(03-06-2012 11:25 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Idaho nearly 80% Romey????????? HOW MANY MORMONS ARE THERE IN IDAHO??????

(03-06-2012 10:31 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-06-2012 10:29 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Santorum is the most antilibertarian candidate since Obama.

Fixed

Santorum was the whip, a power broker, and blatantly in the pocket of special interests when it was politically expedient.

That's exactly right. He's said that he is a product of the "team sport" of politics and as whip you have to enjoy playing and exploiting the game.

He's also very antilibertarian because he's said that he doesn't relate to the libertarian Republicans before. He views libertarianism as nonsense.

We'll just have to disagree about the relative impact that a "President Santorum" would have on this country, and on libertarian politics in general, as compared to President Obama. However, this is an opportune moment to point out that Santorum is not actually going to be the Republican nominee for President (nor for any other office). That distinction -- I think we can all see it now -- will go instead to Mitt Romney.

**********

If I really sat down and thought about it for a while, I could probably list a thousand people -- people with legitimate, mainstream political credentials -- who I would rather be President of the US than Mitt Romney. Ron Paul and Rand Paul are two that come to mind. But whatever else can be said for him or against him (and God knows there is a LOT to be said against him) I hope we can agree that Mitt Romney is cut from an entirely different cloth than Santorum. He obviously doesn't give a sh*t about the "social issues" and is not on any kind of mission to rid the Republican Party or the conservative movement of the libertarian influence. Although he is obviously not a libertarian himself, and (far as I'm aware) has never pretended to be one, neither is he hostile to libertarian ideas nor to the people who fight for them.

To those libertarian-minded voters who are simply unwilling to vote for a non-libertarian for president, go in peace, and you have my best wishes rounding up the usual 0.3~0.4% on behalf of Gary Johnson in November. To the rest, I urge you to take a hard look at what the Obama Administration has done for the past 3+ years, and consider what it is likely to do over the next 4 years if unbound from the pressure of seeking reelection. Cast your ballot accordingly.

But man, I'm frustrated. Just seeing the updated Delegate Count on yahoo is driving me crazy. I almost have to call Romney the Presumptive Nominee. Even if you combine Santorum's, Newt's, and Paul's delegates Romney is leading by 105. Santorum not even winning Ohio proves to me how weak he is. As a lot of us knew all along, neither Newt or Santorum was a viable competitor to Romney and tonight proved it. Looking more and more like I'm voting for Gary Johnson this fall.

BTW: Nomad... that gif in your sig is awesome

Remember his words from another thread here when he was referring to the "libertarianish right"

"They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do what they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I am aware of, where we've had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture."

I don't think that it would be that far of a reach for me to think that he believes that people shouldn't be left alone, shouldn't be able to do what they want to do, taxes and regulations should be high, he'd like to control what goes on in the bedroom, and that he wants to have his hands in cultural issues.

I don't want to see people on this board crying over Barack stepping on liberties if they are willing to place a man who has the same intentions into office. The usual response of saying that tyranny will be somehow better coming from Santorum than Obama is a piss poor attempt at a justification.

(03-07-2012 01:27 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  But man, I'm frustrated. Just seeing the updated Delegate Count on yahoo is driving me crazy. I almost have to call Romney the Presumptive Nominee. Even if you combine Santorum's, Newt's, and Paul's delegates Romney is leading by 105. Santorum not even winning Ohio proves to me how weak he is. As a lot of us knew all along, neither Newt or Santorum was a viable competitor to Romney and tonight proved it. Looking more and more like I'm voting for Gary Johnson this fall.

BTW: Nomad... that gif in your sig is awesome

I have to PM the whole video to you. Pretty sick all around.

nomad2u2001 Wrote:Remember his words from another thread here when he was referring to the "libertarianish right"

I think I have used that term before; what of it?

Quote:I don't want to see people on this board crying over Barack stepping on liberties if they are willing to place a man who has the same intentions into office. The usual response of saying that tyranny will be somehow better coming from Santorum than Obama is a piss poor attempt at a justification.

I don't believe that Santorum represents "tyranny" in any serious meaning of the word. Obviously, people who think tyranny and libertarianism are the only 2 choices facing us will have a different take. I don't take that view, nor do I pretend to.

I went back and forth about using the word tyranny. I guess replacing that with: The usual response of saying that it would be better coming from Santorum and Obama...

It still serves the same purpose.

(03-07-2012 01:51 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I went back and forth about using the word tyranny. I guess replacing that with: The usual response of saying that it would be better coming from Santorum and Obama...

It still serves the same purpose.

"Tyrannical" is a perfectly good word to use when describing men who want to control your life. Both do. There is only ONE candidate that represents any stance even close to one of liberty.

(03-07-2012 12:40 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-06-2012 11:25 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Idaho nearly 80% Romney?????

That % has fallen a bit (68.6) with 1/4 or so of the vote still out.

Looks like Romney wound up with 61-62% in Idaho

Apparently Dennis Kucinich had a primary opponent last night and LOST.

So there goes one of the few consistent and intellectually honest Democrats that there was in Washington.

Kucinich lost to Marcy Kaptur by about 60-36% in the report I saw.

Best. Newspaper photo. Ever.

More than 900,000 people have voted for Ron Paul in the primaries/caucuses so far. And I'll bet he more than triples that # before the primaries end.