[besson3c]

Tesselator: I thought it was pretty obvious that my post was simply a greatly summarized/abridged version of their positions in context with the point I was trying to make. If you want to go in greater depth in any one these issues, you are welcome to to do. I may or may not participate. Your posts are too emotional and lacking substance for my taste.

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Tesselator: Your posts are too emotional and lacking substance for my taste.

I hope so. Not much emotion here tho. Just watching so far. BTW, I wasn't challenging
the content of your post. Just bringing an entirely different point of view into play - not
even necessarily my own.

[nonhuman]

Why does McCain deserve the nomination? Because now that Mitt Romney's dropped out it's either McCain or Huckabee, that's why.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Whaaaaaaaa?

[smacintush]

Not dropped out, "suspended".

Interestingly, his reasoning gives him a "character boost" IMO, and it effectively negates the McCain/Hickabee alliance.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Romney

If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror..

Gotta love those Republicans. A presidential candidate who believes that the majority of Americans are terrorists---that would have been an interesting four years.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Yeah, I read it and found it incredibly melodramatic.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by tie 

Gotta love those Republicans. A presidential candidate who believes that the majority of Americans are terrorists---that would have been an interesting four years.

That's not remotely similar to what he said. I think you need to take off the blue-colored glasses.

Romney dropped out because he believes the Democratic candidates' plans are a huge mistake, and he doesn't want to bolster them by continuing to fight McCain. I think it's a respectable choice.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by tie 

Gotta love those Republicans. A presidential candidate who believes that the majority of Americans are terrorists---that would have been an interesting four years.

That's not what he said.

Sorry, Chuckit beat me to it.

[Buckaroo]

I will be part of the group Conservatives against McCain. I don't care who it is, just as long as it ain't McCain.

[peeb]

So what is it about McCain that 'Conservatives' are against? Is he a Marxist, by chance?

[Chongo]

Stalinist

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

So what is it about McCain that 'Conservatives' are against? Is he a Marxist, by chance?

McCain-Feingold

McCain-Kennedy

McCain-Leiberman

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards

McCain-reimportation of drugs

Opposition to tax cuts.

Gang of 14.

Consistently anti-enterprise.

His view of Terrorists' rights.

Like him or not, he is NOT a conservative and like it or not, conservatives still dominate the party.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

McCain-Feingold
McCain-Kennedy
McCain-Leiberman
McCain-Kennedy-Edwards
McCain-reimportation of drugs
Opposition to tax cuts.
Gang of 14.
Consistently anti-enterprise.
His view of Terrorists' rights.
Like him or not, he is NOT a conservative and like it or not, conservatives still dominate the party.

So you oppose Campaign Finance reform? Want to borrow money from foreign countries to give to the richest Americans, and remove fundamental rights? Perhaps you can spell out what it is about some of these things you oppose?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Anyone who still belongs to a party that would have that man as president, and all the cronies he's appointed to wreck the federal government with crowbars, has totally lost my trust. McCain may deserve the nomination, but the Republican party really deserves about 8 years of wandering the wilderness to reflect on what it has done by putting Bush in power.

How about the Democrats who were falling all over themselves to give him that power?

[Chuckit]

He's also not a libertarian — which, granted, is a philosophy that has its own party, but there are a lot of small-L libertarians like myself in the Republican party as well.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

He's also not a libertarian — which, granted, is a philosophy that has its own party, but there are a lot of small-L libertarians like myself in the Republican party as well.

Really? The Republican Party seems pretty much the opposite of Libertarian to me - what have they done that you think is libertarian?

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Why does McCain deserve the nomination? Because now that Mitt Romney's dropped out it's either McCain or Huckabee, that's why.

These people don't agree with you.
YouTube - Your Vote Does Not Count <-Watch 1st.
YouTube - Re: Your Vote Does Not Count <-Watch 2nd.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

He's also not a libertarian — which, granted, is a philosophy that has its own party, but there are a lot of small-L libertarians like myself in the Republican party as well.

Yes indeed. I'm with ya brother!

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

So you oppose Campaign Finance reform?

