cool. Ron Paul's alright.

"Humanity deserves better than what either of them propose, and humanity... has learned to avoid these ideals."

Ignorant appeal to majority. As if our oppressive government got 16 trillion into debt, even overtaxing us, because the Amerikan people are so wise and virtuous.

"Educate yourself and others on these extremist viewpoints."

OMFG FREEDOM IS SCARY! OMG THE LAW CANNOT/SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED! CALL THEM EXTREME!

You're name calling because you can't back up your calls for a nanny/police state with justification. You're name calling because you know nothing of the world and/or don't care about anyone's life but your own, so you don't object to corporate war-mongering. Hey, you're unfit to serve. They won't get you killed.

I love how you think the bedroom police and warmongering for corporate interests are inherent virtues. Anyone with a brain must surely agree with you. Anyone who isn't a lackey for Republicans is a moron! You're SO SMART!

You're so gay you can't imagine that nobody gives a damn.

It's obvious you're threatened by Libertarians because they're actually fiscally conservative--whereas you only hypocritically claim to be--and they don't comfort you like a little bitch as "conservatives" do. Don't worry, little Einstein, we'll bomb and invade the bad people! You can take our word for it, we're competent and can handle this well! Don't study history, we'll call you crazy. Don't worry, little Einstein, we'll tell you that homosexuals are evil and God gives a damn. We'll help you repress those evil urges. Don't worry, little Einstein, we'll take care of you with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Even if it means bankrupting them until they don't exist. Don't think about that, you'll probably be dead before then.

Pay the man. Shut up, you talk to much. You're just glad you have a big group to tell you you're right. Because the majority is always right. That's why America is so free and as economically prosperous as it could be. You're so juvenile that you need the intellectual validation. Good job, Republicans are doing a good job. Right up there with Eric Holder who they protect and Barack Obama who they obviously agree with on most things, as is obvious in their candidate Romney.

"I, personally, consider both the intentional and inadvertent frustration of individuals' opportunities for the actualization of their own and their family's fulfillment of their basic human needs as a criminal act. "

By who? Who owes them "actualization"? Who can possibly do it for them?

Dumbass.

"People constantly speak of  'the government' doing this or that, as they might speak of God doing it. But the government is really nothing but a group of men, and usually they are very inferior men." -- H.L. Mencken

I can certainly agree to a point. It's certainly more stable than democratic governments in SOME parts of the world, not to mention any regions!

But it's inherently unstable in others.

Funny stuff.

Too bad if you don't find Marx an intellectual lightweight, you're dumb.