en-us http://www.intensedebate.com/users/601148 Comments by TheBigLebbowski http://biggovernment.com/libertychick/2012/02/10/anonymous-threatens-crusade-against-israel-the-people-of-this-world-will-rise-against-you/#IDComment288966295 Anonymous is an interesting phenomenon...it is undoubtedly a whole lot of strange, backwards, eccentric compute nerds who one typically thinks about hatching petty little plots to get back at the world than abandoning them...then again some of them at least are actually committed to what they are doing. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:48:20 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/libertychick/2012/02/10/anonymous-threatens-crusade-against-israel-the-people-of-this-world-will-rise-against-you/#IDComment288966295 http://biggovernment.com/awrhawkins/2012/02/08/red-state-voters-the-chink-in-romneys-armor/#IDComment287328115 Such a strange world we live in that the GOP of 2008 was such that Romney was the more Right wing alternative to McCain. Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:32:42 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/awrhawkins/2012/02/08/red-state-voters-the-chink-in-romneys-armor/#IDComment287328115 http://biggovernment.com/awrhawkins/2012/02/08/red-state-voters-the-chink-in-romneys-armor/#IDComment287327055 Santorum has always been more aggressive. He needs to learn from Gingrich's mistakes...dont alternate between unsubstantive petty attacks and ridiculous attempts to seem all nice and high minded right when you actually start to gain traction. Go straight for Romney where he is most vulnerable, his out and out LIBERALISM, and keep your fangs on him until his campaign goes down in flames. Fortunately, Santorum has done that very well so far. I hope he keeps it up. Santorum can clinch this if he knocks the upcoming Arizona debates out of the parks mainly by punching Romney repeatedly the way Romney knocked out Gingrich in Florida. Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:30:55 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/awrhawkins/2012/02/08/red-state-voters-the-chink-in-romneys-armor/#IDComment287327055 http://biggovernment.com/reasontv/2012/02/07/jim-demint-why-republicans-must-become-more-libertarian/#IDComment287322530 I would say being pro-life/pro-choice has allot to do with Libertarianism. I can make a libertarian argument for both pro-choice or pro-life. Of course, as you said, this all hinges on what the humanity is of the fetus...is it human or not? I think the fetus is a Human being, worthy of our rights as much as any other, so I make the Freedom, right based argument, against abortion. Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:23:56 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/reasontv/2012/02/07/jim-demint-why-republicans-must-become-more-libertarian/#IDComment287322530 http://biggovernment.com/reasontv/2012/02/07/jim-demint-why-republicans-must-become-more-libertarian/#IDComment287320530 "I am quite libertarian in nature. I will argue against abortion all day long but I will not for one second contemplate forcing another to bow to my will in such a decision." What exactly is it that you object to about Abortion? If you think its bad because the fetus/embryo is a person, then why the h*ll are you saying your not going to force another to "bow" to your decision? It is very much your business to step in and stop people from killing each other, that's why we have a government. If you don't think the fetus or the embryo is a person, what do you find objectionable about it? Of course, we can have a debate about the intrinsic worth of a fetus vs. a baby. vs. an adult, but if we are going to say a fetus is a human but somehow worth less (and thus a fairer target for deliberate termination) than we must say that a baby is worth less than an adult, and that a senior is worth less than an adult. We'll end up buying into a ridiculous utilitarian scale of who's worth what and that will surely lead us to a dark place... Not that I'm saying you think these things. I suspect you just haven't thought it through ;) (no offense meant just looking to change minds and maybe get an honest debate) Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:20:45 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/reasontv/2012/02/07/jim-demint-why-republicans-must-become-more-libertarian/#IDComment287320530 http://biggovernment.com/reasontv/2012/02/07/jim-demint-why-republicans-must-become-more-libertarian/#IDComment287316817 Well said Palidin...I am no fan of much of the Liberals social agenda, but if they want to pursue all these things on a state by state basis, sure. I would be just fine returning abortion to the states, seeing as how a constitutional ban on the practice does not seem politically feasible. It should be the same approach that Lincoln took to slavery; containment when complete extinction is not possible. Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:14:44 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/reasontv/2012/02/07/jim-demint-why-republicans-must-become-more-libertarian/#IDComment287316817 http://biggovernment.com/jpollak/2012/02/08/rick-rolled/#IDComment287166068 Its funny how I find myself returning to the Bigs and Drudge and Real Clear politics whenever Romney loses...otherwise, I'm too depressed by his "inevitability" to even care, but then hope gets kindled again. I'll always be inclined to think Gingrich would have been a better President, but he failed to go for Romney's jugular in Florida by going on the offensive on the substantive things (as opposed to getting bogged down in petty issues which reasonable voters don't give a d@mn about). Santorum did, and Santorum is the last conservative standing. I'm sure he's made some bum votes and said stupid things, but he has shown himself to be excellent on the attack in these debates. If he keeps that up and really goes for Romney, he can clinch this thing. Gingrich should drop out and endorse Santorum, and the Conservatives should unite around him. Take this Opportunistic Liberal-turned-conservative $h!thead down, Rick! Wed, 8 Feb 2012 16:22:03 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/jpollak/2012/02/08/rick-rolled/#IDComment287166068 http://biggovernment.com/publius/2012/02/02/thursday-open-thread-groundhog-edition/#IDComment281971690 That guy wakes up every day, looks outside and goes "Dah f 'ck is this?" Thu, 2 Feb 2012 17:18:21 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/publius/2012/02/02/thursday-open-thread-groundhog-edition/#IDComment281971690 http://biggovernment.com/jorient/2012/02/01/newts-2003-blueprint-for-obamacare/#IDComment281374139 To answer the last part first, I think if the Liberals accused me of being "anti-democratic" they'd be right. I think its overrated. Valuable yes...but only as part of a hierarchical republican government. I'd repeal the 17th Amendment if I had the power to do so. So I ain't a shill for Democracy. "I encourage them to vote FOR something - as opposed to against something. BIG difference." Pfft, that's a meaningless statement. You vote for something, your voting against something else. You vote against something, your voting for something else. I don't think a cliche like that constitutes much of an argument. The point is, we don't make progress for voting for obscure 3rd party candidates who probably have equal or worse liabilities as the main contenders, and that is where your logic leads. You want to say "lets stop voting for people who don't meet our lofty standards!" Okay...and vote for what? In case you haven't noticed, we are already pushing for triple A candidates. The newer generations of Republican leaders, the Tea Party wave, show allot of promise. I don't take issue with you saying these people suck, or that we should push to make our candidates better. I take issue with you suggesting that the voters are somehow unreasonable for voting for these guys at all. You wanna vote for another uninformed, non-ideological "populist" idiot, like Donald Trump or Ross Perot? Be my guest. Anti-democratic b@stard that I am, I think the voters are guilty of idiocy, and evil, and hypocrisy, but not beacuse they vote for mainstream candidates. Thu, 2 Feb 2012 02:28:26 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/jorient/2012/02/01/newts-2003-blueprint-for-obamacare/#IDComment281374139 http://biggovernment.com/jorient/2012/02/01/newts-2003-blueprint-for-obamacare/#IDComment281143924 I didn't mention him because I would never vote for him not because I "forgot him". Wed, 1 Feb 2012 20:53:39 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/jorient/2012/02/01/newts-2003-blueprint-for-obamacare/#IDComment281143924 http://biggovernment.com/jorient/2012/02/01/newts-2003-blueprint-for-obamacare/#IDComment281135398 In my comment I'm referring to Gingrich when I said "tiny petty issue" and I don't think its particularly unclear that I'm doing so. Don't call me dishonest for that. Wed, 1 Feb 2012 20:42:03 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/jorient/2012/02/01/newts-2003-blueprint-for-obamacare/#IDComment281135398 http://biggovernment.com/jorient/2012/02/01/newts-2003-blueprint-for-obamacare/#IDComment281132341 What, do you think we are going to get a Washington or a Lincoln or a Reagan every single time? Political power is a magnet for the worst kind of people...so you have to go with the lesser evil. Maybe you could affect change if you got everyone to stop voting, but then again you would probably end up crashing the democratic system which I'm assuming you value quite highly. Its one thing to say "Our current field sucks!" and I mostly agree with you. Its quite another thing to say "The current field sucks and we shouldn't vote for any of them!" Wed, 1 Feb 2012 20:38:01 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/jorient/2012/02/01/newts-2003-blueprint-for-obamacare/#IDComment281132341 http://biggovernment.com/jorient/2012/02/01/newts-2003-blueprint-for-obamacare/#IDComment281129591 Do you think that is going to convince anyone to vote for him? Paul the vet? Is that the newest title for his excellency? I thought it was Dr.Paul not too long ago...or Constitutional Scholar Paul...or Well informed and all around great guy Paul. Or Paul the only competent and sane constitutional conservative even though he is neither sane nor conservative. Wed, 1 Feb 2012 20:34:19 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/jorient/2012/02/01/newts-2003-blueprint-for-obamacare/#IDComment281129591 http://bigjournalism.com/jpollak/2012/01/31/the-racial-hypocrisy-of-juan-williams-jeffrey-goldberg-and-the-liberal-media/#IDComment281123534 If Goldberg wanted to allege that I held those beliefs, he would not be far from the truth. The unfortunate truth here is that as a group in America, Black people are more prone to Criminal activity, Welfare (more white people might be on welfare, but I guarantee that per capita, more Blacks benefit from government assistance), Drug abuse, Divorce, poverty etc etc etc. They have an ingrained cultural problem. I don't think there inferior inherently. I don't think there is something genetic which makes them, as individuals, more prone to all those things I just highlighted. But let's be honest here, as a result of their unfortunate arrival in this country, of the legacy of slavery and segregation, of the lies which have been told them by paternalistic white liberals and demented Black egalitarians and nationalists, their culture has been poisoned. They have been led into a deep dark place by the very people who they think are really standing up for them. The majority of civil rights leaders would be just fine with affirmative action and increased welfare for blacks, when what they fail to see is that it is precisely those things which have destroyed the culture of the black community. The cultural devastation of the black community, and the de-facto segregation which many of them still suffer under is one of the worst things in America today, and honestly, I think since they sure as h*ll wont listen to us White folks, the only thing which can save them would be a black conservative who could force them to take the medicine which they all so desperately need. And such an individual has yet to emerge. Wed, 1 Feb 2012 20:25:42 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/jpollak/2012/01/31/the-racial-hypocrisy-of-juan-williams-jeffrey-goldberg-and-the-liberal-media/#IDComment281123534 http://biggovernment.com/jorient/2012/02/01/newts-2003-blueprint-for-obamacare/#IDComment281101060 Ive known Gingrich had a technocrat streak, but even if what this article say's is completely true, Gingrich is still a better bet than Romney. I mean, lets take this article completely at face value. Lets call it Gingrich care...Gingrichcare=Obamacare=Romneycare...okay, well that is annoying. Gingrich has also been inconsistent on global warming. BUT that still leaves Gingrich on Foreign policy, social values, record in government etc etc. And on all of those topics he is far and away Romney's superior. I'm willing to believe, that like Romney, Gingrich is only saying these things now, but that still leaves a pretty broad swath of issues on which Gingrich is far more Conservative than Romney. Romney is much softer on taxes, and his foreign policy would be a simple continuation of the Bush years, something we cannot afford. This does leave Santorum...honestly, I'm torn, beacuse when Gingrich is actually able to debate, I can say "Well Gingrich's high points balance out his low points" so I'm just fine supporting him since he seems to be more viable as the Anti Mitt than Santorum...then again, when he fails to debate in Florida, when he gets dragged into little tiny petty issues which no one cares too much about, as he did in Florida, this raises serious doubts about his candidacy. Romney's Florida Win not with standing, I don't think this race is going to be really over until at least Super Tuesday. If Gingrich can get a consistent message and a good debate under his belt, he can recover his momentum. Wed, 1 Feb 2012 19:54:48 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/jorient/2012/02/01/newts-2003-blueprint-for-obamacare/#IDComment281101060 http://biggovernment.com/cjohnson/2012/01/29/romney-cut-only-603-govt-jobs-in-ma-while-his-predecessor-cut-7700/#IDComment278229897 I think before anyone can make any real judgement about this, we would need to know what the state of the legislature was in MA under Romney vs. his Predecessor, the economic situation, what the previous gov. was politically... Admittedly, Romney was not a crusading government cutting governor. We all know that and this is further evidence. But was this a situation where he should have been one? Of course, don't mistake me. I hate Romney's candidacy, and I believe he is at best a completely self interested politician with no ideological preference but power, and at worse, he is a completely self interested politician who is a liberal deep down. Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:06:26 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/cjohnson/2012/01/29/romney-cut-only-603-govt-jobs-in-ma-while-his-predecessor-cut-7700/#IDComment278229897 http://biggovernment.com/skruiser/2012/01/19/the-tea-party-could-damage-its-brand-by-endorsing-newt/#IDComment275306162 "No, but I don't inherently trust what they're saying either. I guess you can call it a healthy dose of skepticism mixed with a desire for independent verification." Healthy skepticism should include a preceding clause which says "Skeptical to the point of reason". Besides, a desire for independent verification? Through what? The News? Books? Other Ron Paul fans (god forbid)? These sources probably lie every bit as much, sometimes more than the government. All I am saying is, it was useless for you to bring this issue up, because if we are going to bother to have a fact based argument on Alwaki, we have already made a huge amount of assumptions that what we have heard is truth. "Yes and no. Anwar's son was also a US Citizen. As to the circumstances surrounding his death, my question was more rhetorical than anything seeing as the gov't (as far as I can tell) has released even less info about his death than his father's." Well I'm officially neutral. I'm inclined to think that what he got, he probably deserved, just like his father, but I don't know so I won't venture to make any sort of opinion outside of that. "Government is a means, not the end in itself, agreed? The end, as you've previously noted, is to provide a legal framework in which people are allowed maximum freedom to pursue their own happiness (aka life, liberty and property). Due process of law is a critical component of that framework. Without due process, the gov't could legally write laws which take away your natural rights." The government can already do that. If the government, in its totality, wants to take my rights, do you think the Law will stop them? They make the law! They can point at me, snap their fingers, and say "your freedom means nothing" and they have made it so. The only bed rock upon which Due process rest's is the faith in it of the people who live under it. They maintain it because they think its good, not because it has any ability to actually compel them. Due process, by itself, is a weak and toothless thing. The reason I say that, is because it can only be viewed in full context as a means to an end, that end being the rule of liberty under law. (which is itself only a means to an end, that is to say, Human happiness). And here's the beef: Due process is only a means to an end of protecting life. You disparage Security, siting Franklin, but what you fail to see is that Due process is only one more prop we have to ensuring that Security, because when viewed objectively, real freedom and real security amount to the same thing! For average people, actual dictatorships and tyrannies have neither Liberty or security, and the US has both in plenty. SO to emphasize due process so much that doing so starts to risk the lives of others is counter productive to the end goal of due process itself, because it is yet one more way we seek to protect innocent life. By killing a known Jihadist recruiter (or Terrorist, take your pick) is a net gain for Liberty, not a loss, and the slippery slope argument you guys keep making is meaningless because if we run into people who want to take away our due process rights, they will do so rather we have respected it in the past or not. Liberty under Law is a matter of faith and will. These laws do not protect themselves. Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:30:09 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/skruiser/2012/01/19/the-tea-party-could-damage-its-brand-by-endorsing-newt/#IDComment275306162 http://biggovernment.com/skruiser/2012/01/19/the-tea-party-could-damage-its-brand-by-endorsing-newt/#IDComment275304843 "**Can I also note the high level of hatred I have for the thread depth this comment system allows. This reply is 18 levels deep and the text box will only continue to shrink.**" Oh I know exactly what you are talking about. I had a two weeks long argument (really quite a hatefull one because the guy was such an A-hole) with an Anti-Jihadist type who was too Anti-jihadist even for me (he wanted to start banning mosques), and I must have had to restart the column of replies two or three times, which is what I'm doing now. In any case, to the meat of your comment... "What would happen, even today, if a subset of the population decided that our current gov't is beyond hope and felt it needed to be abolished? How long until they would be labeled terrorists?" Well this is a difficult question to answer because so many variables would be involved to lead to such a hypothetical and there could be so many variations such a movement could take. And that's completely setting aside the issue of who's right...the government could be justified in taking the rebels ( I will