Robert Taylor I can't disagree with the premise at all. But I think it is a mistake to say that millenials are just cynical and frustrated with Obama, it's Republicans too. You mention Obamacare, but what about the coercive government healthcare that the Republicans passed back in 2003? Also, Romney's campaign was "repeal and replace." Republicare, Obamacare, what's the difference? Obama's policies have failed, but they are not his per se. Central banking, monetizing debt, fractional-reserve banking, stimulus, corporatism; these are established economic policies that are bipartisan. Former Congressman Ron Paul had HUGE millenial support, but perhaps it's because he represents the antithesis to what your party stands for is why the GOP never seems to grasp the answer on what millenials want. The problem is philosophical: what the role of government is and sould be in a free society; neither party has any clue where to begin to answer that question that is consistent with millenial, or American values
Robert Taylor HAHA I didn't forget about Clinton's terrorism, just for the sake of brevity I only listed U.S. aggression for the last ten years or so. If we want to play this game, it is sad that people forget thta for ten years prior to 9/11, the U.S. stationed troops and bases in Mecca and Media and blockaded and bombed Iraq every three days, resulting in the deaths of 500,000 CHILDREN. 9/11 was a predictable blowback from this. The U.S. used to be seen very positively by Muslims since we were the first country to kick out the British Empire; now we're the Empire, propping up their dictators, initiating coups, sanctions and war. I don't ignore any "Caliphate," I oppose root and branch the "Caliphate" of U.S. hegemony. You sound like the guys who wrote the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but in this case it's Islam. There is an entire industry in this country dedicated to spreading fear over Muslims. I am sorry you have fallen for it.
Robert Taylor Yes the U.S. does target civilians, that is part of any and all war. I mentioned sanctions in the article which are deliberately meant to affect civilians to achieve political ends, the definition of terrorism. Also, I should have mentioned the U.S. policy of drone "double-taps" where after a strike, the U.S. will bomb the first responders or a wedding/funeral deliberately killing civilians to achieve political ends. Again, terrorism. http://www.policymic.com/articles/21070/predator-drone-double-taps-highlight-possible-war-crimes-by-obama
Robert Taylor Yes, the U.S. does target civilians, that is part of any war. Other than the aforementioned sanctions I mentioned in the article -- a policy meant to deliberately destroy civilian life to achieve political ends -- there is the drone policy of "double-taps" where first responders and funerals/weddings are attacked http://www.policymic.com/articles/21070/predator-drone-double-taps-highlight-possible-war-crimes-by-obama
Robert Taylor I criticize the US government because I do not feel it is a sane foreign policy to fund, arm, and train opposition groups around the world, especially crazy jihadis in Syria. What about the governments the US supports that stifle opposition and committ war crimes? And the US didn't "make mistakes," it was the intentional policy to support strongmen. I don't take issue with stopping a leader from killing his own people, but the US government is the last tool to use in this goal. You think the violence will stop when the Marines show up?? I am concerned with stopping the terrorism, war crimes, torture and other horrible things done by the US. It's easy to critcize other governments, it's like criticizing crimes from the 18th century. And if "Killing its own people" is grounds for intervention, Waco, Ruby Ridge and many other incidents of violence committed by the US against Americans deserve foreign intervention no?
Robert Taylor I'm noticing a lot of comments that Manning is a "traitor" and personal attacks on him. What about the politicians, who take an oath to the Constitution, that lie us into war and pass laws that violate it? Also, treason is the only crime mentioned in the Constitution, defining it as waging war against the states, giving the enemy aid and comfort, and that no one can be convicted without two witnesses. I don't think the definition fits. Also, great people throughout history have been labeled "traitors" and "enemies of the state." The Americans were British traitors, the abolitionists, MLK, etc. As Augustine said, an unjust law is no law at all! It is so frustrating that many would rather shoot the messenger than deal with the reality that their government kills, sponsors torture, commits war crimes, lies to them and knows that millions will defend it when a mirror is held up to it. Sad, truly sad.
