People forget. Ross Perot gave us slick willy

(06-25-2018 12:45 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 12:36 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 12:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 12:05 PM)Chappy Wrote:  I was clear that the left's hatred of free speech would eventually lead to this sort of awakening, but I doubt many of these people will become conservatives. Welcome to the Libertarian party, I guess?

I HOPE so.

Lots of liberal ideals in the libertarian party
The only thing I don't know is where the DNC will fall. If they don't move left, they'll lose the party. If they DO move left, they'll lose moderates/swings. MAYBE we get to a 3 party system, which IMO would be the best thing to come out of a Trump presidency.

Whether the left walks and Democrats become centrist or the party moves left and the middle join with socially liberal conservatives (my hope) is what I don't know

This would be ideal. For moderates like myself, I just can't vote for a lot of which GOP candidates in south stand for socially and I can't get behind the dems on fiscal issues. Trump is an a$$hole, but he is the best candidate to come out of the GOP in a long time and it really should not have been a surprise how the last election turned out. People that vote on principle rather than party were never going to vote for HRC even if they voted for Obama. I think the DNC underestimated how many of those Obama voters fell into this class. It would be wonderful if we had 3 parties. The prog nutcases, the ultra conservatives, and a party for the rest of the logical people in this country.

Someone said it on here before but I can't remember who. A party that campaigned on the policy of the government needs to stay out of my bedroom and my wallet would win landslide victories in this country.

so let's quickly review....

you have the executive branch that is 3rd party simply due to having to run as ®....let's not forget he threatened to run (I)

and you think a 3rd party will make a difference????

LMMFAO.......

you're simply begging to get run over by the dem-dumptruck-dixie-dumpsters......

have fun with that ideology......

this is why I gave 'da finga' to my political and econ profs..........

IMO, it simply doesn't make a lick of sensei......

It doesn't and it will never happen. Which is why moderates will be stuck voting for which candidate is least offensive to their core values. The GOP won this round in the Presidential and judging by the looks of things the DNC didn't learn anything and will probably retain control of Congress.

(06-25-2018 12:47 PM)shere khan Wrote:  People forget. Ross Perot gave us slick willy

XACLY!

however, cigar boy had economic savvy and negotiating ability within the establishment.....

he's easily my fave (D) since JFK....

(06-25-2018 12:50 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 12:45 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 12:36 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 12:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 12:05 PM)Chappy Wrote:  I was clear that the left's hatred of free speech would eventually lead to this sort of awakening, but I doubt many of these people will become conservatives. Welcome to the Libertarian party, I guess?

I HOPE so.

Lots of liberal ideals in the libertarian party
The only thing I don't know is where the DNC will fall. If they don't move left, they'll lose the party. If they DO move left, they'll lose moderates/swings. MAYBE we get to a 3 party system, which IMO would be the best thing to come out of a Trump presidency.

Whether the left walks and Democrats become centrist or the party moves left and the middle join with socially liberal conservatives (my hope) is what I don't know

This would be ideal. For moderates like myself, I just can't vote for a lot of which GOP candidates in south stand for socially and I can't get behind the dems on fiscal issues. Trump is an a$$hole, but he is the best candidate to come out of the GOP in a long time and it really should not have been a surprise how the last election turned out. People that vote on principle rather than party were never going to vote for HRC even if they voted for Obama. I think the DNC underestimated how many of those Obama voters fell into this class. It would be wonderful if we had 3 parties. The prog nutcases, the ultra conservatives, and a party for the rest of the logical people in this country.

Someone said it on here before but I can't remember who. A party that campaigned on the policy of the government needs to stay out of my bedroom and my wallet would win landslide victories in this country.

so let's quickly review....

you have the executive branch that is 3rd party simply due to having to run as ®....let's not forget he threatened to run (I)

and you think a 3rd party will make a difference????

LMMFAO.......

you're simply begging to get run over by the dem-dumptruck-dixie-dumpsters......

have fun with that ideology......

this is why I gave 'da finga' to my political and econ profs..........