call them that for lack of a more specific term) or they could not be. It completely depends on the nature of the rebels and the government they are rebelling against. If such an event occurred we would be living in a very different world with hugely different considerations to make. Once again, don't mistake me for one of these idiots (usually Liberal) who think that history is frozen, and we will always be the land of the free. What you suggesting could happen in the right circumstances, in a short period of time... But, my point is, this is such a vague hypothetical that I can't really see what point your getting at here. "Reinforcing the cockpit door has arguably done more to increase airplane security than any program the TSA has implemented...we don't have an an unlimited amount of money to spend on protecting each life." Do you honestly believe that increased security checkpoints, scans, and laws prohibiting Aerosols, gels, etc have not forced potential terrorists to change their plans, considering the fact that we know they were going in for that kind of thing? That these measures were introduced to prevent exactly that kind of attack? That's just one example. Of course our security measures f' up from time to time, but just like the news, you are more likely to hear the bad stuff then the good. Its easy for you to say "These things are ineffective and meaningless!" because there have not been too many attempted attacks to set any sort of standard. To me, it follows naturally that these measures have prevented attacks from even coming off the drawing board, and as a result you can say "look, no prevented attempted attacks!" because there have hardly been any. "What's done is done, yes. But that's no reason to not change course what we're doing isn't working... I do know that what we're doing now isn't making us safer, or any friends." And I am not opposed to that. I ain't a Neocon, more like I sit comfortably in the middle of the Neo cons and you guys and say "oh d@mn, they are at it again...". I mean, I would not have gone into Iraq, I would not have gone into Libya, and I am no fan of the state of Israel. All that said, you guys take grievance legitimately with some things, then apply your annoyance to everything in sight...therefore, we have to go from "we should not have gone into Iraq" to "we cannot possibly consider bombing Iran" when, for reason's Ive said before, such a policy is ridiculous. That's the thing the interventionists have in common with you guys, you apply the same stupid generalization to every conflict, when, as we all know, wars are different and should be considered as such. Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:28:24 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/skruiser/2012/01/19/the-tea-party-could-damage-its-brand-by-endorsing-newt/#IDComment275304843 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/02/15/paul-star-simon-pegg-who-doesnt-get-flak-from-the-bible-belt-in-america/#IDComment275262068 You misunderstand me. I mean "literal" creationism, which is what most people know as creationism. There's allot of shades of grey here as one moves away from the literal interpretation of genesis, and there's plenty of people who might call themselves "creationists", like yourself, who I would be in complete agreement with. My argument is simply against the denial of Evolution as a phenomenon that actually occurs, and a literalistic interpretation of the book of genesis. That kind of "creationism" is idiotic because we have a whole host of reasons, some of them in the bible itself, some of them empirical evidence, etc etc. I'm not an Atheist, nor a Darwinist. I believe that Macro Evolution occurs but I don't believe in Darwin's natural selection, at least not totally. Your questions are good, but they would be better aimed at an Actual Atheist, because they would trap them, whereas I bet you and me are probably in almost complete agreement about these things. Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:25:44 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/02/15/paul-star-simon-pegg-who-doesnt-get-flak-from-the-bible-belt-in-america/#IDComment275262068 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jsshapiro/2012/01/25/oliver-stone-and-ron-paul-a-match-made-in-isolationist-heaven/#IDComment275247635 Thats partly true P_T, some of the NeoCons undoubtedly do have a hard on for the state of Israel and thats why Ron Paul pisses them off so much. I wouldn't say I'm one of those. I find Neo con interventionism almost as stupid as Ron Pauls isolationism (they call it "non interventionism" but whatever). But the bottom line is, Ron Paul has a real demented cult of personality, and I think that's one of the main reasons why people at the Bigs feel the need to take on RP. Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:04:18 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jsshapiro/2012/01/25/oliver-stone-and-ron-paul-a-match-made-in-isolationist-heaven/#IDComment275247635