Yes I do. Campaign finance reform in general has been tried in different incarnations since Nixon and not only has it NOT done any good, things still get worse. All these rules have done is to ensure that the only people that can get into office are the very wealthy and insiders with "connections". Corruption has not been reduced one iota. All they do is muddy the waters and after the silt settles, they muddy them again.

Even so. These kinds of reforms…even IF they were effective…are an affront to freedom of speech and expression.

Foreign money is another matter.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Really? The Republican Party seems pretty much the opposite of Libertarian to me - what have they done that you think is libertarian?

They have MORE in common with libertarians than the Dems do. Plain and simple.

At least they used to. The new McCain party might change things.

[peeb]

So nothing about the ability of corporations to give enormous quantities of money to both parties worries you?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

They have MORE in common with libertarians than the Dems do. Plain and simple.

At least they used to. The new McCain party might change things.

A knee jerk attack on the democrats doesn't address the question - what has the Republican Party done lately that is libertarian?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

So nothing about the ability of corporations to give enormous quantities of money to both parties worries you?

Not really.

And nothing of substance is being done about it so what is your point? McCain-Feingold has done nothing to prevent this. Neither has any of the previous legislation. All it does is stack the deck in favor of the rich and the bureaucrats.

Making rules that stifles any chance of anyone getting into office who is not independently wealthy or a washington insider doesn't worry you? If you are so worried about the wealthy being in control then why support laws that ensure that they stay in control?

[Chuckit]

The Republican Party of late has not done much that's libertarian, and that's why a lot of Republicans are dissatisfied with the current leadership. But basically, at the core of their values, Republicans are more in favor of small government than the Democrats are.

Cutting taxes is a libertarian idea. Not restricting free enterprise is a libertarian idea. Creating more government programs to "help" people take care of themselves (e.g. universal healthcare) is not a libertarian idea.

Essentially, the Democrats are the big-government party and the Republicans are the small-government party. Their failure to live up to this expectation is why our Republican leadership is suffering so much.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

A knee jerk attack on the democrats doesn't address the question - what has the Republican Party done lately that is libertarian?

Lately? Not a whole hell of a lot. Reducing taxes maybe?

Some of what they have traditionally stood for, reduction in government control for instance, coincides with libertarian beliefs.

I wasn't making a "knee-jerk" attack on the Dems. It's a statement of fact. The Dems positions and actions are less libertarian than the GOP's…in general.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The Republican Party of late has not done much that's libertarian, and that's why a lot of Republicans are dissatisfied with the current leadership. But basically, at the core of their values, Republicans are more in favor of small government than the Democrats are.

Cutting taxes is a libertarian idea. Not restricting free enterprise is a libertarian idea. Creating more government programs to "help" people take care of themselves (e.g. universal healthcare) is not a libertarian idea.

Essentially, the Democrats are the big-government party and the Republicans are the small-government party. Their failure to live up to this expectation is why our Republican leadership is suffering so much.

Yeah, what he said.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The Republican Party of late has not done much that's libertarian, and that's why a lot of Republicans are dissatisfied with the current leadership.

I agree - I guess that's why I'm surprised that you think of the Republicans as libertarian.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

But basically, at the core of their values, Republicans are more in favor of small government than the Democrats are.

They have presided over the largest increase in government size and spending ever. They advocate government control of reproductive rights, government spying without warrants and legal oversight, and an unprecedented erosion of liberties.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Cutting taxes is a libertarian idea.

Sure - but borrowing money to fund tax-giveaways is not. You're talking as though the tax-cuts are giving people money - they're not, they are racking up public debt. The US is borrowing money from its children to pay off the rich - that's not very libertarian. If they cut spending, and reduced taxes as a result, I could buy your argument.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Not restricting free enterprise is a libertarian idea. Creating more government programs to "help" people take care of themselves (e.g. universal healthcare) is not a libertarian idea.

Libertarians are not for the kind of corporate welfare and croneyism that the republicans seem to espouse - using increasingly large government to funnel public money to large corporations is not fostering free enterprise.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Essentially, the Democrats are the big-government party and the Republicans are the small-government party. Their failure to live up to this expectation is why our Republican leadership is suffering so much.

If they are not producing small government, how can you say that that is their essence? Face it - the Republican party has been sold to corporate interests and religious extremism - it no longer has a substantial libertarian soul.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That's not remotely similar to what he said. I think you need to take off the blue-colored glasses.