IMO, it simply doesn't make a lick of sensei......

It doesn't and it will never happen. Which is why moderates will be stuck voting for which candidate is least offensive to their core values. The GOP won this round in the Presidential and judging by the looks of things the DNC didn't learn anything and will probably retain control of Congress.

watch what Cuban does in '24.......he, Pence, Haley, are going to duke it out......

(06-25-2018 12:47 PM)shere khan Wrote:  People forget. Ross Perot gave us slick willy

True, but that is because most of his support came from the right and center. Very little came from the left

We're talking about support from the left, which hasn't happened in decades.

Bernie was a tackling dummy for Hillary from day one. If he runs as an independent he becomes their Ross Perot

(06-25-2018 12:20 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 12:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Lots of dems I know 'walked away' to Bernie... and while I disagree with their politics, I did when they were democrats as well. The challenge is/was, Bernie is/was a movement about Bernie and not about 'democratic socialism'.

Trump won because he was 'the fringe', but a large fringe for the GOP... whom the core would 'have' to support. Hillary WAS the core, and she ignored/conspired against her fringe.

This is the left moving MORE left, not 'right'.... which I hope will lead to the right moving more center (socially)

XACLY! what is happening......as it should have long ago.....

Well, no for the moving to the center socially. But whatever.

(06-25-2018 01:27 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 12:20 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 12:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Lots of dems I know 'walked away' to Bernie... and while I disagree with their politics, I did when they were democrats as well. The challenge is/was, Bernie is/was a movement about Bernie and not about 'democratic socialism'.

Trump won because he was 'the fringe', but a large fringe for the GOP... whom the core would 'have' to support. Hillary WAS the core, and she ignored/conspired against her fringe.

This is the left moving MORE left, not 'right'.... which I hope will lead to the right moving more center (socially)

XACLY! what is happening......as it should have long ago.....

Well, no for the moving to the center socially. But whatever.

this is where we disagree.....I'm as socially center as they come......ya just don't know it.....

the con uber right is dead man.....has been for some time......can't fight that tape.....it's pointless.....

(06-25-2018 01:25 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Bernie was a tackling dummy for Hillary from day one. If he runs as an independent he becomes their Ross Perot

this sir, you sir......

(06-25-2018 01:33 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 01:27 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 12:20 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 12:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Lots of dems I know 'walked away' to Bernie... and while I disagree with their politics, I did when they were democrats as well. The challenge is/was, Bernie is/was a movement about Bernie and not about 'democratic socialism'.

Trump won because he was 'the fringe', but a large fringe for the GOP... whom the core would 'have' to support. Hillary WAS the core, and she ignored/conspired against her fringe.

This is the left moving MORE left, not 'right'.... which I hope will lead to the right moving more center (socially)

XACLY! what is happening......as it should have long ago.....

Well, no for the moving to the center socially. But whatever.

this is where we disagree.....I'm as socially center as they come......ya just don't know it.....

the con uber right is dead man.....has been for some time......can't fight that tape.....it's pointless.....

I understand it, but I think it's self defeating.

For example, is there any behavior that you think should NOT be allowed?

(06-25-2018 01:39 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  ,

I understand it, but I think it's self defeating.

For example, is there any behavior that you think should NOT be allowed?

Yes.

That which infringes upon the rights of others to engage in THEIR chosen behaviors...

Specifically, no.... other than those that involve those who cannot (legally) speak for themselves. There is IMO a time and place where you can do literally anything you want, so long as you don't harm others or prevent others from doing the same.

These calls for 'outrage' therefore wouldn't be allowed... for while you have the right to protest, so too do these others have the right to enjoy a meal and/or do their jobs. Do it across the street etc.

(06-25-2018 01:39 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 01:33 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 01:27 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 12:20 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 12:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Lots of dems I know 'walked away' to Bernie... and while I disagree with their politics, I did when they were democrats as well. The challenge is/was, Bernie is/was a movement about Bernie and not about 'democratic socialism'.