Robert Taylor I am not arguing that we don't need security, only that the TSA should not be in charge. Like hotels, armored trucks carrying cash deposits, and other private businesses, let the market handle security. In this case, the airlines themselves. To make the argument that the TSA is there because of 9/11 is reversing cause and effect. Notice how the government attempts to implement these measures AFTER the attack. And as I argued in the article, our "terrorism" problem is a direct result/blacklash of our foreign policy of intervention and empire. Stop the wars, drones, subsidization of police states, sanctions, and other acts of aggression (and terrorism!), and the need for the TSA vanishes.
Robert Taylor I do deplore it! And you are right, Wal-Mart hasn't supported its increase in years, but can you see why they would in the first place? It is a non-market way to cut competitors off at the knees. They might not be vocally supporting a $9 min. wage, but if it was passed, they would restructure a tiny bit and move on and take a bigger share of the market. They can absorb the costs of regulation, paperwork, mandates; most other companies can't. Wal-Mart, like any other business, is always looking to cut costs and increase profitability. In a freed market, this means innovating. In our corporatist, this means looking to the state and institutions like ALEC. It's a shame they exist. Also, I am sure you have heard of "eminent domain" being used to kick private citizens out and put big corporations in? The justification is always "tax revenue." It happened in the small town I grew up in. Shameful.
Robert Taylor Good points, Susan. But I don't think it's an either/or thing. Wal-Mart HAS publicly supported the state increasing the "minimum wage" for obvious reasons as well as used ALEC to gain favorable policies where they go. Both are forms of corporatism that I, or anyone that supports a free economy and the rule of law, should oppose. I think it's a distinction without a difference.
Robert Taylor Great points Frank. I am very aware the state will not stop regulating marriage anytime soon, so while we're stuck with gay couples should receive the same rights immediately. But I think you overstate how difficult it would be without state control for marriage to function; contract law is very workable without the state. Besides, contracts are voluntary and consensual while the state uses the threat of force, it seems illogical that such an institution should be in charge of regulating contracts.
Robert Taylor No tangible position in reality? Until 150 years ago, the libertarian position reigned. And I said in the article that if the state unfortunately regulates marriage, then gay couples should of course be treated equally before the law. But you honestly think government should regulate marriage? Why should anyone need permission from other human being to exercise their liberty?
Robert Taylor I don't oppose trying to fix voter fraud, I am arguing that it is systemic and inevitable in a democratic system where there are trillions of dollars of stolen loot at stake. I don't think voter ID laws will "fix" the problem because as I mentioned in the article, legal voters with IDs have very little problem voting against liberty and giving us the mess that we have now. And I think it's a very big fallacy to suggest that because I don't want a law passed, that I want to "do nothing."
Robert Taylor Great question, Mike. From the top of my head I can only think of South African apartheid regime, though I am not sure if it was sanctions or just lots of scorning, pressure, and the inherently unstable rule of minorities. But yes sanctions almost always lead to war, they deny free trade which generally brings peace, and isolates the country. It's bad economics, immoral, and a very unwise foreign polocy move.
Robert Taylor That's a good point Douglass. NK is on high alert. But don't you think our policy of confrontation, threats, sanctions, and isolationism may have them backed into a corner? I think you are over inflating their threat, they have very little resources to wage a war, and the goal of any state is to preserve power and a war would jeopardize that. Also, who exactly arr the ones invading, droning, bombing, and threatening so many countries and a threat to world peace? I'd say the US government needs to be taken down a peg or two.
Robert Taylor That's a fair point, it isn't exactly the same counter situation. I do, however, think SK can defend itself. During the Korean war, the north had the backing of Maoist China and the Soviet union, but not anymore. Either way, we're broke and I believe we shouldn't be subsidizing the defense of other countries
Robert Taylor Thank you for taking the time to write this Mr. Limbaugh. I definitely agree that the GOP, or any party, should not target specific groups of people or water down their message in any way. And young people should be heard and noticed! The ironic thing to me is that during the last two presidential cycles, young people (moderates and liberals as well) were incredibly passionate for Ron Paul, someone who had cross-partisan appeal, a REAL conservative, and you and others did everything you could to do stand in his way. We are making ourselves heard, Rush, and finding you and the Democrats/Left that you despise so much as equally repulsive.
