(03-30-2019 01:42 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  She's attractive, but wouldn't really say "hot". Looks like a run or the mill housewife at the country club pool.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I need to join your country club then.

(03-30-2019 03:01 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 11:30 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  THIS is exactly what keeps me from siding with them on almost any issue. They walk in a room assured that they will be the smartest person in the room and if you don't believe it just ask them.

Commentary of this to no particular person:

Being a libertarian in my experience is similar to being an atheist .... which is to say most of the fellow travelers you meet will tell you a book or two that led them on their journey to where they are today. With Atheism it is almost always something written by Dawkins or Hitchens or Harris. With libertarianism it is almost always something written by Hayek, Rand, Friedman, or Rothbard. This is because libertarianism is a relatively new political philosophy (first coined and labeled in the 1970's) even if it has great historical things to draw on particularly on economics (Friedman, Smith, etc). In addition it isn't like it is taught in schools. I had civics in high school. And I took it as an elective again in college. Neither class even touched libertarianism or any of its intellectual influences (named previously here), even though they are important enough to be mentioned stand alone in any civics class.

Now ... with that out of the way ...

The quality level on your standard political discourse in this country is very low in my opinion. Let's just be realistic here ... how many people in the United States could even tell you who Adam Smith or FA Hayek were, let alone read their works? This is where the LP gets its reputation as a debate club. Because if you walk into a group of libertarians talking policy, and all you're armed with is what Hannity or Limbaugh or Madcow or Wolf Blitzer said last night you're going to be so lost. It might as well be a debate club given the gulf between that (IMO stereotypical standard issue American) and anybody who has read even one policy paper from a think tank.

And, at least in my experience, most libertarians come to their position from one of "I don't know" instead of "This is what is best for you". Because the more you know the more blindingly complicated it all becomes. If you'd like to immerse yourself in that viewpoint read FA Hayek's Fatal Conceit ... his book where he sought to completely destroy socialism as an argument for a form a government. It talks at great lengths about the fatal conceit of being arrogant enough to think you can run everybody else's lives better than they can themselves.

Well that's certainly not confined to one party. It's what keeps the democrats afloat ideologically. The GOP at least pretends they are the party of independence and individuality.

So what I'm hearing is that libertarians ARE the smartest people in the room.

(03-30-2019 07:53 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  Gosh! I didn't know that libertarians were held in such low esteem. I consider myself a libertarian, note the small "l". My philosophy is simple. You don't tell me how to live and I don't tell you how to live. Or you can reverse the phrases.

As to Tulsi, at this point of my life nothing short of a cocked pistol would get me to vote for any Democrat.

I'm not even sure I could do it then.

(03-30-2019 10:06 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-30-2019 11:43 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 11:15 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 11:13 PM)king king Wrote:  What's a libertrian/Libertariarin?

if you have to ask, then the reply is not for you

at the risk (in someone's mind) of proving your point... I think he was asking about
Liber-TRAIN and Libertar-IARIN
Low hanging fruit, for sure... but still.

I can't speak for others, but for me...
She's better than most Democrats. By far. She DOES seem country over party... which is rare in ALL politics these days and honestly where most of the 'holier than thou' conversations come about Libertarians.

I fully understand (as do many others) that a Libertarian has virtually no chance of winning the general election (in the Presidential race and many state races)... so votes for Libertarians are almost always symbolic... and this always seems to frustrate the hell out of the parties... but we're usually not so stupid to throw the election to someone whose policies we completely abhor... See Owl's description.

That said.... I am far more socially liberal than the religious right... but I am also religious. I have a very clear view of freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM it... and have no problem with the idea that there are more Christians here than any other religion now, but that could always change... I want rules and practices that I wouldn't mind if I were in the minority. Not that I'd necessarily LIKE them, but that they wouldn't impact me.... I am fiscally conservative and neither party really is now... though I DO side with the general financial policies of the right over the left... especially the 'justice democrats'... it's not even close.... but let's not pretend that the right doesn't have its loons and 'bought and paid for' reps. I think politics in general (especially with the media being 'for sale') is a place where anyone with the most remote of skeletons in their closets (which anyone who has really tried to do well but failed will have) has to think REALLY hard about wanting to be part of... so we end up with puppets while the REAL power hides in the shadows

So yeah, I can throw stones at either side from time to time, but clearly I lean right economically. Doesn't make me better... just not remotely a straight ticket as so many are these days.

"virtually no chance"....how about zero...go waste more time....should serve yaz wellzy....

we live in a two party system....it's pretty simple...

you currently have your third party pragmatic rep in the oval....you guys simply don't like him....oh wellzy...

that's a ewes problem....

This ^.

(03-31-2019 12:34 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(03-30-2019 09:22 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Cocked gun? Even Trump can't get me to vote for one. Cocked gun wouldn't get me to vote for him either though.

Didn't vote Trump in '16 but the way things are going I may be forced to vote for him in '20. Cocked gun or no.