Trump won because he was 'the fringe', but a large fringe for the GOP... whom the core would 'have' to support. Hillary WAS the core, and she ignored/conspired against her fringe.

This is the left moving MORE left, not 'right'.... which I hope will lead to the right moving more center (socially)

XACLY! what is happening......as it should have long ago.....

Well, no for the moving to the center socially. But whatever.

this is where we disagree.....I'm as socially center as they come......ya just don't know it.....

the con uber right is dead man.....has been for some time......can't fight that tape.....it's pointless.....

I understand it, but I think it's self defeating.

For example, is there any behavior that you think should NOT be allowed?

I'm an atheist and pro-choice.......however, it all leads to leveling for me....

my first roomie was gay and I moved in with a couple of lesbians years later.....

I DON'T CARE ABOUT ANYONE'S PERSONAL CHOICE UNTIL YOU INVADE MY SPACE

THAT'S WHEN IT BECOMES A STUPID ISSUE AND PROBLEM IN MY MIND

it's all about choice to me.....if you enjoy the confines of the bibble, then go for it.....hell, I ensured my daughter was reared in the Methodist doctrine.....being raised catholic was a no fly zone for me.....

one could view that as hypocrisy.....I viewed it as being responsible.....she didn't know I was an atheist until a few yrs ago.....she just turned 19.....the irony is she told me, "Daaad, I already knew".......that's when you know you did your job as a parent.....no grudges and always hugs.....

I can't change me.....I simply chose to continually expand my capacity to understand the 'before me'.....it understood too early which was a curse......

such is life for many.....and there's no malice in me heart until req'd......

(06-25-2018 02:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 01:39 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  ,

I understand it, but I think it's self defeating.

For example, is there any behavior that you think should NOT be allowed?

Yes.

That which infringes upon the rights of others to engage in THEIR chosen behaviors...

Specifically, no.... other than those that involve those who cannot (legally) speak for themselves. There is IMO a time and place where you can do literally anything you want, so long as you don't harm others or prevent others from doing the same.

These calls for 'outrage' therefore wouldn't be allowed... for while you have the right to protest, so too do these others have the right to enjoy a meal and/or do their jobs. Do it across the street etc.

I get it. In fact, I considered myself a Libertarian for a while until I tried to answer some questions myself.

Should we legalize all narcotics? If I'm an addict chances are I'm going to adversely impact the people in my family. And, chances are, I'll become a burden on society where your tax dollars will be spent to take care of me and/or my family.

In other words I'll be taking your hard-earned money away from you so that I can continue my drug addiction. You'll have to support my treatment and my family.


Also, from a Libertarian perspective we could say that abortion -- any type of abortion at any stage of pregnancy -- is a matter strictly for the woman to decide.

Well, that leads me to another spin on pregnancy -- unwed mothers. Social stigma not withstanding, should a woman struggling to raise children on her own ask for government assistance? In other words, should she take away our hard-earned money because the father chose to walk away?


What led me to rethink my libertarian stance was a comment from our pastor: "Every liberal social action carries with it a real fiscal cost."

In essence, he was saying socially liberal and fiscally conservative can't co-exist by their very conflicting natures.

(06-25-2018 02:40 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 01:39 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 01:33 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 01:27 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 12:20 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  XACLY! what is happening......as it should have long ago.....

Well, no for the moving to the center socially. But whatever.

this is where we disagree.....I'm as socially center as they come......ya just don't know it.....

the con uber right is dead man.....has been for some time......can't fight that tape.....it's pointless.....

I understand it, but I think it's self defeating.

For example, is there any behavior that you think should NOT be allowed?

I'm an atheist and pro-choice.......however, it all leads to leveling for me....

my first roomie was gay and I moved in with a couple of lesbians years later.....

