Schoolyard Taunting

No TJ is complete right. I would love to see another party become a factor but you guys are living in la la land. Maybe just maybe the tea party could branch off but then I would be in la la land thinking it could happen with you. The fact is (like TJ said) there are two parties and you have to choose the lesser of two evils. There will never be a candidate that could have all of the qualities everybody desires. Therefore you are not only throwing your vote away you are boosting the vote for the party you disagree with more. I'm stund that we are even having such a conversation.

 

I never said I wanted a third party. I said I will vote for the best person I think should do the job regardless of party.

The lesser of two evils thing is BS, sellout excuses. I don't think it's beyond thought that the D or R parties could completely self destruct. We just haven't had the right environment yet.

 

What is getting lost here is I am bad mouthing Palin because I want the Republicans to nominate someone in the the tradition of Goldwater and Reagan. I want another Reagan. Snaf and TJ are happy with GW in a skirt. I hope to vote for a Republican who is not a stinking socialist.

 

Energy doublespeak, Sarah? What do ya call it when ya tax oil companies in Alaska but oppose it nationally?

 

I'll take "Big, Fat Hypocrite" for $800, Alex.

 

You're insane.

Go vote for your little, lesser evil (cop-out) and I will continue to vote for the most scrupulous. Those candidates who will stand up and protect the Constitution from all attacks, who are strong believers in the strength of the private sector, and those who want to shrink the role of the federal government at home and abroad.

Do you ever stop to think that all of your voting for the lesser evil actually got Obama elected? Crazy, huh? Yeah... people like you who can't see past the two party system. People like you who believe there is a difference between a 25% socialist and a 100% socialist (A 1% butt hole is still an butt hole.).

 

Socialist Party Platform 1928


Socialist Party Platform of 1928

1. "Nationalization of our natural resources, beginning with the coal mines and water sites, particularly at Boulder Dam and Muscle Shoals."
2. "A publicly owned giant power system under which the federal government shall cooperate with the states and municipalities in the distribution of electrical energy to the people at cost."
3. "National ownership and democratic management of railroads and other means of transportation and communication."
4. "An adequate national program for flood control, flood relief, reforestation, irrigation, and reclamation."
5. "Immediate government relief of the unemployed by the extension of all public works and a program of long range planning of public works ... All persons thus employed to be engaged at hours and wages fixed by bona-fide labor unions."
6. "Loans to states and municipalities without interest for the purpose of carrying on public works and the taking of such other measures as will lessen widespread misery."
7. "A system of unemployment insurance."
8. "The nation-wide extension of public employment agencies in cooperation with city federations of labor."
9. "A system of health and accident insurance and of old age pensions as well as unemployment insurance."
10. "Shortening the workday" and "Securing to every worker a rest period of no less than two days in each week."
11. "Enacting of an adequate federal anti-child labor amendment."
12. "Abolition of the brutal exploitation of convicts under the contract system and substitution of a cooperative organization of industries in penitentiaries and workshops for the benefit of convicts and their dependents."
13. "Increase of taxation on high income levels, of corporation taxes and inheritance taxes, the proceeds to be used for old age pensions and other forms of social insurance."
14. "Appropriation by taxation of the annual rental value of all land held for speculation."

This is in the appendix of Milton Friedman's Free to Choose. Friedman pointed out the power of ideas and that while the Socialist Party had few electoral successes in the long run they were the most influential party of the 20th Century. I cannot vote for the lesser evil when it simply slows us down the path to serfdom. There is also a prevailing opinion that you can't work both with the Republicans and the Libertarian or other parties. I am both a Libertarian and a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus "The Ron Paul Republicans". It takes pressure both from within and without to change a parties ideological stance. My hope is to bring back the political ideology of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Barry Goldwater. The Republican Party that nominated John "Screw the 1st Amendment" McCain and his runnning mate Sarah "Tacx the oil companies and mail everyone a check" Palin has strayed far from that ideology. The electoral college system usually means there is no more than a dozen states in play. There is no reason not to vote the Presidential candidate who best represents your views in the rest of the states.

Barry Goldwater:

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests", I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

I'll vote for a Goldwater Republican for President, otherwise it will be the Libertarian candidate. I live in Texas, it ain't like my vote will effect the election outcome.


"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals -- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

RONALD REAGAN, Reason Magazine, Jul. 1, 1975

 

I remember Sarah Palin's speech from the Republican National Convention last September. In my humble opinion, Palin sounds as if she suffers from a bipolar disorder.

She should get that checked out. Perhaps that'll keep her home more and she can keep an eye on her daughter's whoring about.

 

It was horrible.

I remember thinking, "Is this the best the GOP can do?". Then it occurred to me, hit me like a bolt of lightning, McCain is supposed to lose to Obama. The oligarchs could not accomplish with a McCain what they could accomplish with an Obama.

So I wrote in Ron Paul who might be the only honest politician on the Hill.

 

After the November elections, I think the Republicans will force Obama to be more centrist. This will all but neuter Obama as he hits rampart after rampart of GOP stockades.

Then all the GOP will be happy that they have a "moderate Republican in practice" in the White House.

 

Name one instance of these "huge holes" without going into your whole "libertarians voted for Obama" balcony speech.

 

And if you can't get perfection, you will have a temper tantrum and refuse to support her or anyone else you see as less than perfect and that decision by you is what got someone like Obama elected.


