(02-12-2014 10:18 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 05:39 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 04:03 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 03:24 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 03:17 PM)EagleX Wrote:  what did the man who first tried (and failed) to nationalize my health care deregulate?

The wall street banks/housing market, which helped lead to the financial meltdown.

I asked what did he DE-regulate.

You weren't aware that Clinton deregulated those? Ah, memories are short. Look up Glass-Steagall. Repealing it was a major deregulation screwup.

heavens. given the dozens of haphazard impulses during the Clinton years, picking one "punch out" of a depression era overreaction (as most were) (that was former Sen phil gramm's pet project to begin with) and labeling "deregulation" as a consistent Clinton era goal is to fundamentally misunderstand Clinton and the clintonistas.

besides, glass stegall was a dead letter long before it got knocked down.

You asked what he deregulated. No one ever said it was a "consistent Clinton era goal.

(02-12-2014 09:41 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  At this point, to vote Libertarian, while I support some of their positions- sans the free and open dope smoking which constitutes a majority of their true believers, may as well be a vote to stay at home or one to cancel my vote for the only group with a realistic shot at ending some of this madness.

You want more pelosi reid obama and their unconstitutional, illegal and reckless madness? Vote third party. you'll get what you have voted for, perpetual minority status.

That's not sending some principled "message", that's throwing your weight behind the opposition. And really, really stupid.

Exactly. To judge by any practical or useful standard -- influence on national policy, national office holders, or prominent voices in our national discourse -- libertarians are utterly absent. Nearly no trace. So, it's not that I dislike libertarians, or even disagree with them. I simply deny that, as a practical matter, they exist.

It's something like discovering a new subatomic particle; you can't see them, so you have to infer their existence by the behavior of the things around them. In this case, I know libertarians exist only because I keep seeing extermist liberal democrats being elected to high office in extremely tight elections, where a sliver of the vote being misdirected can throw the entire election to the liberal.

But that is the only evidence. it's the only way you know they are there.

I like Boehner as person, but he has to go...NOW. The problem is that he has no credibility and therefore can no longer negotiate. He sounds like a man that doesn't believe half of what he says. And, he keeps negotiating with Obama as if Obama is an honest broker. Then he looks foolish when the goalpost moves. And instead of standing on his negotiation position, he buckles. I can't blame Obama for not negotiating when the other person will eventually cave every single time.

(02-12-2014 10:30 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 10:18 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 05:39 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 04:03 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 03:24 PM)mlb Wrote:  The wall street banks/housing market, which helped lead to the financial meltdown.

I asked what did he DE-regulate.

You weren't aware that Clinton deregulated those? Ah, memories are short. Look up Glass-Steagall. Repealing it was a major deregulation screwup.

heavens. given the dozens of haphazard impulses during the Clinton years, picking one "punch out" of a depression era overreaction (as most were) (that was former Sen phil gramm's pet project to begin with) and labeling "deregulation" as a consistent Clinton era goal is to fundamentally misunderstand Clinton and the clintonistas.

besides, glass stegall was a dead letter long before it got knocked down.

You asked what he deregulated. No one ever said it was a "consistent Clinton era goal.

Indeed, I did. Point, you guys. It was a hastily thrown together post at the end of the afternoon. he was indeed in office when republicans passed deregulatory legislation.

I stand corrected.

(02-12-2014 10:59 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 09:41 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  At this point, to vote Libertarian, while I support some of their positions- sans the free and open dope smoking which constitutes a majority of their true believers, may as well be a vote to stay at home or one to cancel my vote for the only group with a realistic shot at ending some of this madness.

You want more pelosi reid obama and their unconstitutional, illegal and reckless madness? Vote third party. you'll get what you have voted for, perpetual minority status.

That's not sending some principled "message", that's throwing your weight behind the opposition. And really, really stupid.

Exactly. To judge by any practical or useful standard -- influence on national policy, national office holders, or prominent voices in our national discourse -- libertarians are utterly absent. Nearly no trace. So, it's not that I dislike libertarians, or even disagree with them. I simply deny that, as a practical matter, they exist.

It's something like discovering a new subatomic particle; you can't see them, so you have to infer their existence by the behavior of the things around them. In this case, I know libertarians exist only because I keep seeing extermist liberal democrats being elected to high office in extremely tight elections, where a sliver of the vote being misdirected can throw the entire election to the liberal. But that is the only evidence of their existence.

What you guys fail to understand is that even if you took every vote that went to Gary Johnson in 2012, Obama still wins the election going away. The Republicans put up an unelectable idiot and they got beat due to it. According to exit polls, Gary Johnson actually took away more votes from Obama than he did Romney.

The Republican party has left its principles and now is a big spending party, just like the Democrats. Romney had no plan to balance the budget, he just was going to spend at a slightly lower rate than Obama. I voted for Johnson because either candidate was going to continue the country on the course of failure. Neither candidate/party is serious about taking care of the budget issues because both of them are owned by the lobbyists. 1 candidate/party ran on the basis of balancing the budget and cutting spending. At some point we have to do both and start paying off this debt. Democrats may get us to the breaking point slightly faster, but timing really doesn't matter. I was hoping that seeing voters start to go towards a fiscally conservative candidate could remind the Republican party what 1 of the core beliefs supposedly is... but obviously that is not the case based on things have gone under Boehner.

(02-13-2014 10:09 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 10:59 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 09:41 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  At this point, to vote Libertarian, while I support some of their positions- sans the free and open dope smoking which constitutes a majority of their true believers, may as well be a vote to stay at home or one to cancel my vote for the only group with a realistic shot at ending some of this madness.

You want more pelosi reid obama and their unconstitutional, illegal and reckless madness? Vote third party. you'll get what you have voted for, perpetual minority status.

That's not sending some principled "message", that's throwing your weight behind the opposition. And really, really stupid.

Exactly. To judge by any practical or useful standard -- influence on national policy, national office holders, or prominent voices in our national discourse -- libertarians are utterly absent. Nearly no trace. So, it's not that I dislike libertarians, or even disagree with them. I simply deny that, as a practical matter, they exist.

It's something like discovering a new subatomic particle; you can't see them, so you have to infer their existence by the behavior of the things around them. In this case, I know libertarians exist only because I keep seeing extermist liberal democrats being elected to high office in extremely tight elections, where a sliver of the vote being misdirected can throw the entire election to the liberal. But that is the only evidence of their existence.

What you guys fail to understand is that even if you took every vote that went to Gary Johnson in 2012, Obama still wins the election going away. The Republicans put up an unelectable idiot and they got beat due to it. According to exit polls, Gary Johnson actually took away more votes from Obama than he did Romney.

[...snip...]

what you fail to understand is that I wasn't talking about the 2012 presidential election. I was clear and precise about the sort of elections I was talking about.

JMU specifically states that a vote for a 3rd party candidate helps Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. As the exit polling showed, that was not the case in 2012.

(02-12-2014 08:21 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 08:16 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 08:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Only a kool aid drinker calls consistency hypocrisy.

It's simple: want to raise the debt ceiling? Pick one or more than one:

1) Entitlement reform
2) Balanced budget constitutional amendment
3) $1,000,000,000,000 or greater immediate cut in spending

You mean how the libertarians consistently attack the GOP no matter what action or inaction they take?

The Democrats voted to defund veteran benefits. That was the exchange. So saying there were no demands is false. Secondly, had they refused to fund the govt, you and the other libertarians would attack them for how stupid they are for forcing a shutdown this close to an imminent Senate takeover.

This is why libertarians get accused of supporting the Democrats, because they basically are.

I criticize the GOP heavily because GOP leadership since Dubya has been an unmitigated disaster. You've seen through countless endless threads that you simply cannot or will not understand what it means to govern from philosophy instead of pooling together of disparate and contradictory groups.

neither do you. you don't know if a "libertarian president" or a "libertarian congress" would govern from a "philosophy" or not. it's impossible to know because it has never existed, and probably will not ever exist.

