Weak. Then effin vote for that Libertarian. I voted for a 3rd party in '92 and '96. Bush isn't that effin bad.

C'mon Kev. You can try harder than that. I'm sure you could've squeezed about 2 or 3 more "effins" in that post. :rolleyes:

Lighten up. There will be about a million poltical cartoons and satire photoshops this summer. And I never said I was definitely voting for 'that Libertarian'. In some ways, he's too extreme for my tastes.

But you have to admit, our choice this November is very weak. And just to remind you: Bush, in 3 years, has expanded federal non-defense discretionary spending more than Clinton did in 8 (Yet, how many die-hard Bush supporters still complain about how "liberal" Clinton was?). The traditional 'small government' Republicans are getting frustrated by the executive via congressional rubber-stamp spending, not too mention indifference to how the whole Iraq thing was handled.

The vast majority of the time, I tend to side with Republicans over Democrats because of the former's commonly-accepted ideals of limited government and modest spending. But from my vantage point, I don't see how the GOP has even come close to that adage lately. And instead of cheerleading the Republicans on every issue "just cuz their Republicans", I would like to see more conservatives call them out and criticize.

<<< Voting Libertarian

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:<<< Voting Libertarian

Now, GTS, you have noted in other posts that

1) The economy is looking good despite the Democrats talking it down;

2) President Bush is a strong leader against terrorism and that you support his vision in Iraq.

So, things are going well economically under his administration (his primary influence has been in tax policy) and he has done well as a war time leader against terrorism.

Why, then, Libertarian?

RandyMc Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:<<< Voting Libertarian

Now, GTS, you have noted in other posts that

1) The economy is looking good despite the Democrats talking it down;

2) President Bush is a strong leader against terrorism and that you support his vision in Iraq.

So, things are going well economically under his administration (his primary influence has been in tax policy) and he has done well as a war time leader against terrorism.

Why, then, Libertarian?

He's a principled 19 Y/O. I was the same in '92 and '96. .....after Clinton, I changed DRASTICALLY. I admit, the system needs to change. I am a Libertarian, but will always vote for the "Lesser of the evils" so long as we have primaries.

But, see, that is my point.

If the two most important items in a presidential election is economic stability and the common defense, how is this a choice between "the lesser of two evils" if you agree with one of the candidate's record and positions?

I think you choose the person that you agree with.

The Libertarian candidate does not support at least one of the positions you agree is most important, which is taking the war on terrorism to the enemy (non-intervention plank).

Regarding the secondary issues, the Libertarian Party is more Libertine in its position than most people who say they support it (most supporters are traditional Conservative rather than Libertarian). I suspect, based upon other postings, that you are not so much in favor of government inertia in some social issues such as abortion, drug laws, etc. While most Republicans support 90% of the Libertarian platform, the remaining 10% is anarchic.

In any case, vote Republican if you want 90% of your platform supported by the party in power. Vote Libertarian if you want 10% of your platform supported by the party in power since it will be the Democrats.

Just my thoughts. I am interested in yours.

Bravo!!!! Aint that the truth!!! Both sides are the same - 2 sides to one coin! Reps and Dems can fight all they want supporting that their candidate is better when in fact they both are horrible and both parties will NOT get anything done!

LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION!

RandyMc Wrote:But, see, that is my point.

If the two most important items in a presidential election is economic stability and the common defense, how is this a choice between "the lesser of two evils" if you agree with one of the candidate's record and positions?

I think you choose the person that you agree with.

The Libertarian candidate does not support at least one of the positions you agree is most important, which is taking the war on terrorism to the enemy (non-intervention plank).

Regarding the secondary issues, the Libertarian Party is more Libertine in its position than most people who say they support it (most supporters are traditional Conservative rather than Libertarian).&nbsp; I suspect, based upon other postings, that you are not so much in favor of government inertia in some social issues such as abortion, drug laws, etc.&nbsp; While most Republicans support 90% of the Libertarian platform, the remaining 10% is anarchic.

In any case, vote Republican if you want 90% of your platform supported by the party in power.&nbsp; Vote Libertarian if you want 10% of your platform supported by the party in power since it will be the Democrats.

Just my thoughts.&nbsp; I am interested in yours.

IMO, Bush has taken on many liberal issues that I would have rather seen thrown by the wayside. What did it help? Liberals STILL hate him. What I don't like about Bush, is how he seems to be spend-happy. Again, on issues that he, as a conservative, shouldn't be concerned with. 15 Billion for AIDS in Africa? Last time I checked, AIDS wasn't cured here yet and it damn sure isn't the "epidemic" activists claim it is. I like Bush. I will vote for Bush. I love the way he is handling the tough issues this nation is facing. I just think he needs to get back to representing the people that actually put him into office....as the other side isn't going to vote for him anyway. Sorry it has come to that, but "compromise" isn't in the liberals vernacular.