I DON'T CARE ABOUT ANYONE'S PERSONAL CHOICE UNTIL YOU INVADE MY SPACE

THAT'S WHEN IT BECOMES A STUPID ISSUE AND PROBLEM IN MY MIND

it's all about choice to me.....if you enjoy the confines of the bibble, then go for it.....hell, I ensured my daughter was reared in the Methodist doctrine.....being raised catholic was a no fly zone for me.....

one could view that as hypocrisy.....I viewed it as being responsible.....she didn't know I was an atheist until a few yrs ago.....she just turned 19.....the irony is she told me, "Daaad, I already knew".......that's when you know you did your job as a parent.....no grudges and always hugs.....

I can't change me.....I simply chose to continually expand my capacity to understand the 'before me'.....it understood too early which was a curse......

such is life for many.....and there's no malice in me heart until req'd......

Like I said, I get it. And I don't begrudge anyone their philosophy.

To respond to you specifically, it's perfectly fine that you're an atheist. I admit that I think your spin on it is refreshing.


But I still believe that there are areas where we have to have societal constructs and rules which can't be infringed. That is, there are some behaviors which, if allowed, negatively impact society as a whole regardless of the seeming isolated impact beyond the individual.

(06-25-2018 03:24 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 02:40 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 01:39 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 01:33 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 01:27 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  Well, no for the moving to the center socially. But whatever.

this is where we disagree.....I'm as socially center as they come......ya just don't know it.....

the con uber right is dead man.....has been for some time......can't fight that tape.....it's pointless.....

I understand it, but I think it's self defeating.

For example, is there any behavior that you think should NOT be allowed?

I'm an atheist and pro-choice.......however, it all leads to leveling for me....

my first roomie was gay and I moved in with a couple of lesbians years later.....

I DON'T CARE ABOUT ANYONE'S PERSONAL CHOICE UNTIL YOU INVADE MY SPACE

THAT'S WHEN IT BECOMES A STUPID ISSUE AND PROBLEM IN MY MIND

it's all about choice to me.....if you enjoy the confines of the bibble, then go for it.....hell, I ensured my daughter was reared in the Methodist doctrine.....being raised catholic was a no fly zone for me.....

one could view that as hypocrisy.....I viewed it as being responsible.....she didn't know I was an atheist until a few yrs ago.....she just turned 19.....the irony is she told me, "Daaad, I already knew".......that's when you know you did your job as a parent.....no grudges and always hugs.....

I can't change me.....I simply chose to continually expand my capacity to understand the 'before me'.....it understood too early which was a curse......

such is life for many.....and there's no malice in me heart until req'd......

Like I said, I get it. And I don't begrudge anyone their philosophy.

To respond to you specifically, it's perfectly fine that you're an atheist. I admit that I think your spin on it is refreshing.


But I still believe that there are areas where we have to have societal constructs and rules which can't be infringed. That is, there are some behaviors which, if allowed, negatively impact society as a whole regardless of the seeming isolated impact beyond the individual.

I easily wasn't dogging you and appreciate the response in kind......

I'm not that kind of atheist and completely understand how feelings enter the fray......

it's important to me understanding how the variables can play out before setting policy in any version of magnitude.....

to your specifics of "some behaviors"........well, that "negative" will always exist regardless how policy is developed....

what I deem important is developing a starting point for 'best method'.....I'm a six sigma black belt......it's one of the few that I thank corpshite 'murica for.....

it's always about the 'one' of us and all of us......

too many don't understand that in scope........and that's a shame as we exist today....

(06-25-2018 03:16 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 02:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 01:39 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  ,

I understand it, but I think it's self defeating.

For example, is there any behavior that you think should NOT be allowed?

Yes.

That which infringes upon the rights of others to engage in THEIR chosen behaviors...

Specifically, no.... other than those that involve those who cannot (legally) speak for themselves. There is IMO a time and place where you can do literally anything you want, so long as you don't harm others or prevent others from doing the same.

These calls for 'outrage' therefore wouldn't be allowed... for while you have the right to protest, so too do these others have the right to enjoy a meal and/or do their jobs. Do it across the street etc.

I get it. In fact, I considered myself a Libertarian for a while until I tried to answer some questions myself.