"libertarianism", as it is currently practiced, is not much more than throwing rocks from the sidelines. and for reasons that are beyond me, "libertarians" seem to enjoy throwing rocks at republicans more than liberals. and then the "libertarians" screech even more loudly at the republican leadership when the extremist liberal agenda that they helped to create is strengthened and expanded.

and that particular behavior is just irrational.

(02-13-2014 10:26 AM)mlb Wrote:  JMU specifically states that a vote for a 3rd party candidate helps Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. As the exit polling showed, that was not the case in 2012.

you quoted me. I simply responded.

and he is probably right. He was more than likely referring to the absolute fact that since 2006 or so, there have been dozens of republicans that lost elections by fewer votes than the libertarian candidate received.

it is indisputable that this is what that created Speakerette Pelosi and Majority Leader Grouchy Old Bastard. that's just how congressional majorities work. it is also very hard to argue that having congressional majorities that were enabled by libertarian candidates didn't "help" president obama.

so, he's right, regardless of your point about exit polling in the 2012 exit polling for the presidential election.

(02-13-2014 10:31 AM)EagleX Wrote:  neither do you. you don't know if a "libertarian president" or a "libertarian congress" would govern from a "philosophy" or not. it's impossible to know because it has never existed, and probably will not ever exist.

Fair point... but we know the Republicans are not governing any longer from philosophy so until they get the RINO's out of the leadership roles there is no reason to continue to vote for them.

Quote:"libertarianism", as it is currently practiced, is not much more than throwing rocks from the sidelines. and for reasons that are beyond me, "libertarians" seem to enjoy throwing rocks at republicans more than liberals. and then the "libertarians" screech even more loudly at the republican leadership when the extremist liberal agenda that they helped to create is strengthened and expanded.

and that particular behavior is just irrational.

Libertarians mostly blast the Republicans for their fiscal positions. They do not give a crap about their social viewpoints (although many disagree because Libertarians don't believe in legislating morality).

I continue to blast the Democrats and Obama for creating more entitlements, increasing spending, and having no plan to truly balance the budget.

I continue to blast the Republicans for giving the Pentagon a huge budget with little oversight, allowing them to waste money through poor planning and controls.

The Republicans are about to own both houses... we'll see if they return to their small government ideals.

(02-13-2014 10:38 AM)EagleX Wrote:  and he is probably right. He was more than likely referring to the absolute fact that since 2006 or so, there have been dozens of republicans that lost elections by fewer votes than the libertarian candidate received.

it is indisputable that this is what that created Speakerette Pelosi and Majority Leader Grouchy Old Bastard. that's just how congressional majorities work. it is also very hard to argue that having congressional majorities that were enabled by libertarian candidates didn't "help" president obama.

so, he's right, regardless of your point about exit polling in the 2012 exit polling for the presidential election.

If the Republicans would put up small gov't candidates, balanced budget plans... they wouldn't have problems getting elected. That is why the party is failing and until they recognize that they will continue to lose. The swing vote is tired of the crazy spending and wants to see a good candidate from either party... neither party has the ability to do that, however, because they are bought and paid for by the time they get to the national level.

(02-13-2014 10:52 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:38 AM)EagleX Wrote:  and he is probably right. He was more than likely referring to the absolute fact that since 2006 or so, there have been dozens of republicans that lost elections by fewer votes than the libertarian candidate received.

it is indisputable that this is what that created Speakerette Pelosi and Majority Leader Grouchy Old Bastard. that's just how congressional majorities work. it is also very hard to argue that having congressional majorities that were enabled by libertarian candidates didn't "help" president obama.

so, he's right, regardless of your point about exit polling in the 2012 exit polling for the presidential election.

If the Republicans would put up small gov't candidates, balanced budget plans... they wouldn't have problems getting elected. That is why the party is failing and until they recognize that they will continue to lose. The swing vote is tired of the crazy spending and wants to see a good candidate from either party... neither party has the ability to do that, however, because they are bought and paid for by the time they get to the national level.

You have some doing just that and they are portrayed as right wing whack jobs.

