Why should I vote for Bush?...
-
right. and again, GWB isn't responsible for spending increases, even though he also has the majority in both houses. but democratic presidents are. i understand, you don't have to say it again. CheeseWeasle
A small majority. My biggest problem with Bush is that he *isn't* taking advantage of that majority the way Democratic leaders have in the past. For some reason he seems to still feel obligated to pander to the left even though he doesn't need to. I wish he would show some balls and act as though he has a conservative majority and start reversing some of the legacy of LBJ and FDR.
-
JoeSox wrote: Yes, but the Libertarian Party is the largest of any other third party. They have the best chance of getting this country back to those ideals. I don't see how. I suppose my attitude is that there is *no* realistic way of getting back to those values. So, given a choice between the socialistic left (Democrats) and the capitalistic right (Republicans) I choose the lesser of two evils and vote Republican.
Stan Shannon wrote: I don't see how. they must be included in the nationally televised debates. Which the CPD will not let them in because they are a threat to the two-party monopoly. I have done research on this. Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky. -
A small majority. My biggest problem with Bush is that he *isn't* taking advantage of that majority the way Democratic leaders have in the past. For some reason he seems to still feel obligated to pander to the left even though he doesn't need to. I wish he would show some balls and act as though he has a conservative majority and start reversing some of the legacy of LBJ and FDR.
Stan Shannon wrote: I wish he would show some balls and act as though he has a conservative majority and start reversing some of the legacy of LBJ and FDR. i think the reason he won't do that is because he (or his advisors) know that the vast majority of the public likes the programs FDR and LBJ created, and that cutting them would be a guarantee of a single term for him and every congressional Republican. CheeseWeasle
-
right. GWB is not responsible for anything that happens under his watch, even though he has majorities in Congress and could presumably pass whatever he wants. But Democratic presidents are always responsible for everything. as long as we're clear on this. -c CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: Democratic presidents are always responsible for everything. Nope - I referenced FDR and LBJ. LBJ was unique is his knowledge of how to move the Congress. These are skills that neither Kennedy nor Clinton possessed. Kennedy and Reagan had great success, as has Bush, in reducing taxes but only by speaking directly to the country not by working through congressional politics. Mike
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I wish he would show some balls and act as though he has a conservative majority and start reversing some of the legacy of LBJ and FDR. i think the reason he won't do that is because he (or his advisors) know that the vast majority of the public likes the programs FDR and LBJ created, and that cutting them would be a guarantee of a single term for him and every congressional Republican. CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: the vast majority of the public likes the programs FDR and LBJ created No, it is the half-vast majority. Those that dont' pay income tax. Mike
-
Chris Losinger wrote: the vast majority of the public likes the programs FDR and LBJ created No, it is the half-vast majority. Those that dont' pay income tax. Mike
Mike Gaskey wrote: Those that dont' pay income tax the rich? CheeseWeasle
-
Chris Losinger wrote: Democratic presidents are always responsible for everything. Nope - I referenced FDR and LBJ. LBJ was unique is his knowledge of how to move the Congress. These are skills that neither Kennedy nor Clinton possessed. Kennedy and Reagan had great success, as has Bush, in reducing taxes but only by speaking directly to the country not by working through congressional politics. Mike
Mike Gaskey wrote: Kennedy and Reagan had great success, as has Bush, in reducing taxes yup. but we were talking about the other side of that coin: reducing spending, which Bush has spectacularly failed to do. (but of course Bush can't cut spending himself, just like he can't reduce taxes himself) -c CheeseWeasle
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I don't see how. they must be included in the nationally televised debates. Which the CPD will not let them in because they are a threat to the two-party monopoly. I have done research on this. Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky.What I meant was, even if the Libertarians won the presidency, how could a party that does not represent any aspect of what our government was originally intended to be bring us back to those founding principles?
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I wish he would show some balls and act as though he has a conservative majority and start reversing some of the legacy of LBJ and FDR. i think the reason he won't do that is because he (or his advisors) know that the vast majority of the public likes the programs FDR and LBJ created, and that cutting them would be a guarantee of a single term for him and every congressional Republican. CheeseWeasle
I agree with you on that. That is exactly why he doesn't do it. It would take more balls than he obviously has. Unfortunantly the majority of the public, especially minorities and females, have bought into a set of socialistic ideas that are very distructive to their best interests and antithetical to everything we, as Americans, were supposed to value politically.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: No, everybody should care. But give me a break, we've got 15+ months till the presidential election in the US. The Democratic primaries haven't even started yet. I was hoping not to read election rants in the Soapbox until at least January, ideally not until next summer. What you should be caring about MORE is that USA citizens are dieing everyday overseas! No thanks to this administration. If my son or friend or fellow CPian died over there, I would feel it would have been a political death which would not stand still in my mind.:| I don't like seeing the USA having a military presence in every corner of the earth it gets me more when these people obeying orders end up dead, and their families are the ones that suffer the most. So your dam-straight I am thinking about how I am voting for now, and it looks like the State of California is also waking up. Our military should protect our borders nothing more nothing less, imo. Joe Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky.JoeSox wrote: What you should be caring about MORE is that USA citizens are dieing everyday overseas! Don't presume to know what I care about or to what degree. X| JoeSox wrote: If my son or friend or fellow CPian died over there, I would feel it would have been a political death which would not stand still in my mind. I think that can be said of all wars. Like it or not they are fought for political reasons. PERIOD. If you single this war and this president out, you're not being honest with yourself. JoeSox wrote: I don't like seeing the USA having a military presence in every corner of the earth it gets me more when these people obeying orders end up dead, and their families are the ones that suffer the most. It's not a perfect world. The UN is mostly impotent and politically motivated as well. While tragic for the dead and their families, they knew what they were getting into when they volunteered. JoeSox wrote: Our military should protect our borders nothing more nothing less, imo. The Truman Doctrine is a very tricky thing. There are times where I agree with you and times I don't. Keep in mind that every president since Truman has followed his doctrine to one degree or another. Beauty is only a lightswitch away.