Should we legalize all narcotics? If I'm an addict chances are I'm going to adversely impact the people in my family. And, chances are, I'll become a burden on society where your tax dollars will be spent to take care of me and/or my family.

In other words I'll be taking your hard-earned money away from you so that I can continue my drug addiction. You'll have to support my treatment and my family.


Also, from a Libertarian perspective we could say that abortion -- any type of abortion at any stage of pregnancy -- is a matter strictly for the woman to decide.

Well, that leads me to another spin on pregnancy -- unwed mothers. Social stigma not withstanding, should a woman struggling to raise children on her own ask for government assistance? In other words, should she take away our hard-earned money because the father chose to walk away?


What led me to rethink my libertarian stance was a comment from our pastor: "Every liberal social action carries with it a real fiscal cost."

In essence, he was saying socially liberal and fiscally conservative can't co-exist by their very conflicting natures.

your pastor defined me to a T......

now you understand why I'm an atheist....

and I'll NEVER try to to change anyone other than by 'provocation of thought'......

preachers/priests/deities/etc don't do that.....they only steer......and there is value in that as our species evolves.....

As what I call a pragmatic libertarian, I'll try to answer some of your points.

(06-25-2018 03:16 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I get it. In fact, I considered myself a Libertarian for a while until I tried to answer some questions myself.
Should we legalize all narcotics? If I'm an addict chances are I'm going to adversely impact the people in my family. And, chances are, I'll become a burden on society where your tax dollars will be spent to take care of me and/or my family.
In other words I'll be taking your hard-earned money away from you so that I can continue my drug addiction. You'll have to support my treatment and my family.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that hasn't been the experience where drugs have been decriminalized. Portugal has actually seen a measurable decline in drug use since decriminalization. They are finding that it is much easier to treat addiction when you don't have to deal with the criminal justice system.

Quote:Also, from a Libertarian perspective we could say that abortion -- any type of abortion at any stage of pregnancy -- is a matter strictly for the woman to decide.

Maybe this is where I get pragmatic. What about how we did it for about the first 150 years of the republic, before states started crawling around in our bedrooms? OK during the first trimester, and after that in exceptional situations--incest, rape, health of mother or child at stake--but never as an on-demand substitute for birth control and no live-birth or anything close.

Quote:Well, that leads me to another spin on pregnancy -- unwed mothers. Social stigma not withstanding, should a woman struggling to raise children on her own ask for government assistance? In other words, should she take away our hard-earned money because the father chose to walk away?

This comes from the very un-libertarain welfare plantation concept. Offer to help up to a point, but you shouldn't be able to get another grand a month just by dropping your seventh kid from the sixth father. Help with the first, help a lot less for the second, and keep going until you don't help any more. When they realize that dropping another kid is not a money making proposition, they will learn to keep their legs together.

Quote:What led me to rethink my libertarian stance was a comment from our pastor: "Every liberal social action carries with it a real fiscal cost."
In essence, he was saying socially liberal and fiscally conservative can't co-exist by their very conflicting natures.

They can if fiscal conservative doesn't involve paying people the costs of their own stupidity.

+1 to a lot of what Owlnumbers says

now my caveats....

The very definition of coexistence requires conflicting priorities.

The entire purpose of RvW was to measure the rights of 'choice' to the mother vs the right to life of the child... and no... take care of your own fertility or have it taken care of for you... via fines/wage garnishment.

The thing is, if you're fiscally conservative but soclally liberal, then which party is closer to you than libertarian? Within every party there are ranges, and you seem to be on one extreme, but still more libertarian than reps or dems.

Personally, I wouldn't decriminalize all drugs at once... but I'd certainly have a process for it.

Im not a Republican or a Democrat. I'm a carnivore.

Hail Magnificent Orange One.

Long live the First Empire of the United States

(06-25-2018 05:38 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Im not a Republican or a Democrat. I'm a carnivore.

Hail Magnificent Orange One.

Long live the First Empire of the United States

Bk or Kentucky fried?!?