Robert Taylor Senator Paul, By defending civil liberties and the Bill of Rights, I think that what you are trying to represent and change within the GOP is exactly what the party and country needs. Your amazing filibuster is a night I'll never forget. While I am glad that you have helped bring attention to the issue of targeted assassinations of US citizens, I see the drone war as simply an extension of the 2001 AUMF that guarantees perpetual war. Obama's drone policy appears to be largely a counter-insurgency Air Force for governments like Yemen and Pakistan, and Peter Bergen of the New America Foundation estimates that only 13% of drone targets are "U.S. threats." Many, many innocents have died. I believe that the Bill of Rights and all of the protections it lists applies not just to US citizens ("no person shall be deprived...) Do you agree or disagree? If so, do you support an immediate end to targeted killings of all kinds? If not, what makes non-citizen's rights less inalienable? Thank you.
Robert Taylor Talking points? You obviously disagree with my sentiments, but I'd like to thnk my arguments are more than just talking points. I agree that I want a fundamental paradigm shift in society, and I DO deny the need for a plan. I don't want "plans;" society is a self-organizing structure, and the market through prices allows coordination, cooperation, and the quick changes a modern society needs. Our money WAS much sounder before 1913, though not perfect, doubled in purchasing power as opposed to losing over 95% of its value since 1913. Recessions were not deeper and longer (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods125.html). Just because the whole world is fiat is not an argument in favor; the whole word endorsed monarchy and slavery at one point as well. I would argue that libertarianism works even BETTER in this modern world, with the web, horizontal order, decentralization, etc.
Robert Taylor Gary's right, Brian. Numbers can be fudged, just like how the unemployment rate is closer to 20% when the gov says it's 8% and CPI inflation is closer to 10% when the gov says its 2%. It's simple: higher prices (in this case wages) equals lower demand (less employment). Do you honestly think that if the price of say bread was given a "minimum price" that there wouldn't be shortages and distortions?? Price controls create chaos and don't allow the market to set prices where they should be.
Robert Taylor David, if you really want to boost the wages of Starbucks employers, then the best thing you can do is to shop at Starbucks as much as you can! Also, I hope you would also support a sound currency that retains its purchasing power, helping the poor's wages go further and further every year. "greedy companies" historically pay about 70% of their costs in labor and machinery and 30% on everything else. Artificially raising the cost of labor either means some won't be hired or machinery will take its place.
Robert Taylor Henry Ford realized this, yes, and was only able to pay higher wages because of increased production and competition. I think you make several flaws in your arguments. More money in the hands of more people does not drive more business; if that were true, the Fed's money printing would have created prosperity. Capital, savings, and investment creates prosperity. Wages, like anything, are a market pirce reflective of supply and demand. To say that using the threat of violence by the state to ban certain types of contractual employment below a certain number won't hurt the economy or employment is disproven by the data I cite and basic economics: a rise in price equals a drop in demand. Price controls, whether in goods, money, or labor, create distortions and shortages.
Robert Taylor I am not interested in conspiracy theories, just the facts behind conspiracies. I cite multiple documented conspiracies in the article, do you deny that our noble politicians would possibly conspire to do something illegal?
Robert Taylor Thank you for valuing my insight, but how can you dismiss all conspiracies? I wrote this article to show that not all conspiracies are made equal. Which one do you find ridiculous? The Manhattan project was a conspiracy, Stalin knew about the bomb before Truman did. Therr are so many unanswered questions about 9/11, jfk
Robert Taylor Good question, Daniel, sorry for the late response. In a short answer, no I don't think the government should ban even heavier weapons. Grenade launchers, helicopters, tanks, as long as they're in private hands I am okay with it. I also don't think government should have any role in marriage whatsoever, or any voluntary contract between consenting adults.