IF the economy is still humming along by then I think it's a no brainer.

(03-31-2019 07:14 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  This insight is not original to me. I saw it in the comments to a wholly different article in a wholly different forum. But it strikes me as accurate:

==> Liberals sanctify their candidates first and then rationalize away the positions they take.

==> Conservatives sanctify their positions first and then rationalize away the behavior of their candidates who share those positions.

So where does that leave an independent -- defined as someone (like me) who is either too cowardly or too confused to commit to one side or the other?

Mostly having to deal with a lot of self-hatred: from either having to defend the statements and behavior of a repulsive idiot who is unfit for the office of president, or instead from the temptation to turn a blind eye to potentially catastrophic policy stances spouted by progressives.

Tulsi Gabbard is not going to win the Democratic Party nomination. There are not enough liberal males with a functioning libido to allow her looks to work in her favor. But if, somehow, she won the nomination, I would give her every chance to back away from some of the worst of the progressive stances. If she could pull that off, I would happily vote for her.

I am instead left with the fantasy of President Trump suddenly announcing that he's personally tired of all this winning and has decided not to run for reelection in 2020. He instead will urge all of his unquestioning supporters to cast their lot with Nikki Haley.

Now THERE'S a good looking future president.

(03-31-2019 08:43 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-31-2019 07:14 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  This insight is not original to me. I saw it in the comments to a wholly different article in a wholly different forum. But it strikes me as accurate:

==> Liberals sanctify their candidates first and then rationalize away the positions they take.

==> Conservatives sanctify their positions first and then rationalize away the behavior of their candidates who share those positions.

So where does that leave an independent -- defined as someone (like me) who is either too cowardly or too confused to commit to one side or the other?

Mostly having to deal with a lot of self-hatred: from either having to defend the statements and behavior of a repulsive idiot who is unfit for the office of president, or instead from the temptation to turn a blind eye to potentially catastrophic policy stances spouted by progressives.

Tulsi Gabbard is not going to win the Democratic Party nomination. There are not enough liberal males with a functioning libido to allow her looks to work in her favor. But if, somehow, she won the nomination, I would give her every chance to back away from some of the worst of the progressive stances. If she could pull that off, I would happily vote for her.

I am instead left with the fantasy of President Trump suddenly announcing that he's personally tired of all this winning and has decided not to run for reelection in 2020. He instead will urge all of his unquestioning supporters to cast their lot with Nikki Haley.

Now THERE'S a good looking future president.

I'm with you on Haley moving forward....she's top shelf....

however, I could also back Cuban if he decided to run as well (which he most likely will not)

those are the two best options I see maintaining the strength of #DJTexperiment

it's also interesting to watch how Pence has stepped up his game over the last couple of years....he's becoming more polished by the day....

I caught him addressing some group last week. He started off pretty flat and I commented on it to my girlfriend but then about a minute later he kicked in to preacher mode and impressed the hell out of me with his oratorical skills. Hey, at least he doesn't speak like a 14 year old, bigly.

(03-31-2019 01:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-31-2019 12:14 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  fair enough....

however, the question then becomes,, "what is good enough to satisfy oneself?"

you have to understand my hatred for career politicians....therefore, #henceDJT

and after ZERO, the low hangin' fruit was everywhere....

again, we live in a two party system.....and in the end, they're nothing but mere 'labels' at this point...there's a reason DJT threatened to run (I) as the pubs yielded....

Completely understand the hatred for career politicians and agree 100%.

Had he run as an I, the right would have lost in a landslide, and he wouldn't have won. That would have been a gift to Hillary and the dems. I'm a bit surprised that they didn't roll the dice thinking he had no chance anyway... but maybe they hoped Bernie would

Actually my hatred isn't for career politicians... It's for people who become millionaires by doing so. It's about the power and control for them... about getting elected and then re-elected... From 'The Distinguished Gentleman'.... it's not about doing good (being a politician), it's just about being here...

I'd be fine with career politicians who really wanted to represent their people, but also LEAD their people to good decisions.

I'd like to see all politicians who collect a paycheck from the tax payers have to divest themselves of all other income until such time as they are no longer in office. Of course with a rule like that in place no one would run except the very rich who could afford to not collect a check - aside from their pay check - during their terms.

(04-05-2019 02:32 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(04-04-2019 10:16 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Tulsi's meeting with the dictator of Syria was a big mistake that could hurt her chances of becoming President.

Her and Yang are the only two who have even a chance of winning over the moderates in a general election but you're probably right, DNC primaries will pick someone that sucks again.

Moderates? Among the democrats? Where??

(04-05-2019 06:38 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 02:32 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(04-04-2019 10:16 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Tulsi's meeting with the dictator of Syria was a big mistake that could hurt her chances of becoming President.

Her and Yang are the only two who have even a chance of winning over the moderates in a general election but you're probably right, DNC primaries will pick someone that sucks again.

kamala the slut coming to an election near you....