(02-13-2014 10:56 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  You have some doing just that and they are portrayed as right wing whack jobs.

Well, when your own national party is attacking those candidates at their own national convention then why wouldn't people think that? Republican leadership is awful, just as GTS said.

(02-13-2014 10:46 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:31 AM)EagleX Wrote:  neither do you. you don't know if a "libertarian president" or a "libertarian congress" would govern from a "philosophy" or not. it's impossible to know because it has never existed, and probably will not ever exist.

Fair point... but we know the Republicans are not governing any longer from philosophy so until they get the RINO's out of the leadership roles there is no reason to continue to vote for them.

Quote:"libertarianism", as it is currently practiced, is not much more than throwing rocks from the sidelines. and for reasons that are beyond me, "libertarians" seem to enjoy throwing rocks at republicans more than liberals. and then the "libertarians" screech even more loudly at the republican leadership when the extremist liberal agenda that they helped to create is strengthened and expanded.

and that particular behavior is just irrational.

Libertarians mostly blast the Republicans for their fiscal positions. They do not give a crap about their social viewpoints (although many disagree because Libertarians don't believe in legislating morality).

I continue to blast the Democrats and Obama for creating more entitlements, increasing spending, and having no plan to truly balance the budget.

I continue to blast the Republicans for giving the Pentagon a huge budget with little oversight, allowing them to waste money through poor planning and controls.

The Republicans are about to own both houses... we'll see if they return to their small government ideals.

none of this is constructive criticism. it's just more throwing rocks at other people in a game in which your declared "philosophy" has to skin in, no track record, and no responsibility.

your defense seems to be that you are an equal opportunity rock thrower. that's just not productive.

further, I accuse a large number of "libertarians" of having chosen that "philosophy" because it absolves them of having to ever explain anything. no responsibility, no accomplishments, no obligations; they are free to hate everything because everything is insufficiently perfect for them.

you wanna throw rocks? get in the game. then I will have some respect for you*.

*understand, I do not mean that at you personally, but at libertarianism in general.

(02-13-2014 10:52 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:38 AM)EagleX Wrote:  and he is probably right. He was more than likely referring to the absolute fact that since 2006 or so, there have been dozens of republicans that lost elections by fewer votes than the libertarian candidate received.

it is indisputable that this is what that created Speakerette Pelosi and Majority Leader Grouchy Old Bastard. that's just how congressional majorities work. it is also very hard to argue that having congressional majorities that were enabled by libertarian candidates didn't "help" president obama.

so, he's right, regardless of your point about exit polling in the 2012 exit polling for the presidential election.

If the Republicans would put up small gov't candidates, balanced budget plans... they wouldn't have problems getting elected. That is why the party is failing and until they recognize that they will continue to lose. The swing vote is tired of the crazy spending and wants to see a good candidate from either party... neither party has the ability to do that, however, because they are bought and paid for by the time they get to the national level.

"agree with me", you say, "and everthing will be fine!"

no.

mourdock, akin, odonnell, and angle were all small gov't candidates, and they all turned sure wins into losses.

--- and you are certain -- with absolutely no evidence or track record to rely upon -- that your precious (and theoretical) libertarian congressmen wouldn't be equally bought and paid for (however bought and paid for the current congressmen may be) if they ever got elected.

(02-13-2014 11:14 AM)EagleX Wrote:  --- and you are certain -- with absolutely no evidence or track record to rely upon -- that your precious (and theoretical) libertarian congressmen wouldn't be equally bought and paid for if they ever got elected.

I never said that... however, we know that the current 2 parties are bought. I'm willing to give someone else a chance at this point as I don't see this country going in a significantly different direction with either the Republicans or the Democrats in power. Obviously it is going to be a very long time before any 3rd party could make noise... if ever. But I'm not going to vote for the lesser of 2 evils any longer... both are evil.

I'd also argue that term limits need to be put in place, pensions for elected officials need to go away. Cut the congress business down to 1 weekend a month, the rest of the time the elected officials stay in their home district. Pay needs to be cut.