I believe you said in another thread that you did not want to vote for the least evil because their destination was the same but you keep ignoring things like nominating judges, that one thing alone drastically changes the game because while you do not like to vote for a guy who believes in 75% of what you believe, your also not voting for the kinds of Judges that 75% person would put into office and the kinds of damage activist Judges could do to the fabrick of America.


Sure, you and Joe can claim your "pure" but your attitudes of only voting for perfection means your doing more harm than good in reality.


A wasted vote is a vote for Obama, so everything he produces and every Judge he puts in office is your fault because you were too trapped by your "purity" to accept that something you have to meet someone where in the middle.



Sometimes... when you hold out for everything, you walk away with nothing. ~ unknown

 

Well they did vote for Obama, that is a valid point and if your too blinded to see why that is a problem you will not see any other point either.


Ron Paul for example promises to withdraw from every agreement in the world like NATO and says he will never support any military action away from American soil for any reason. He forgets that without France and other "FRIENDS" helping America, we would not today be free. I agree we should pull way, way back and force other Countries to help with the many problems we always end up taking point on, but I do not believe completely isolating ourselves from the world is the right thing to do either. Ron Paul is simply the far end of the spectrum just like Pelosi is the far end of the Democrat spectrum. The liberals allow their radicals run their party, I do not think we should be doing the same as the liberals.

 

Do you have any links to back up your argument?

One of the many things that I agree with Dr. Paul is the fact that NATO, the UN, and other organizations just allow for the expotential growth of government. The one thing I fear is a governing world authority where countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, France, et al kick up taxes to that authority. We're damn near impotent now with all the debt we owe to China, but according to the Keynesian's China has a problem because we owe them money.

Dr. Paul's scaleback of involvement in warfare is due to fact that we are broke. Warfare has to be funded; not only by the lives of solders, but the taxes collected from the citizens. We can hardly support our allies when we can't even support ourselves.

Occupation of a country costs money. We cannot afford long-standing occupation without capital to fund support. Again, we cannot afford it. This country is broke.

If we are "attacked", I'm sure a libertarian will do the right thing and retaliate. Yet, I agree that we don't need to wage a long lasting, money-draining war. Get in there and get out.

 

Ron Paul is way too extreme on his foreign policy goals. He has often spoken about closing all overseas military bases, leaving South Korea to let the two countries unite on their own, and other isolationist policies.

 

While I agree with alliances, I don't agree with spilling our own blood and draining our economy to fortify a country that should be defending themselves.

If the country is too week to defend itself... tough. I'd say that we can offer support if and only if all neighboring countries of like mind do not have the means to support.

I'd like to know where in the Constitution does it say that we have to be an international big brother.

The fact is, we have more enemies within the State than we do outside.

One thing that we cannot get around, is the fact that we are broke and owe a shitload to the Chinese.

 

I have two words for your stupid argument. David Souter.

That's where you vote for the best person to be Senator. Might want to learn a bit about checks and balances of the federal government. Just because the pres makes a suggestion for a cadidate to the court, doesn't mean they make it on.

I'll stick to my principles, you keep on keepin' on being a sellout.

 

You must be kidding, I always have facts to back myself up but the disturbing thing is you don't know something as basic as this. Even IWS just backed up some of it but you know nothing about Ron Paul's possitions?


First of all Ron paul blames America for 9/11, he clearly said American policy caused the muslims to do what they did. Do you really want another "blame America" President?

If Bill Maher loves you, you might be a liberal:

[media]

Ron Paul was the only person to refuse to vote for the House Resolution 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007. His reason for this was he believe trade should never be used as a barganing tool.

I also agree that we need to scale way, way back, but not completely isolate, that is going too far.

Ron Paul's montra has always been "trade and talk, but no troops."

Well he is looking at the cost now but Ron Paul has been against any kind of force for a very long time. Ron Paul consistently says America should have never gotten involved in any conflict outside our borders.

I take him for his word and he says no, there is never a time American troops should leave American soil.

[media]

He adds about half way into this video that there are always consequences for acting to interveen.........."ALL BAD". So Ron Paul says the results of our actions have all ended with bad.

The final part he says "We should stay at home and mind our own business". If that is not clear cut isolationist, what is?

 

And we got Sonia Sotomayor to replace him because Obama was elected, if the splinter groups and the guys sitting out like you had bothered to get behind the Republican we would not have Sonia Sotomayor, we would have gotten a real conservative. I did not like a lot of McCain's past, but he really had to change his direction and having people like Palin surrounding him would have made him much more conservative then Bush ever was, just like the wacko radicals that surround Obama keep Obama pushing these socialist ideas.

But if all your getting is radical liberal nominations they can't keep the seat empty forever.

Being as your direct actions got Obama elected it seems your the sellout, not me. I voted for a 75% conservative, you voted 175% to the left of me by helping Obama win the election because you could not be bothered to actually cast a vote for as much conservative as was possible to get.

 

The fact is, I do know about Ron Paul's isolationist position and couldn't agree with him more.

Yeah... call me liberal, call me elitist, but you can't refute the fact that we are broke, government is growing exponentially, and perhaps the only way out of this is to do the opposite of what has been done so far? Paying down our debts, securing our borders, auditing the Federal Reserve, etc should be considered before we slap another band-aid president into office. Which you did by voting for a 25% socialist. A 100% socialist, like Obama, can work with a McCain or Palin because one is a quarter of the other.

Keep blathering on like a crazy person... you're just finding excuse after excuse to vote for the same old party lines.