Romney dropped out because he believes the Democratic candidates' plans are a huge mistake, and he doesn't want to bolster them by continuing to fight McCain. I think it's a respectable choice.

No, that is exactly what he said. It was a quote. Moreover, it is exactly what Republicans have been saying about Democrats for the last six years. I have been called a terrorist by Republicans in this forum too many times to count. They've recently started to learn a little shame now that it is obvious that Iraq has greatly damaged our national security. But Romney was trying to bring it all back.

I agree that it is a respectable choice to drop out, and I think his logic was correct in terms of uniting the Republicans while the Democrats will have a long fight still.

[Chuckit]

So the fact that a one administration is a certain way means that the entire party (which includes me and many other libertarian thinkers) no longer has any libertarian heart? I don't buy that. That just means that the current leaders are representing us poorly — which is something many Republicans would agree with.

And even if the Republican leadership is doing a terrible job, they still don't seem any worse to me than the Democrats. The main problem is that they're acting too much like Democrats.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by tie 

No, that is exactly what he said. It was a quote.

And the quote did not say "Democrats are terrorists." He did not say any Americans were terrorists. He said that the Democrats want to surrender to the terrorists in Iraq — and this is in fact true, the Democrats want to pull out of Iraq before the insurgency there is defeated. That's not saying all Democrats are terrorists. It's just saying that he thinks their plan is a really bad idea.

Originally Posted by tie 

Moreover, it is exactly what Republicans have been saying about Democrats for the last six years. I have been called a terrorist by Republicans in this forum too many times to count.

As I said, your grudge against "Republicans" (we're all one big blob, I suppose) seems to be influencing how you read Romney's statement. I'm sorry if some people have insulted you, but I really, really don't think that's what Romney was doing.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

And the quote did not say "Democrats are terrorists." He did not say any Americans were terrorists. He said that the Democrats want to surrender to the terrorists in Iraq — and this is in fact true, the Democrats want to pull out of Iraq before the insurgency there is defeated. That's not saying all Democrats are terrorists. It's just saying that he thinks their plan is a really bad idea.

Yeah - if the US had not surrendered in Vietnam we could be still fighting that war!

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I agree - I guess that's why I'm surprised that you think of the Republicans as libertarian.

He didn't say that Republicans are libertarian. No one did.

They have presided over the largest increase in government size and spending ever.

Yep. And it sucks.

They advocate government control of reproductive rights,

Typical, deliberate misrepresentation. But this is one the the areas where they are NOT libertarian. Did anyone say that ALL of their beliefs are libertarian?

government spying without warrants and legal oversight, and an unprecedented erosion of liberties.

Again, a deliberate misrepresentation, and again NOT one of the issues a libertarian would side with the GOP on.

Sure - but borrowing money to fund tax-giveaways is not. You're talking as though the tax-cuts are giving people money - they're not, they are racking up public debt.

This is a spending problem not a tax problem. And we all know that they have done a shitty job on spending.

Libertarians are not for the kind of corporate welfare and croneyism that the republicans seem to espouse - using increasingly large government to funnel public money to large corporations is not fostering free enterprise.


If they are not producing small government, how can you say that that is their essence? Face it - the Republican party has been sold to corporate interests and religious extremism - it no longer has a substantial libertarian soul.

Again, you are singling out the differences. They don't negate the similarities.

And this accusation of selling out to corporate interests is not a Republican problem, it's a government problem.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So the fact that a one administration is a certain way means that the entire party (which includes me and many other libertarian thinkers) no longer has any libertarian heart? I don't buy that. That just means that the current leaders are representing us poorly — which is something many Republicans would agree with.

And even if the Republican leadership is doing a terrible job, they still don't seem any worse to me than the Democrats. The main problem is that they're acting too much like Democrats.

Well what I mean I guess is that it doesn't look like the libertarian strain has any influence over policy.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Well what I mean I guess is that it doesn't look like the libertarian strain has any influence over policy.

And it will have even less influence over policy if all the libertarian-minded people jump ship because of a single administration's mangling and Republican ideals...