PS: No, I don't think it will be voting for the lesser of 2 evils in November. I just feel that if there were a chance for 3rd party candidates, the other two would be more apt to represent the people that voted for them.

RebelKev Wrote:Last time I checked, AIDS wasn't cured here yet and it damn sure isn't the "epidemic" activists claim it is.

<a href='http://www.goupstate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040716/ZNYT04/407160406/1051/NEWS01' target='_blank'>http://www.goupstate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...406/1051/NEWS01</a>

How does that fit into the "epidemic" category in terms of this nation?

Schadenfreude Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Last time I checked, AIDS wasn't cured here yet and it damn sure isn't the "epidemic" activists claim it is.

<a href='http://www.goupstate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040716/ZNYT04/407160406/1051/NEWS01' target='_blank'>http://www.goupstate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...406/1051/NEWS01</a>

<a href='http://www.pfm.org/Content/ContentGroups/BreakPoint/Other_Content/Miscellaneous/A_Responsible_Approach_to_a_Global_AIDS_Policy.htm' target='_blank'>Bush combats AIDS in Africa sensibly and compassionately</a>

<a href='http://www.pfm.org/Content/ContentGroups/BreakPoint/BreakPoint_Commentaries/20031/April_2003/Africa_s_AIDS_Crisis.htm' target='_blank'>Similar but w/ more links</a>

<a href='http://www.pfm.org/Content/ContentGroups/BreakPoint/BreakPoint_Commentaries/20031/October_2003/Blinded_by_Ideology.htm' target='_blank'>Those who are truly helping</a>

The Trojan Man is being ignored in areas where he's needed most.

Evidently, handing out millions and millions of free condoms in poor countries to help curb AIDS and HIV isn't helping. Why? Well, <a href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/13/windia13.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/08/13/ixworld.html' target='_blank'>people just aren't wearing them</a>. Short of putting a gun to someone's head, how do you convince people to use birth control and protection?

This may sound a bit crass, but the primary reason developing countries are in the dire state they are in is that they have, on average, 6+ kids each. Nearly half of Nigeria's population is under the age of 18, fer chrissake. When money is very tight, people are malnourished, and there's little water or arable land around, what possibly makes someone think, "gee, maybe it's time to start workin' on bringing that 7th child into the world".

Then, voila!, we have this...

<a href='http://www.halifaxlive.com/population_08182004_3923.php' target='_blank'>http://www.halifaxlive.com/population_0818...182004_3923.php</a>

And to be fair, many Americans do the same. How many have a bunch of kids and can't possibly afford them, both financially and emotionally?

Quote:When money is very tight, people are malnourished, and there's little water or arable land around, what possibly makes someone think, "gee, maybe it's time to start workin' on bringing that 7th child into the world".

Considering that fertility rates tend to correllate inversely with wealth across most of the world, stupidity is one of the last places I'd search for an answer to your question.

In rural societies, extra kids mean more help on the farm. And in societies without public pension systems, having more children increases the chances that mothers and fathers may be cared for in their old age.

Quote:But you have to admit, our choice this November is very weak.

I can relate to that remark. At this point, the old high school prom ballot standby of Moose and Squirrel is looking good... :drink:

With Nigeria being only one-third arable, and other countries being even worse, I'm not too sure I submit to the help-on-the-farm conclusion. And, call me a cynic, but even with a pension plan in place, I still get the feeling that a half-dozen kids per woman would still be the norm.

And neither of the above reasons explains why the same phenomena happens within the United States, farm or no farm, pension or no pension.

Middle-class-and-up parents tend to average far less kids than lowest-income families. I don't want to say it's 'stupidity' either, as even the most uneducated among us know what could happen if a man "completes" inside a woman without any condom, pill, or early pullout. But - as you correctly pointed out - the correlation is indeed there. People who can't afford kids have more than those who can afford them. A paradox. Why is that? (not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious)

Regardless of reason... Nigeria going from 136 million to 300 million in such a short period of time, relatively-speaking, can't be a good thing. I'm against a China-style mandatory birth control edict, of course. But, geez... something's gotta be done to limit the assembly line kid-production.

RebelKev Wrote:Weak. Then effin vote for that Libertarian. I voted for a 3rd party in '92 and '96. Bush isn't that effin bad.

Bush not that bad??? Where have you been??? Oh wait, you're in Mississippi... where people vote with their bibles and not with their brains...

Vincent St George Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Weak. Then effin vote for that Libertarian. I voted for a 3rd party in '92 and '96. Bush isn't that effin bad.

Bush not that bad??? Where have you been??? Oh wait, you're in Mississippi... where people vote with their bibles and not with their brains...

Ever heard of a profile? Take a look at mine. :rolleyes: