Free Talk Live

[jimk]

Recently, in the context of the big discussion about pro vs. DIY podcasters, I got into it a bit with Ian from FTL. It bugged me that we were at odds, because the idea of FTL's mission is so dear to my heart, but we disagreed, so there it was.

I'll be honest. I let that disagreement stop me from listening to FTL. That's a failing on MY part completely. I try not to let things like that get in the way of my personal exposure to thoughts and ideas, but for whatever reason, I let it happen here.

Recently I resubbed to FTL and started listening again. How can I put this? I don't know words strong enough...but try to read this next sentence with as much fervor and passion as a human can muster;

If you're an American or you live in America, you should ALL be listening to this show. I don't always agree with everything they say, but the ideas put forth are SO important, SO vital, so very *American* as to make our leaders look shameful by comparison. And I'm not talking about any one party...I'm chastizing the whole god-forsaken lot of them.

I read the interview on the front page of the Alley, and I understand a bit more about where Ian was coming from when FTL gets lumped in with commercialcaster and spamcasters. They;ve been searchig for a distribution model forever, and podcasting might just be what puts the show in the ears of more people than they can get an audience for on radio...not because the radio audience isn;t there, but because program directors have no vision. They won't take a chance on a show like this. So Ian...thanks for doing thisi show, I get where you were coming from, and I apologize if I came off like I was attacking your integrity. I truly believe you do this for the "love of the game" so to speak. It's clearly a passion, not a job.

Anyway...It's only fair to be as public with my new thoughts about FTL as I was with my condemnation when I lumped them in with all commercialcasters.

[Ian]

Jimk, you are a gentleman and a scholar.

It takes a real man to eat his own words like that, and I really appreciate the heartfelt endorsement! 8)

[Hittman]

It's in my subscription feed, but I only have about an hour a day to listen to podcasts, so I don't listen to it much. I like it, but I have too many podcasts and too little time.

The first book I ever read about Libertarianism started out with the phrase "Utopia is not an option." Our quest for utopia, especially to have the government solve every problem, big, small, and imagined, it what got us into this mess. Yet the big L Libertarians are very utopian, and despise us small Ls, who would like to temper the dogma with some pragmatism.

I would love to see our culture become more Libertarian. I'd love to see the Free State Project work. But I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter any more. I've been watching this country swirl the drain for most of my life, and with the last decision from the Supremes, which abolishes private property, this just ain't America any more.

It's not the only thing that has destroyed the concept of America, just the final straw.

We have a higher percentage of our population in prison than any other country, and more than half of them are there for non-violent drug crimes. (Land of the free? Yeah, right.) The fourth amendment has been gutted by the SC, bit by bit, and nearly every case that was used to do it was related to the WoSD.

But that wasn't enough. The PATRIOT competed the evisceration. For all practical purposes, the forth amendment no longer exists.

Then we get the Real ID act, which turns us into a "May I haff your papers pleezzze?" country. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate in it. Of course, you won't be able to drive a car, get on a plane, ride on a train, cash a check, open a bank account…yeah, it's voluntary all right.

Then came Gonzales vs. Raich. Two patients who grew their own marijuana to relieve pain were raided by the feds. The feds claimed they had jurisdiction because the constitution allows them to regulate interstate commerce. But these people were not buying, were not selling, and never crossed state lines. But the Supremes just said "so what" and ruled that the commerce clause did apply, and the feds could persecute the women. This goes far deeper than this case – it is a ruling that the federal government is free to ignore the constitution.

And then we get the big capper. Eminent Domain was put in the constitution to allow the government to seize property for the common good. It was intended to allow the government to build roads, dams, locks, etc. But for the past decade governments have been using it to take land from private citizens and hand it over to other private entities. If someone wants to build a condo or a strip mall or a parking lot where your home is, and could convince a local political it would generate more taxes than your house does, the government condemns your property and hands it over to the private developer.

This is not a rare thing – it's happened over 10,000 times in the past decade. The supreme court had a chance to put an end to it. Instead, they ruled that it was just fine and dandy. If someone wants your property all they have to do is buy a local politician (and they are surprisingly affordable) and you're gone. Fight it, and men with guns will come to your house. Resist them, and they will kill you.

And with that decision, private property has been abolished. Oh, you may have you deed, and it may be on pretty paper with nice scroll work, but it doesn't mean a **** thing. The moment someone with more money than you wants it, it's theirs.

And with that, America is over. It was a noble experiment. It was a grand attempt. But it has failed. There is nothing left to do but watch it swirl the drain.

I think I got off the subject. Yes, I agree, listen to Free Talk Live, it's a good show. It's about America, and America is over, but it’s still a good show.

[manwich]

Mr. Starkcast

I started an account just so that I could say thanks. Sir, I am awed. Thank you.

Manwich
The other Host of Free Talk Live

[kickasspodcast]

I also really enjoy the show, I agree with alot of what they say. The fact that they are radio podcasters doesn't have anything to do with their content. I have said to many people that they have alot of good concepts and ideas. The discussion was about classifications and I think that Jimk, you made some really valid points regarding the obvious conceptual differences.
Podcasting is going to be a nice niche medium for lots of groups and I am glad it has worked out for FTL. The disagreement on the classification is minor in regards to overall content. I don't believe that I ever said anything about the content, but if I didn't make it clear- I am a fan of the general ideology. Libertarianism encompasses a wide rang of opinion, that is why I think it is harder to organize-that and the mainstream media does nothing but squash thier voice (usually). Plus you have "Constitutional Republicans" which isn't really the same thing- which only further muddies the waters.

If this is a post of seriousness and humility- then hey, who couldn't use a dose. FTL has some good content and shouldn't be written off by anyone. The classification issue is really for the directory to decide.

OK- have a good one.

Jack

[Ian]

Awww.. you guys are too much. Group hug! :P

[Patrick]

I don't know Ian personally but I've had enouch of a conversation on here in the "radio vs. podcasting" forums for him to make me see things a little differently.

I know Ian is more passionate about podcasting than any other broadcast radio host. I know this from talking to him here, and from talking to my buddy Torgo who also happens to be a FTL member. I'd be willing to wager they care more about podcasting than a lot of podcasters, too.

I try my best to stay out of political arguments online because they consume a lot of time. Hittman, you are dead-on about a lot of things, and this week's supreme court decision pissed me off to no end. I'm building a house right now and can only imagine the fury I would feel if someone came along and did to me what has been allowed to happen there.

Anyway, enough ranting. FTL is good people's. That is all.

[Ian]

Thanks guys. It's good to be good people. FTL's been "putting it out there" from day one. We've built all we have from scratch. (And have yet to pocket a dime.)

We've always done it for the love of the art form. And for the love of Liberty.

Each listener is an honor. If it weren't for you, we'd not be here.

Thank you,
Ian

[dcolanduno]

This is not a rare thing – it's happened over 10,000 times in the past decade. The supreme court had a chance to put an end to it. Instead, they ruled that it was just fine and dandy. If someone wants your property all they have to do is buy a local politician (and they are surprisingly affordable) and you're gone. Fight it, and men with guns will come to your house. Resist them, and they will kill you.

Isn't it funny how many people don't 'get' that. We've had to tell people about the fact that law = guns in your face ... a million times, and they don't get it.

ALL laws are giving someone else the power to threaten your life if you don't obey them. Try arguing that it isn't and you will always be proven wrong. If you resist being arrested for ANYTHING long enough, they will pull a gun on you.

Now, you can have one pulled on you, because you don't want Wal-Mart to only pay you 80% of what your house is worth, so they can make even MORE money off of slave labor in China...

Just great...

We've covered this on our show a couple times as well... before the ruling. Our next show, we are going to comment on this whole crap-stick.

And don't make me even mention the **** Constitutional Amendment to shred the First Amendment as well.. "Flag Burning"...

Oh, and the 'Gay Marriage' amendment too... Yea, go screw that off as well.

Forget the **** Iraq war... this administration, and all the following myrmidons are just going to flush the system down the drain.

Oh ya... since our show is like... only once or twice a week, you should have plenty of time to listen to Ian and folks on the FTL...

[jimk]

Forget the **** Iraq war... this administration, and all the following myrmidons are just going to flush the system down the drain.

The property rights decision had nothing to do with the Bush administration. Look at who dissented and who made the law. If you;re being honest, you'll be forced to admit the judges that lean left are the ones that did this and the dissenters are the "evil" righties.

The flag burning amendment has UNBELIEVABLE dual-party support. Saying it's a baby of this administration is a lie.

Be fair in your criticisms. Put the blame where it belongs...on politicians of both parties who are grandstanding to look like the bestest and the mostest patriotic-est, all the while we get screwed.

[vox_monitor]

I just want to add my voice to the consensus here. There is literally nothing I feel stronger about than these issues. Somewhere along the line most folks seemed to forget the notion of the sovereign individual. It is so depressing to see the inevitable outcome of government happen here. The united states began as an attempt to specifically prevent government from becoming exactly what the united states government has become. Ours is the only country on earth to have ever even attempted the lofty and laudable goal of truly limited government. And for about 70 years, it was largely successful.

Then for another 50, it remained mostly succesful. Then there came the 16th amendment to the constitution, inexplicably passed and ratified by what can only be considered a generation of retards, and all was lost.

Soo we had prohibition and the new deal. And now look where we are. Our country is dominated by an organized crime syndicate whose primary activities are 1. convincing the honest working people of problems that don't exist, and then 2. Forcing upon said people solutions that they don't need and 3. using 1 and 2 to justify stealing between 10-40% of every single honest working citizen's livlihood.

All I want is to be left alone. But if you say no to this crime syndicate, they will kill you, or jail you, or take your house or your car - they will show not the smallest modicum of decency or compassion in responding to any defiant individuals. They will crush you. And if you ever even think about defending yourself - of meeting force with force - they will kill you without thinking twice.

The police are entitled to kill any armed man in this country at any time for any reason. All they have to do is say "I feared for my life." That's it. And the murder goes completely unpunished; probably it is rewarded with commendations. If any of us shoot a cop, however... well, "I feared for my life" in that context will just get you extra daily helpings of beatings and degredation at the rape and torture center (aka prison) until they finally, mercifully, get around to electrocuting you.

eric

p.s. I add my voice to the chorus: FTL is a deeply moral, important and entertaining cast. It gets and deserves my vote every month. And my thanks.

[vox_monitor]

The property rights decision had nothing to do with the Bush administration. Look at who dissented and who made the law. If you;re being honest, you'll be forced to admit the judges that lean left are the ones that did this and the dissenters are the "evil" righties.

The flag burning amendment has UNBELIEVABLE dual-party support. Saying it's a baby of this administration is a lie.

Be fair in your criticisms. Put the blame where it belongs...on politicians of both parties who are grandstanding to look like the bestest and the mostest patriotic-est, all the while we get screwed.

It's Scalia who really disappoints and frustrates me. He voted in favor of the government regarding the medical marijuana case. If growing pot in your own backyard is interstate commerce, then everything is interstate commerce. And as Clarence Thomas said is his dissent, the federal government transforms from a body of enumerated powers into a body of limitless power.

I consider myself sort of a left minded person. But I liked Thomas in that case, and I absolutely liked the right half of the court in the property rights case.

The way it works is like this: Liberty minded folk like the right when it comes to money, and we like the left when it comes to social issues. Unfortunately, both the left and the right miss the point. They sit in Washington arguing back and forth - "I want to control peoples' wallets!" "No, I want to control peoples' bodies!" And then they compromise. "All right, I'll vote for your social program if you vote for my tough sentencing for drug offenders bill. What do you say?" "Alright, shake. Let's do it!"

And that's what they call, bipartisanship. No thanks, I'll take gridlock and obstructionism any and every day.

eric

[dcolanduno]

The property rights decision had nothing to do with the Bush administration. Look at who dissented and who made the law. If you;re being honest, you'll be forced to admit the judges that lean left are the ones that did this and the dissenters are the "evil" righties.

The flag burning amendment has UNBELIEVABLE dual-party support. Saying it's a baby of this administration is a lie.

Be fair in your criticisms. Put the blame where it belongs...on politicians of both parties who are grandstanding to look like the bestest and the mostest patriotic-est, all the while we get screwed.

I'm going to disagree a little here, actually a lot.

It would be naive to believe that all of this has nothing to do with the fact that ONE party controls the House, Senate, and Executive branch. On top of that, they have put so much political pressure on the one 'non-partisan' branch of government, the Supreme Court, it is totally insane.

Yes, you can say that the lefties rolled over and haven't been fighting back. That is true, Dean shows a small amount of fight in him, and all the Dems jump on T.V. to apologize or ostracize him publicly, just so they can keep the status quo. Two mins later, 3-5 GOP thumpers will jump up and claim all sorts of nutty crap about the left wing... And not one group, other than the Daily Show, has the nuts to talk about it.

I CAN blame the Right Wing that currently runs the big-three branches of government. It has caused a completely polluted agenda, it is aggressive and leaves no room for compromise in many cases.

I will say that I blame all those idiots that keep rolling over when all this happens, to save their reputation, or gain political favor. But, to be honest, that is like blaming the 100 pound kid who gets his *** kicked by the 180 pound gang of kids everyday for his lunch money.

Yea, I guess the kid should fight back, and he's a wuss if he doesn't... But who is the one that is REALLY at fault in that relationship?

[Hittman]

In this case, it's the American citizens who are at fault. They're at fault for being stupid and complacent. Many of those who aren’t complacent are easily manipulated, driven by agendas that are not only anti-american, but based in a deep ignorance of American history and what the country is supposed to be about. The further you go to the left or the right, the deeper the ignorance.

In a free country, there would have been a small riot in front of the Supreme Court when the Gonzales vs. Raich was announced, and a much bigger one when they abolished private property. But most people aren't even aware of what has happened, and will shrug off any atempt to explain it to them. They know more about American Idol than American government.

The two party system is a myth. They talk a different game, but when it comes to action, the differences between them is trivial. It really doesn't matter much which party is in power, the end result is less and less freedom for the citizens. Until we've reached the point we're at now, when we don't even have private property any longer.

[spartacusroosevelt]

I will stick my head in for the obligatory Bill Hicks quote at this time:

I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here.
'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.'
'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.'
'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'

[Ian]

Bill Hicks rocks! And that's a great quote!

[dcolanduno]

In a free country, there would have been a small riot in front of the Supreme Court when the Gonzales vs. Raich was announced, and a much bigger one when they abolished private property. But most people aren't even aware of what has happened, and will shrug off any atempt to explain it to them. They know more about American Idol than American government.

LOL, Yea, between that and the Bill Hicks quote... I always find it too easy to forget how soft brained people have become in general.

It's almost as if all the 'news' and real topics were rendered un-touchable in general conversation. We had years of 'Political Correctness' and the agenda that allowed people to start complaining at work, or school, or anywhere that people might actually be discussing a real topic.

I get that a lot at work, and even out in public. Just recently at a bar, I was discussing the **** Property Rights stuff with someone that didn't understand it. Someone else, was trying to say that it was about, 'creating jobs' for people in a depressed area. And that it was 'unfair' that people could hold land and ask for greedy prices for their homes when all someone wants to do is put in a large shopping and business park that can EMPLOY people.

Of course, that is total crap. So we got talking about it, because the guy didn't understand. We weren't even yelling, we were just talking loudly. In fact, the people around us were being loud, yelling and carrying on about sports on the T.V.s and other drunkin' useless ****.

