You misstate the argument. Perjury is lying about a material fact. It doesn't have to be about some underlying crime.

Arne, you don't get it. these aren't my arguments. These are the arguments being presented by the two sides of the corrupt system. I'm not misstating the argument. This is the argument that is being made. When Clinton was being impeached, the GOP was all rending of cloth and gnashing of teeth - "Oh!! Perjury is a felony! It is an offront to the system! We must protect the sanctity of the system, even if it means impeaching our President!"

Meanwhile the Democrats were all - "Wait a minute. There wasn't even a crime committed here. He lied about cheating on his wife. Big deal."

You see, the GOP conveniently ignored the fact that there was no underlying crime and the Dems conveniently ignored the fact that there doesn't have to be. He did, in fact, lie under oath.

In 2007, we have the Dems crying - "Oh, woe is us! Perjury is a felony! It is an offront to the system! We must protect the sanctity of the system, even if it means sending nice guy Scooter to the clink!"

And the GOP is all - "Wait a minute. She's not covert. There was no crime here. Big deal. And besides, Scooter's a great guy. He should be pardoned."

Don't you see the irony? Both sides of this argument are insanely revisionistic. I'm not saying there was no underlying crime here. I think there have been many. I think getting Scooter for lying about outing Plame is like getting Capone for tax evasion. Or, more to the point, it is like getting Capone's accountant for tax evasion. But to have the Dems parrot GOP talking points from 1998, just because it fits their politics of the moment, and listening to the GOP defend Scooter with the same arguments the Democrats used in favor of Bill Clinton, is like "Through the Looking Glass" time.

In many cases the same guys who used Defense A in '98 are using Accusation B now, and vice versa. It is so hypocritical, on both sides, as to be a joke.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

Bucky1

You can quote all the crap you like from Wiki, (a wonderful resource if you know how to use it), but you're not going to sell anti-statist anarchism here, not even to Mona. That is popular among teen-age boys still reading Ayn Rand, (and some girls who dig the rape scene). Most of us toyed with anarchy in our youth and have long since outgrown it. Locke, Kant, and Rousseau believed that the role of government is to secure liberty, not take it away. You can get any crackpot economist to say anything. Some of them actually don't get found out to be the crackpots they are until after they are dead.

It's not Bush and the conservatives or Republicans.... It's the corrupt system!

John Emerson's letter @ 09:58 AM and at Seeing The forest:

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2007/06/the_honest_cons.htm

Good read. What he said.

GUBMINT IS EVIL AGAIN!

...Experience has taught us, as it taught Martin Luther King in another context, that those economics incorrectly predict the outcome of classical economic liberalism. Left to motor on without interference, it's more likely to lead to Love Canal than a country of yeoman entrepreneurs and shopkeepers, more likely to make common cause with plutocrats than democrats. ...

You state the case for your brand of "liberalism" well for just a few short sentences. Congratulations.

I will say that I was only trying to show the other fellow that the issue was not just a recent MSM/Republican-lie type scam. I also gave a link that if read in total does mention points you bring up. That is a reason I love wikipedia --- not deep, perhaps, but normally fair and balanced like Fox only pretends to be. :-)

I'll enjoy debating the differences between my "liberalism" and your own someday, but unfortunately I unable to put my time or thought into it today. I promise to return to the topic soon.

What should be evident from the Bush presidency is that for all but an inconsequential few Conservatives, the loudly and widely proclaimed Conservative Principles are actually Conservative Secondaries -- matters that interest Conservatives only secondarily, and that they are willing to champion only so long as their chthonic, obdurate, and actual principles remain unthreatened. Bin Laden's stimulus was sufficient for Conservatives to cast aside their secondary overburden, allowing those brave and caring enough to look to at least glimpse what Conservatives previously took pains to hide. Unfortunately, not just ostensible Conservative Principles have been discarded, but also much that is primary to the worth of the United States as a nation.

I just came across this blog, apparently a libertarian himself who was been tracking this for the last few years and... um, see for yourself.

http://rightwatch.tblog.com/

Yeah, I know, I know. I never doubted it for a second, either. Loony agendas aside, though, and making that iffy assumption that everyone contributing anonymously to a blog comments section is arguing in good faith, it's possible to believe in this ism or that one without being an asshole or criminal.

Still, I think Paul Rosenberg is essentially correct. Conservatism as we know it is basically about making -- and rabidly defending -- distinctions between those who get to live in the Big House and have debates about politics and economics over mint juleps out on the veranda, and those others who hew the wood, draw the water, and don't have the benefits of instruction in the higher aims of civilization. Liberals are about jury-rigging a system out of the pieces bequeathed to us by history to make sure that everyone shares in the benefits of civilization, and has a genuine voice in determining his own destiny, and our collective destiny as well, for that matter, just as it promises us in the Constitution.

u can quote all the crap you like from Wiki, (a wonderful resource if you know how to use it), but you're not going to sell anti-statist anarchism here, not even to Mona. That is popular among teen-age boys still reading Ayn Rand, (and some girls who dig the rape scene). Most of us toyed with anarchy in our youth and have long since outgrown it. Locke, Kant, and Rousseau believed that the role of government is to secure liberty, not take it away. You can get any crackpot economist to say anything. Some of them actually don't get found out to be the crackpots they are until after they are dead.

I see you did not read the link you made fun of; hmmm; this is looking like a trend with you.

If also looks like a trend that you have to be vulgar to try to make some point. The fellow I responded to seemed to think that socialists like you calling themselves "liberal" was a new thing. I showed him it has been going on a long time; as has the fear to be labelled "liberal" in modern politics for at least 2 decades.

However:

Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism[2]) is a doctrine stressing the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill,[3] and others. As such, it is seen as the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism.[4] The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[5] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of a few basic public goods that the market is seen as being incapable of providing.[6] The qualification classical was applied in retrospect to distinguish early nineteenth-century liberalism from the "new liberalism" associated with Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse,[7] and Franklin D. Roosevelt,[8] which grants a more interventionist role for the state.

Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman are credited with a revival of classical liberalism in the 20th century after it fell out of favor beginning in the late nineteenth century and much of the twentieth century.[9]

Libertarians of a minarchist persuasion use the term "classical liberalism" almost interchangeably with the term "libertarianism",[10] while the correctness of this usage is disputed (see "Classical liberalism" and libertarianism, below). Nevertheless, if both philosophies are not the same, classical liberalism does resemble modern libertarianism in many ways.[11]

So you throw Hayek, von Mises, Friedman, and all other classic liberals in the same category with rape! Damn!

How many men that history records as great intellectuals are you going to write off as rapists?

A fellow who could not explain Praxeology is going to call the guy who coined the phase a rapist?

Wow, is all I have to say on the matter.