[peeb]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

And it will have even less influence over policy if all the libertarian-minded people jump ship because of a single administration's mangling and Republican ideals...

Even less than zero? Wow - that would be bad.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

And it will have even less influence over policy if all the libertarian-minded people jump ship because of a single administration's mangling and Republican ideals...

You know that's exactly right, but it's not ONE administration. It started with Bush I and now our two frontrunners for the nomination are McCain and Huckabee. The party is in danger of real, long term changes that move it away from the right.

Someone needs to start a conservative party.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

He didn't say that Republicans are libertarian. No one did.

No, but he said that some were - I was trying to find any elements of current Republican policy that are libertarian. I really can't find any.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Yep. And it sucks.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Typical, deliberate misrepresentation. But this is one the the areas where they are NOT libertarian. Did anyone say that ALL of their beliefs are libertarian?

I'm trying to find ANY areas of current policy where they are though.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

This is a spending problem not a tax problem. And we all know that they have done a shitty job on spending.

You don't think the two are related? Cutting taxes without reducing spending is not cutting taxes - it is taking a payment holiday.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Again, you are singling out the differences. They don't negate the similarities.

I'm trying to find ANY similarities.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

And this accusation of selling out to corporate interests is not a Republican problem, it's a government problem.

That's far from clear, but even if it were true, a political party could try to address it if they chose to - the republicans, unlike the libertarians, do not.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You don't think the two are related? Cutting taxes without reducing spending is not cutting taxes - it is taking a payment holiday.

Depends on what you mean by related. I don't think we should avoid tax cuts simply because THEY refuse to balance the budget. I get tired of hearing from politicians about how "irresponsible" it is to cut taxes in the light of huge deficits. BULLSHIT. The government brings in what…3 trillion a year? What's irresponsible is to continue to over-tax and to make excuses about why they shouldn't lower them.

I'm trying to find ANY similarities.

Taxes, de-regulation, opposition to the Dept, of Ed., gun control.

Opposition to Roe v. Wade. This is controversial but I believe that many believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Not because abortion is wrong but because the federal government shouldn't even address it.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Depends on what you mean by related. I don't think we should avoid tax cuts simply because THEY refuse to balance the budget. I get tired of hearing from politicians about how "irresponsible" it is to cut taxes in the light of huge deficits. BULLSHIT. The government brings in what…3 trillion a year? What's irresponsible is to continue to over-tax and to make excuses about why they shouldn't lower them.

Because you are not punishing 'them' - what you are doing is shifting the tax burden to future generations. It's very easy for politicians in the now to give 'tax cuts' and delivery spending as if it didn't cost anything, but they are running up the credit card for future generations. It is fundamentally circumventing the accountability that democracy is built on.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Taxes, de-regulation, opposition to the Dept, of Ed., gun control.

See above on taxes - they are not cutting them, merely increasing them for future generations. No Child left behind, anyone?

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Opposition to Roe v. Wade. This is controversial but I believe that many believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Not because abortion is wrong but because the federal government shouldn't even address it.

Roe vs Wade is the government stepping in to defend individual liberty when states were trying to take it away - it's very libertarian for the federal government to guarantee rights that the local government might want to infringe - this is what the constitution and the bill of rights is.

[Big Mac]

Hey guys, I just figured out the McCain ticket that would pwn the Dems: John McCain and Alan Keyes.

You heard it here first.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Roe vs Wade is the government stepping in to defend individual liberty when states were trying to take it away - it's very libertarian for the federal government to guarantee rights that the local government might want to infringe - this is what the constitution and the bill of rights is.

Roe v. Wade was the judiciary stepping beyond its rightful bounds. The court was not really upholding or interpreting any law — it was creating a new one. Separation of powers is crucial if we want the government to work within a libertarian framework. Do you really want Bush to be able to go, "You know, I think it should be legal for my guys to assassinate my political opponents today"?

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

And it will have even less influence over policy if all the libertarian-minded people jump ship because of a
single administration's mangling and Republican ideals...

??? They have already jumped ship. And joined forces with the evil Ds.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Taxes, de-regulation, opposition to the Dept, of Ed., gun control.