Someone who runs for office shouldn't retire based on being in office for 30 years. They are supposed to serve their country, then return home and continue on with making their own living. If a lobbyist didn't get to own a candidate for 10, 20, or even 30 years they may rethinking the amount of money that goes into that person's coffers.

(02-13-2014 10:46 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:31 AM)EagleX Wrote:  neither do you. you don't know if a "libertarian president" or a "libertarian congress" would govern from a "philosophy" or not. it's impossible to know because it has never existed, and probably will not ever exist.

Fair point... but we know the Republicans are not governing any longer from philosophy so until they get the RINO's out of the leadership roles there is no reason to continue to vote for them.

Quote:"libertarianism", as it is currently practiced, is not much more than throwing rocks from the sidelines. and for reasons that are beyond me, "libertarians" seem to enjoy throwing rocks at republicans more than liberals. and then the "libertarians" screech even more loudly at the republican leadership when the extremist liberal agenda that they helped to create is strengthened and expanded.

and that particular behavior is just irrational.

Libertarians mostly blast the Republicans for their fiscal positions. They do not give a crap about their social viewpoints (although many disagree because Libertarians don't believe in legislating morality).

I continue to blast the Democrats and Obama for creating more entitlements, increasing spending, and having no plan to truly balance the budget.

I continue to blast the Republicans for giving the Pentagon a huge budget with little oversight, allowing them to waste money through poor planning and controls.

The Republicans are about to own both houses... we'll see if they return to their small government ideals.

oh, I don't know. for some reason, I think NC has "fail" written all over it. a libertarian screwed up montana once, I am sure one can do it twice. I think it's iffy. it depends on how much of the ACA the democrats can hide/postpone between now and november.

the expectations are going to be a GOP takeover, and when it doesn't happen, the screaming headlines all over the MSM will be, "republicans fail in senate bid!!" , "republican party in disarray!", "Rebellion in the Republican Party".

watch, it will happen.

(02-13-2014 10:58 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 10:56 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  You have some doing just that and they are portrayed as right wing whack jobs.

Well, when your own national party is attacking those candidates at their own national convention then why wouldn't people think that? Republican leadership is awful, just as GTS said.

Agree with that. Hopefully some of them get primaried out.

(02-13-2014 11:22 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 11:14 AM)EagleX Wrote:  --- and you are certain -- with absolutely no evidence or track record to rely upon -- that your precious (and theoretical) libertarian congressmen wouldn't be equally bought and paid for if they ever got elected.

I never said that... however, we know that the current 2 parties are bought. I'm willing to give someone else a chance at this point as I don't see this country going in a significantly different direction with either the Republicans or the Democrats in power. Obviously it is going to be a very long time before any 3rd party could make noise... if ever. But I'm not going to vote for the lesser of 2 evils any longer... both are evil.

I'd also argue that term limits need to be put in place, pensions for elected officials need to go away. Cut the congress business down to 1 weekend a month, the rest of the time the elected officials stay in their home district. Pay needs to be cut.

Someone who runs for office shouldn't retire based on being in office for 30 years. They are supposed to serve their country, then return home and continue on with making their own living. If a lobbyist didn't get to own a candidate for 10, 20, or even 30 years they may rethinking the amount of money that goes into that person's coffers.

fine. just don't scream when the IPAB denies life saving treatment to one of your relatives. because your "philosophy" helped create it.

(02-13-2014 11:32 AM)EagleX Wrote:  fine. just don't scream when the IPAB denies life saving treatment to one of your relatives. because your "philosophy" helped create it.

I'm 100% against Obamacare. I didn't get him elected, however. I voted for McCain in 2008. I voted for Johnson in 2012. I live in a very Republican US house district.

At the same time, the Republicans and specifically the RINO's in the party created this mess. George W. Bush allowed the Democrats to gain traction to get Obama into office with his overspending and his war efforts. Of course, Obama has continued on with those failed policies. Romney was Bush 3, as far as I'm concerned. It is time to get out of the "politics as usual" mindset and actually make changes!