Another Photo-Journalist added to the roll of honor.

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Savageduck, Jan 28, 2011.

  1. Savageduck

    C J Campbell Guest

    I am a libertarian, not a Libertarian. The Libertarian party sometimes
    has issues with libertarianism.
    C J Campbell, Feb 2, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  2. Savageduck

    C J Campbell Guest

    to me that this obsession with Fox News, Limbaugh, Beck, and Palin is
    extreme to the point of being a mental illness. And yet, those who keep
    up these unreasoned, incessant and, may I say, irrational attacks refer
    to their opposition as "wingnuts?" lol. Sounds like a serious case of
    projection, to me.
    C J Campbell, Feb 2, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  3. Savageduck

    Savageduck Guest

    OK! I can accept that in the literal sense you could well be an
    independent who follows a libertarian philosophy. However the
    dictionary does not differentiate between the capitalized, or
    non-capitalized version of the word.

    1 an adherent of libertarianism : [as adj. ] libertarian philosophy.
    • a person who advocates civil liberty.
    2 Philosophy a person who believes in the doctrine of free will.
    ORIGIN late 18th cent. (sense 2) : from liberty , on the pattern of
    words such as unitarian.

    In today's political language, most understand an individual claiming
    to be a (L)(l)ibertarian in the USA, to be a follower of the
    Libertarian Party. So without a party affiliation it might be worth
    considering what the Libertarian Party platform actually states:

    "As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all
    individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to
    sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others."
    Its Statement of Principles begins: "We, the members of the Libertarian
    Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights
    of the individual."
    The platform emphasizes individual liberty in personal and economic
    affairs, avoidance of "foreign entanglements" and military and economic
    intervention in other nations' affairs and free trade and migration.
    It calls for Constitutional limitations on government as well as the
    elimination of most state functions.
    It includes a "Self-determination" section which quotes from the
    Declaration of independence and reads: "Whenever any form of government
    becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the
    people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance
    as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty."
    It also includes an "Omissions" section which reads: "Our silence about
    any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive,
    edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not
    be construed to imply approval."
    Savageduck, Feb 2, 2011
  4. Savageduck

    Peter N Guest

    that statement has as much validity as they deadbeat who owes money
    complaining about being asked for the money he refuses to pay.
    Peter N, Feb 2, 2011
  5. Savageduck

    C J Campbell Guest

    Just saying -- it ill becomes someone who thinks of himself as an
    intellectual to engage in ad hominem attacks. Especially those which
    appear to be basically groundless.

    After all, Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News, is a Democrat who
    contributes heavily to Democratic causes. Hardly an argument for
    calling the network right wing, eh?

    It makes intellectuals look stupid to be rolling around in the mud like
    a bunch of drunken hillbillies.
    C J Campbell, Feb 2, 2011
  6. Savageduck

    Savageduck Guest

    Murdoch is somewhat enigmatic regarding his political affiliations. The
    best you could say about him, is he is a carpetbagger.
    He only sought and gained US citizenship in order to gain ownership of
    US based media operations, since as an Australian he could not own a US
    TV operation. There was no desire for "The American dream" or liberty
    from oppression. All he wanted was to expand his "news empire" and
    fatten his wallet. Getting US citizenship was just a means to an end.

    He might have hosted a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in 2006, and had
    the NY Post endorse Obama,but there is no indication he made any direct
    personal contribution to "Democratic causes". If he has, please cite.

    Last year his little business, News Corporation gave $1M to the
    Republican Governors Association and $1M to the U.S. Chamber of
    Commerce, which was working to elect Republican candidates. There were
    not such matching fund to "Democratic causes."

    ....and the Fox News position in the political jungle is decidedly
    biased to the right.
    ....and the WSJ, etc.

    So Murdoch being a nominal US citizen and Democrat is somewhat
    meaningless given the reactionary personna of his "A-Team".
    Savageduck, Feb 2, 2011
  7. Savageduck

    C J Campbell Guest

    I would follow the first dictionary definition -- an adherent of a
    libertarian philosophy.

    The problem I have with the Libertarian Party is that it has sometimes
    taken positions contrary to freedom of worship, which I would consider
    an essential liberty. Also, way too many potheads in the party. Sure,
    if people want to poison themselves, fine. It is Charles Darwin at
    work. But I do support tough sanctions against people who endanger me
    by driving under the influence. I also think the Libertarians are
    deluded by their belief in "victimless" crimes. In fact, most
    victimless crimes do have victims, which the Libertarians are all too
    eager to ignore.

    So I would agree with Robert Ringer: I am a libertarian, not a
    Libertarian. Besides, the whole idea of a Libertarian Party kind of
    smacks of "Anarchists, unite!"
    C J Campbell, Feb 3, 2011
  8. Savageduck

    Savageduck Guest

    Then consider the dictionary definition of libertarianism;

    an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal
    state intervention in the lives of citizens.

    The adherents of libertarianism believe that private morality is not
    the state's affair and that therefore activities such as drug use and
    prostitution, which arguably harm no one but the participants, should
    not be illegal. Libertarianism shares elements with anarchism although
    it is generally associated more with the political right (chiefly in
    the U.S.). Unlike traditional liberalism, however, libertarianism lacks
    a concern with social justice."

    So it seems you are a selective independent-libertarian.

    How do you feel about state funded medical insurance for those unable
    to provide it for themselves?
    Savageduck, Feb 3, 2011
  9. Savageduck

    shiva das Guest


    CJ Campbell:
    Peter N.:

    CJ Campbell:
    You mean like calling those with whom you disagree mentally ill? Like
    they did in the Soviet Union and they currently do in China and North

    Pot -> Kettle -> Black.