I'd hit it - based on that picture anyway.

(04-06-2019 02:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Look guys. There are many hot "lefties". In my day Susan Sarandon and Michelle Pfeiffer, and Blythe Danner were stunning. Today you have many others to pick from including Blythe's daughter, and Emma Stone. All of them are lefties. I may think they are beautiful, I may have them in my pleasant thoughts. But there is no way they would ever get my vote. Gabbard is not for us. Not now. Not ever. Don't ever forget it.

Susan Sarandon was never a hottie. That you think so cements your status as a loon. Michelle Pfeiffer on the other hand...

(04-08-2019 04:59 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 06:38 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 02:32 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(04-04-2019 10:16 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Tulsi's meeting with the dictator of Syria was a big mistake that could hurt her chances of becoming President.

Her and Yang are the only two who have even a chance of winning over the moderates in a general election but you're probably right, DNC primaries will pick someone that sucks again.

kamala the slut coming to an election near you....

I'd hit it - based on that picture anyway.

I couldn't stand to listen to her voice long enough to get there.

(04-08-2019 05:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 04:59 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 06:38 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 02:32 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(04-04-2019 10:16 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Tulsi's meeting with the dictator of Syria was a big mistake that could hurt her chances of becoming President.

Her and Yang are the only two who have even a chance of winning over the moderates in a general election but you're probably right, DNC primaries will pick someone that sucks again.

kamala the slut coming to an election near you....

I'd hit it - based on that picture anyway.

I couldn't stand to listen to her voice long enough to get there.

isn't that what duct tape is for?

(04-08-2019 05:51 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 05:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 04:59 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 06:38 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 02:32 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  Her and Yang are the only two who have even a chance of winning over the moderates in a general election but you're probably right, DNC primaries will pick someone that sucks again.

kamala the slut coming to an election near you....

I'd hit it - based on that picture anyway.

I couldn't stand to listen to her voice long enough to get there.

isn't that what duct tape is for?

A lot of bourbon not only is a 'looks crutch', but in the spirit of the last reply, can serve as an effective 'personality shield' as well. From what I have been told. Perhaps from other party from time to time.....

(04-08-2019 05:51 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 05:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 04:59 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 06:38 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 02:32 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  Her and Yang are the only two who have even a chance of winning over the moderates in a general election but you're probably right, DNC primaries will pick someone that sucks again.

kamala the slut coming to an election near you....

I'd hit it - based on that picture anyway.

I couldn't stand to listen to her voice long enough to get there.

isn't that what duct tape is for?

One advantage of getting to be my age is that the hormones are not as rampant as they once were.

(04-08-2019 06:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 05:51 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 05:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-08-2019 04:59 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 06:38 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  kamala the slut coming to an election near you....

I'd hit it - based on that picture anyway.

I couldn't stand to listen to her voice long enough to get there.

isn't that what duct tape is for?

One advantage of getting to be my age is that the hormones are not as rampant as they once were.

I feel ya there. All I can do is remember these days.

When you can't stand listening to them talk, the mouth is the preferred orifice to use.

(04-08-2019 05:01 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(04-06-2019 02:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Look guys. There are many hot "lefties". In my day Susan Sarandon and Michelle Pfeiffer, and Blythe Danner were stunning. Today you have many others to pick from including Blythe's daughter, and Emma Stone. All of them are lefties. I may think they are beautiful, I may have them in my pleasant thoughts. But there is no way they would ever get my vote. Gabbard is not for us. Not now. Not ever. Don't ever forget it.

Susan Sarandon was never a hottie. That you think so cements your status as a loon. Michelle Pfeiffer on the other hand...

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and Sarandon was pretty in the 60's and a lot better built than Twiggy, and had an attitude. As to being a loon only time ever tells. I've known plenty of folks who have been called such who were just ahead of the curve. I do know enough to grasp that there are a lot of really slow people on the Conservative side of the aisle too. Most folks just never really want to believe that it is as bad as it really is, so they fall way short of cleaning the right side of the Congress as well as the left.

Most folks want to believe the best about their own representatives and Senators and fear missing out on appropriations if they change them out. The truth is that most who have been there awhile are on a corporate payroll and long ago quit representing their constituents. They posture and say what they have to back home to get re-elected and they outspend their competitors overwhelmingly with their benefactors money.

I'm happy that there are so many here who support Trump, but am puzzled that so many also support republicans who have been working to thwart his agenda, and come readily to the defense of folks like McCain, W, and H.W.. I would have thought that the heavy propaganda about H.W.'s funeral and the jolly assembly of the Clintons, Obamas, and W's might have been a solid tell.

Corporations obtained the rights of individuals under H.W.. They gained the right to lay claim to imminent domain under W. Clinton and the Bushs suppoted NAFTA, McCain and Obama pushed the bailout. They all curried favor with the same corporations.

PM me when you are up to speed.