The bartender came over and asked us to; "Please stop discussing politics, it always gets people into fights." Jesus, we are in a bar, I think the Alcohol does that more than intelligent discussion. My father runs bars and restaurants in New Jersey, he told me that it is a pretty common thing to happen these days.

So, you get blocked from even TALKING about this stuff in most settings. No wonder why the 'average' person has given up on even caring. People, by nature, don't like to cause conflict or make others uncomfortable, to avoid conflict. And since our Society has turned politics and REAL issues into one of those things you can't talk about, in fear of 'offending' people. The only message most people receive is from Air America, Rush, or Fox/CNN.[/quote]

[jimk]

The property rights decision had nothing to do with the Bush administration. Look at who dissented and who made the law. If you;re being honest, you'll be forced to admit the judges that lean left are the ones that did this and the dissenters are the "evil" righties.

The flag burning amendment has UNBELIEVABLE dual-party support. Saying it's a baby of this administration is a lie.

Be fair in your criticisms. Put the blame where it belongs...on politicians of both parties who are grandstanding to look like the bestest and the mostest patriotic-est, all the while we get screwed.

I'm going to disagree a little here, actually a lot.

It would be naive to believe that all of this has nothing to do with the fact that ONE party controls the House, Senate, and Executive branch. On top of that, they have put so much political pressure on the one 'non-partisan' branch of government, the Supreme Court, it is totally insane.

Supreme Court appointments are lifetime. There is no pressure that any administration can place. It simply doesn't exist.

You're just being partisan because you WANT to be that way. The fact is the Supreme Court decision had nothing whatsoever to do with any administration, and it was the leftists on the court that made the decision. The fact that you'd argue against that tells me that you have no interest in the truth, only partisan blame and more of the same.

Read the decision. Look at who dissented. The facts speak for themselves in this case.

[dcolanduno]

You're just being partisan because you WANT to be that way.

I think that is a pretty crappy assumption. Means you know very little about my politics. And that you'd LOVE to box me into an easy to judge category. Well done.

I'm not being partisan because I 'WANT' things to be that way. I just understand how political pressure works, and how back-patting favors work in the real world. No matter what the 'rules' are.

Look at it objectively... And the past rulings of several of the folks on the court that ruled in favor of this slipshod case. It doesn't add-up, and yes, shows some form of bi-partisan desire to allow the government more power in the cases of property domain.

Doesn't add up. How hard is it to conceive that there have been favors and pressures put on the court after all the jockeying we have seen in the attempts to appoint members to it?

Saying that that body has been free of political pressure is pretty bizarre.

[dcolanduno]

And also, keep in mind what I said that makes you believe I am such a 'partisan' guy.

Forget the **** Iraq war... this administration, and all the following myrmidons are just going to flush the system down the drain.

Yep, lets read that again... 'all the following myrmidons'...

Did I say: 'All, the GOP members?'

Nope...

Many times, such an overwhelming drum-beat in one direction does pull with it, many from the other side. I think that is what Hittman, and that Bill Hicks quote allude to. The fact that, whoever is in the majority of power, always draws the other side to be more and more like them, in some sad attempt to vote-grab. Or, power-grab...

Doesn't really matter which, but we certainly have seen no real balance, more like a tide that comes in and out, which, in some form or another, they all follow lock-step in many ways.

[jimk]

So your claim is that the Bush Administration pressured the liberal judges to make the decision but the conservatives on the courts dissented against the Administrations pressure?

And this makes sense to you?

[dcolanduno]

So your claim is that the Bush Administration pressured the liberal judges to make the decision but the conservatives on the courts dissented against the Administrations pressure?

What makes sense to me is a show that the Court isn't 'a liberal extremist' group. As the whole right side of the isle has been barking about for the past months.

Hell, they wanted to remove the right to filibuster and kept using that rhetoric during the hearings where it was discussed.

Isn't a hard leap to assume the Court chooses its battles, like any political group would when, at the time, their group is in a political situation.