    And if you had actually read my previous post you'll discover that I
    referred to the entire talk radio industry (no political affiliation
    noted) as "Wingnuts". If you find that offensive you must be a talk
    radio host.

    I'm just sayin'.
    shiva das, Feb 3, 2011
  10. The difference is easy. One is an adherent to a philosophy,
    another a member of a (political) party. Like 'christian' and
    'roman-catholic'. Or like 'green (protects the environment)'
    and 'The Greens'. Or 'conservative' and 'Tea Party movement'.

    Being one may even preclude being the other ...

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 3, 2011
  11. Savageduck

    Peter N Guest

    So Sara Palin is a well read intellectual, with an understanding of
    economics and world politics. She can see Russia from her front porch.
    (I was at her house, you can't, even on the clearest day.) Glenn Beck
    presents both sides of the issue, fairly. And Rush never incites the nut
    jobs. Bill O'Reilly always presents both sides of the issue. Wanna buy
    my bridge?

    Please explain this, in view of your statement:

    When as the last time you heard a true conservative speak on Fox?
    Peter N, Feb 3, 2011
  12. Savageduck

    C J Campbell Guest

    I never said anything of the kind. Sorry to intrude on your religious
    beliefs. I will leave you in peace henceforth.
    C J Campbell, Feb 4, 2011
  13. Savageduck

    Peter N Guest

    According to your the statements I made are "groundless" but, you deny
    the implications. Huh!

    BTW I am considered a conservative and not very many years ago was asked
    by our local Republican party if I was interested in running for office.
    (I declined.)
    Peter N, Feb 4, 2011
  14. Savageduck

    C J Campbell Guest

    Well, I am neither a conservative nor a Republican. However, that does
    not seem to prevent the Republicans from spamming my phone and mail
    with requests for money. I wish they would stop it.
    C J Campbell, Feb 4, 2011
  15. Savageduck

    Peter N Guest

    We agree. I wish both parties would stop spamming my phone, too.
    Peter N, Feb 5, 2011
  16. Savageduck

    Savageduck Guest


    As a result of the flood of "robo-calls" from political fund raisers of
    all types, the screening message on my landline is "You have reached
    805-xxx-xxxx, I am not available. If you know my cell phone number give
    that a try, otherwise leave a message and I will get back to you as
    soon as possible." Needless to say none of those machines leave a
    Anybody of any importance knows my cell number and we communicate that way.
    I also use Skype on a daily basis.

    One of these days I should dump my landline, but it has been useful
    from time to time.
    Savageduck, Feb 5, 2011
  17. Savageduck

    C J Campbell Guest

    I think that pretty much describes it. Selective independent-libertarian.

    Not big on the idea of state funded medical insurance. I think most
    people who are concerned with social justice are just looking for an
    excuse to take money away from those who earned it. However, I would
    allow that there are exceptions. And I think that some libertarian
    ideas of minimal government are just plain unworkable. Libertarians may
    not like the FAA, for example, but clearly we have to have some sort of
    aviation regulation. I do think that much of what the FAA does could be
    trashed entirely. Let the insurance companies set standards. They are
    already more strict than the FAA anyway.

    As you probably know, I am fairly conservative socially, a strict
    Mormon and all that. I oppose same sex marriage, for example -- but on
    the other hand, I am not sure why the government thinks it has any role
    in regulating marriage at all. So sometimes I am of two minds. I really
    cannot claim to have sorted out all the world's problems, nor do I have
    any inclination to do so. I take care of what I can, which doesn't
    extend much beyond my own back yard.
    C J Campbell, Feb 5, 2011
  18. Savageduck

    Peter N Guest

    You hit one of my hot buttons. Insurance companies are in business to
    make money. They are the antithesis of humanitarian. Perhaps under
    certain circumstances the interests of the insurance industry coincide
    with he interests of the public. But, at what cost.
    On a more personal note, I have been on a certain medication for several
    years. This year some bean counter at the insurance company decided that
    a different (much cheaper,) medication would work just as well. It
    doesn't. I won't go into the side effects. They will not respond to my
    doctor. Fortunately, I am able to pay for the old until the issue gets

    Peter N, Feb 5, 2011
  19. Savageduck

    Savageduck Guest

    On 2011-02-05 09:11:19 -0800, Peter N <> said:

    I have had my own battles with the insurance companies (Blue Cross PPO)
    over the pharmaceutical formulary they have developed in conjunction
    with CalPERS. For the most part it is based on contracts between them
    and the pharmaceutical companies. So if on manufacturer has a wholesale
    contract with them, and another doesn't, for a drug treating the same
    ailment, you get screwed.
    My particular blood pressure medication, arrived at, after various
    changes and tweeks to gain optimal effect for me, with minimal side
    effects, was not on their approved list. I usually order using their
    mail order, 90 day supply system, normally a $25 co-pay. They
    substituted from the Rx medication without consulting my doctor. He had
    to rewrite the prescription and note "DO NOT SUBSTITUTE" on the Rx. My
    co-pay for the 90 day supply is now $75 for a non-approved medication,
    but I am more than happy to be able to pay that, just to have a
    medication which works for me.
    Naturally they would not let me return the substituted meds for refund
    even though they had made the substitute unilaterally.

    My other battles involved treatment and care for my wife through her
    various medical crises.
    Savageduck, Feb 5, 2011
  20. Savageduck

    C J Campbell Guest

    I have had my own problems with insurance companies. Doctors in early
    November noticed a mass on my pancreas, but my insurance wasted nearly
    two months in getting someone to look at it. Considering that such a
    mass might mean you only have three months to live, I thought that was
    a bit much.

    Don't get me wrong; I have no love for the insurance industry. I just
    find that government tends to be even less accountable than insurance
    executives. Get the two working together, and you have a real mess.
    C J Campbell, Feb 5, 2011
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.