Opposition to Roe v. Wade. This is controversial but I believe that many believe that Roe v. Wade should be
overturned. Not because abortion is wrong but because the federal government shouldn't even address it.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

The real sign of the ship jumping and most of the similarities are revealed by tracking the various
voting records. When you look at that you see that the old party lines of the 70's and before are
totally gone except in a very few cases. So regardless of expounded ideals or the old ideals that
the party was established with both parties actions speak a massive acquiescence to a kind of
global minded socialism and militantism. For all intent and purposes the two parties have acted
as one for at least the past 10 years.

I see little or no differences between all the R candidates (besides Paul) and all the of the D
candidates. But again, don't look at what they say. Look how they voted. The two are all too
often completely opposite. Clinton & Obama exposed on Iran.

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Roe v. Wade was the judiciary stepping beyond its rightful bounds. The court was not really upholding or interpreting any law — it was creating a new one. Separation of powers is crucial if we want the government to work within a libertarian framework. Do you really want Bush to be able to go, "You know, I think it should be legal for my guys to assassinate my political opponents today"?

Exactly right!

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Roe v. Wade was the judiciary stepping beyond its rightful bounds. The court was not really upholding or interpreting any law — it was creating a new one. Separation of powers is crucial if we want the government to work within a libertarian framework. Do you really want Bush to be able to go, "You know, I think it should be legal for my guys to assassinate my political opponents today"?

Erm, there's no link between the president assassinating political opponents and a supreme court ruling on what aspects of people's person lives the government has a right to regulate.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Erm, there's no link between the president assassinating political opponents and a supreme court ruling on what aspects of people's person lives the government has a right to regulate.

The point is that it is BAD LAW and regardless of whether you realize it or not, many libertarians want it overturned because of the reasons I mentioned.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The point is that it is BAD LAW and regardless of whether you realize it or not, many libertarians want it overturned because of the reasons I mentioned.

Well I'm glad we've established the category of (caps) BAD LAW. Just to be clear, your opposition stems from the process by which it was passed? Surely libertarians would embrace the right to reproductive choices without government micro-management?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Erm, there's no link between the president assassinating political opponents and a supreme court ruling on what aspects of people's person lives the government has a right to regulate.

Do you really believe the court has a Constitutional right to make laws, or do you just like how it worked out in this case? Because it seems to me that the court has no more right to legislate than the President does.

Originally Posted by peeb 

Just to be clear, your opposition stems from the process by which it was passed? Surely libertarians would embrace the right to reproductive choices without government micro-management?

This is all definitely true for me.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Roe v. Wade was the judiciary stepping beyond its rightful bounds. The court was not really upholding or interpreting any law — it was creating a new one. Separation of powers is crucial if we want the government to work within a libertarian framework. Do you really want Bush to be able to go, "You know, I think it should be legal for my guys to assassinate my political opponents today"?

You are so right on Chuckit. Anyone who doesn't think Roe v. Wade is anything other than judicial legislation hasn't read the actual opinion.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Because you are not punishing 'them' - what you are doing is shifting the tax burden to future generations. It's very easy for politicians in the now to give 'tax cuts' and delivery spending as if it didn't cost anything, but they are running up the credit card for future generations. It is fundamentally circumventing the accountability that democracy is built on.

Then they should cut their spending. Rolling over and taking a tax-raping year of year isn't the answer to their irresponsibility either.

It's really sad that you think that keeping our over-taxed and highly over-complicated system as-is is the responsible way to handle a government that refuses to handle their money properly. The message to our leaders needs to be cut taxes AND spending. Not, "Hey! You guys really need to keep taxing us until you figure out how to spend money!"

As long as you and others think the way you do they have NO incentive to ever change their behavior.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Do you really believe the court has a Constitutional right to make laws, or do you just like how it worked out in this case? Because it seems to me that the court has no more right to legislate than the President does.

I don't agree with the premise that RvW is making new laws. I do believe that the ussc has an obligation to interpret the constitution, which they did. If the other branches of the govt or the people believe that they overstepped, they could clarify by amending the constitution, or by appointing judges who would rule differently. The fact that RvW has stood in the face of this shows that there is no overwhelming opposition to the ruling.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

This is all definitely true for me.

So why doesn't the Republican (libertarian) govt move to solidify the effect of RvW by legislation, removing the issue?