Jumping to too many conclusions? Yup. Which is why I reference back to my last post, which you decided not to attempt to speak to...

I love the Sean Hannity, Rhandi Rhodes type hammer you use... :)

[jimk]

I get your trick now.

Thanks for the conversation. Have a good day.

[Ian]

The court is a bunch of thugs wearing robes. That's it and that's all. They virtually consistently vote for tyranny. From time to time reason slips out, but partisanship is not an issue. Their pro-state bias is. And of course they have a pro-state bias... it's their paycheck.

[Patrick]

Did you just say they vote for a tranny?

That's sick, dude.

[Hittman]

Did you just say they vote for a tranny?

That's sick, dude.

Most tyrannies these days are voted for.

For instance, the United States.

[Ian]

They say the people get the government they deserve. Personally, I've had enough of this one, and refuse if variety of "services".

[dcolanduno]

I get your trick now.

Thanks for the conversation. Have a good day.

Umm, you were the one with the trick. Sorry I called it out. You took a comment I made. Then put words in my mouth by stating that I WANTED it to be partisan. I didn't say it was, but you said I did. That is a common trick used by radio talk show hosts and T.V. 'pundits' galore.

Then, after I pointed out that I didn't do that, you didn't acknowledge any of the information I gave you about what I said, and my clarification of how I saw the events. You just made another generalization.

So, I resorted to all I had left... humor, and the same types of generalizations you felt the need to levy on me.

Guess what, "Thanks for the conversation, Have a good day." Funny, thanks for the laugh. Not quite sure WHAT my 'trick' is. I don't have one, I pretty much told it exactly how it was.

[kickasspodcast]

There is no pressure that any administration can place. It simply doesn't exist.


While this is 100% true in that the Executive branch really can't apply any direct pressure. Elected officials of either party can say irresponsible things to possibly "threaten" or "compromise" the physical safety of Judges.
Judge Joan Lefkow's mother and husband were gunned down. Another judge in Atlanta was attacked by some crackhead. At the same time you have U.S. Senators saying irresponsible things. Judge George Greer in the Schiavo case was actually ousted from his own church for following state law. Unbelievable.

Rep Tom Delay Saying "The time will come for the men(judges) responsible for this(Terri Schiavo) to answer for what they have done"

And Texas Junior Senator John Corynyn saying he could "Understand why there would be attacks on members of the judiciary."

The judges they were criticizing are all very conservative republicans.

Don't forget the Justice Sunday Scam where Frist and Delay were simulcast to 1000+ churches throughout the country. All to say that obstuctionist Democrats wanted to fillibuster all the Christian Anti-Choice Judges. What a crock. 205/215 Anti-Choice, Conservative Judges all got a quick vote and confirmation. A disorganized Democratic majority took issue with the 10 worst- and Bill Frist goes running into church screaming bloody murder.

Maybe they wanted us to forget about a gay hooker named James Guckert and the fact that the entire rublican half of the House Ethics Commitee donated to Delays' legal defense fund and the chairman Doc Hastings is under investigation for shady illegal dealings with Jack Abramoff. Its about power corrupting absolutely. (imho)

I absolutely despise the Fascist Supreme Court ruling regarding home owners rights. Between that and the Real ID act that was passed in a recent defense supplemental, I can't believe people aren't standing up in mass for their own rights. Grrr... Maybe when they are told they have to submit Biometric Data for encoding onto their new ID cards in 2 years they will start to wake up. Less is more when it comes to good gov't. States rights are meaningless- except where they find ways to tax you. Here in Connecticut, there are places that actually have a "View Tax" no kidding, you pay a greater tax if you have a nicer view.
What a scam.

and

The fact that, whoever is in the majority of power, always draws the other side to be more and more like them, in some sad attempt to vote-grab. Or, power-grab...

There are so many, many things wrong with this blanket generalization. This only really applies to the modern American bi-partisian political climate, in that case, it is pretty much true- but in general its just plain laughable. Just had to mention it-

Why is anyone suprised that a bunch of business friendly judges make yet another corporate friendly decision? Don't act all mad because it finally affects you. This happens all the time in State Court.

Jack

[dcolanduno]

The court is a bunch of thugs wearing robes. That's it and that's all. They virtually consistently vote for tyranny. From time to time reason slips out, but partisanship is not an issue. Their pro-state bias is. And of course they have a pro-state bias... it's their paycheck.

Exactly my point. But they DO slip with the tide of the country. They have to, it is the nature of the game.

The stuff that BECOMES an issue enough to make it to the Supreme Court, most often, is the result of attempts to twist the system to the agenda of whatever the current political tide is trying to push. Or, the result of what people are trying to push BACK from.

Therefore, it *is* indirectly partisan issues that end up in the court, and if they aren't going in, they are by the time the news jumps in there.

So, again, it was said by someone earlier that the Court is 'NOT' partisan. Then later on the argument was that the 'left wing' judges were the ones that caused the latest ruling. Funny, somehow one of those arguments has to be broken then.

Judges are people, and even they 'lean' in one direction or another, we all know that.

But Ian has hit it on the head there with the Pro-State issue. I believe in States rights. But I don't believe States should have the right to meddle in the basic rights of people, and the basic foundations of freedom. Let them bicker over taxes, and zoning, and business rules, etc... I just hate the cop-out rulings, it's like the just pass the buck to the States knowing full well, which way it will play out.

[dcolanduno]

Quote:

The fact that, whoever is in the majority of power, always draws the other side to be more and more like them, in some sad attempt to vote-grab. Or, power-grab...


There are so many, many things wrong with this blanket generalization. This only really applies to the modern American bi-partisian political climate, in that case, it is pretty much true- but in general its just plain laughable. Just had to mention it-

How is it laughable then? This conversation *IS* about the current political climate. Which you just said it is true in... *confused*

But, it isn't really 'laughable' when you look back in history. Seriously. Politics is about getting votes. And when the PEOPLE are voting in the majority for some issues, there is a huge draw for a party platform to cater to some of those issues so they get MORE VOTES. I've never seen someone jump into a political race and go... "No, I'm not going to try to get more votes than the other guy."

Now, there are ways to 'grab' votes that aren't bad. But most of our current politicians won't go for them. Ian has pointed this out a few times on his show, and several other 'big' and 'small' libertarians have. The major parties are so attached to the money and power that they have strayed from touching the issues where they *could* get votes, but they would lose governmental power and cash-flow.

There are 'good' and 'bad' ways to get votes. But, saying that it is laughable to state that politics is about power and votes, is confusing. That is ALL it is. Someone wanting POWER and to do that they need VOTES. That is the game.

[dcolanduno]

And Texas Junior Senator John Corynyn saying he could "Understand why there would be attacks on members of the judiciary."

Most of your examples are EXACTLY the types of 'pressure' I was talking about. When one party controls all three elected branches of government, lots of kooky stuff happens and is said by both sides. And I've seen A LOT of it directed at the Court.

[kickasspodcast]

whoever is in the majority of power, always draws the other side to be more and more like them, in some sad attempt to vote-grab.

Yes, as I noted- in the discussion of 2 party American Poltics its true. I guess I am trying to say it only really matters if you are talking about something involving a 2 party election.

But to say that whoever have the majority in power draws the other side to be more and more like them couldn't be further from the truth in many situations.
Lets say.. Isreal and Palestine. They aren't exactly rubbing off on eachother. Bosnia and Kosovo. The Muslim and Non-Muslim groups there did not really start acting like the other side to try and gain more power.
I am saying that in many cases the Minority often acts "More Minority" for lack of a much better word to garner favor with their fellow Minority Members. I am not talking race or anything of course, just as you said- Power. I can think of many cases where it would be self distructive to start becoming more like the group in power if you were trying to advance your minority cause. IE: It doesn't help gay to people to act strait in order to be accepted. And if you admit that it does- its only admitting that some people are homophobic.

He is right on about American politics- which is the nature of things- but the thought cannot be broadly applied cross culturally or geo-politically. ;)

I understand nobody ever implied that it could- I was just interjecting Thanks~


Jack

[kickasspodcast]

I think they should get MORE PEOPLE TO VOTE-

Who knows what the Country would end up doing if twice as many people voted. We had what? 110 Million-ish maybe vote last year- We have near twice that or so who should have. Thats perhaps the saddest thing- so few many people care. America has been dumbed down either by design or accident, I'll never know. But it's a shame that now Patriotism is free and nobody cares about voting for Town Council much less the President or Govenor.

=/


Jack

[dcolanduno]

He is right on about American politics- which is the nature of things- but the thought cannot be broadly applied cross culturally or geo-politically.

Agree with that, in the cases you sighted. But in the more 'free' election countries, such as France, Briton, etc, I think an essence of what is happening here, happens there as well.

But, in many regions where the rules aren't as solid, and the situations are far more military, the rules change dramatically. Heck, ours almost did a bit when 9-11 happened. Populations and politicians do some very different things under the pressures of war on their own soil.

I think they should get MORE PEOPLE TO VOTE-

Totally agree. And they could, wouldn't really take THAT much effort in the scheme of things.

The problem is that the past efforts to get more people to vote, haven't been to listen to what those that Aren't voting want, or care about, it is to try to get them just to vote on whatever they are pushing, or one of the options that has already caused them NOT to vote. That is a real problem.

There are some issues that I am sure would get more people involved, stuff that niether of the current two parties would touch. And those issues tend to center around giving back more freedom and power to the people in general. Which removes power from government, in all forms. Something the current parties both fight to maintain, albeit in somewhat different ways.

Yes, the Libertarians have/are trying this, but I think the problem, again, is public perception. I have relatives and friends that have even said, that they agree with the Libertarians more than ANYONE currently, but feel funny even talking about it with other people. Why? Because the major media and parties have created the illusion that all third parties are a bunch of whack-job crazies.

Which, I will say, some of the 'big' Libertarian folks, DO come off as Utopian 'crazies'. So, easy to highlight those folks only, and move on...

But, there is no real true way third parties get a fair voice of any kind in the main-line public setting. And when they do, it is as an also-ran loser, or painted as a 'joke'.

Sad really. It is why stuff like FTL *is* important. Even if you don't agree with even 50% of what they say. I'd take a stab that is a higher percentage than what you agree with the Democrats or Republicans on currently.

Crap, I played that game with the Green Party, and found I'd probably vote of them over either of the current two... and that is saying something.

[docsnavely]

Ian, I just wanted to say that even though I am active duty and all, I really love your show!

I was a bit skeptical at first since I popped my FTL cherry with the episode where we were all called baby killers. Once I decided to listen to the next episode just to see what it was like, I was totally floored by your stories and subjects!

I love my job, and what I do, but you have opened my eyes on some things, and got me to think about exactly how screwed up my upper management can be at times. I don't mean the administration or any one particular branch of government, but just the organization as a whole.

I will not get into pissing matches about why I support my president (other than it's against the law for me to do so), or how I am not a big fan of the democratic party's tactics. I have my beliefs just like everyone, and no one's belief's are less or more important than my own. Just keep on producing your shows, and I'll keep listening (as much as i can with the little time I have).

Oh, BTW, what about a "best of" show with all of your kooky call in's like the cable box guy and his sort??? I love that dude!

[Ian]

Oh, BTW, what about a "best of" show with all of your kooky call in's like the cable box guy and his sort??? I love that dude!


Thanks docsnavely,

First, it's very rare that we're not live. Second, it's difficult to pick "best of" shows. So we don't. Never fear though, the kooks are always good about calling in. Only a matter of time before we hear some new whack job conspiracy!

Best of luck with the military. I hope you get out in one piece soon and return to a productive life!