-
What I meant was, even if the Libertarians won the presidency, how could a party that does not represent any aspect of what our government was originally intended to be bring us back to those founding principles?
Stan Shannon wrote: What I meant was, even if the Libertarians won the presidency, how could a party that does not represent any aspect of what our government was originally intended to be bring us back to those founding principles? You must be thinking of another party. Libertarians [^]believe in individual rights and capitalism. Perhaps if you were more specific to prove your point, then maybe I could understand. Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky. -
Richard Stringer wrote: The very last thing I ever want to see is our highly trained infantry troops reduced to the status of a prison guard. And by the way - you speak knowingly about our soldiers dieing a "political death". What about Korea ( Harry Truman ) - how many dies there ? Or Vietnam ( Kennedy - Johnson ) How many there ? Give that tired old rheotoric a break will you. What battle have you fought in? and we'll see if your opinion changes. this country's federal government has been being manipulated and doing manipulation on a grand scale since the begining of WWI. Just because I value the ideology of this country and see how it has changed doesn't mean I shall sit still and take it up the ass, like a school boy and his older brother. Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky.JoeSox wrote: What battle have you fought in? How about you? Matt Newman
Sonork: 100:11179 "Whoa, that ruled! What function key do I gotta press to get that to happen again?" - Strong Bad -
JoeSox wrote: What you should be caring about MORE is that USA citizens are dieing everyday overseas! Don't presume to know what I care about or to what degree. X| JoeSox wrote: If my son or friend or fellow CPian died over there, I would feel it would have been a political death which would not stand still in my mind. I think that can be said of all wars. Like it or not they are fought for political reasons. PERIOD. If you single this war and this president out, you're not being honest with yourself. JoeSox wrote: I don't like seeing the USA having a military presence in every corner of the earth it gets me more when these people obeying orders end up dead, and their families are the ones that suffer the most. It's not a perfect world. The UN is mostly impotent and politically motivated as well. While tragic for the dead and their families, they knew what they were getting into when they volunteered. JoeSox wrote: Our military should protect our borders nothing more nothing less, imo. The Truman Doctrine is a very tricky thing. There are times where I agree with you and times I don't. Keep in mind that every president since Truman has followed his doctrine to one degree or another. Beauty is only a lightswitch away.
Mike Mullikin wrote: I think that can be said of all wars. Like it or not they are fought for political reasons. PERIOD. If you single this war and this president out, you're not being honest with yourself. I wasn't alive during the other wars or I would be against them too.:rolleyes: Mike Mullikin wrote: While tragic for the dead and their families, they knew what they were getting into when they volunteered. Yes, but that does not mean that everyone must keep a stiff upper lip. It is the politicians sending them into battle for crying out loud. I just the military, I know I had a chance to get killed, that doesn't mean I wanted too. Mike Mullikin wrote: The Truman Doctrine is a very tricky thing. There are times where I agree with you and times I don't. Keep in mind that every president since Truman has followed his doctrine to one degree or another. good point. I should look into that more. Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky. -
JoeSox wrote: What battle have you fought in? How about you? Matt Newman
Sonork: 100:11179 "Whoa, that ruled! What function key do I gotta press to get that to happen again?" - Strong BadMatt Newman wrote: How about you? Desert Strike '96. Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky. -
Stan Shannon wrote: What I meant was, even if the Libertarians won the presidency, how could a party that does not represent any aspect of what our government was originally intended to be bring us back to those founding principles? You must be thinking of another party. Libertarians [^]believe in individual rights and capitalism. Perhaps if you were more specific to prove your point, then maybe I could understand. Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky.The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud. What part of that Liberarian mission statement is consistent with the principles this country was founded on? None of the founders would have endorsed such a political absurdity as that, there is nothing logical about it. What they *did* believe was that politics should be kept at the local level, that any laws impacting upon indiviudal rights should be decided at the community level - not by the federal government. So, for example, (and not to start the debate again) the founders would have been appalled at the supreme court's recent sodomy decision. Yet Libertarians, I assume, solidly supported it.
-
The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud. What part of that Liberarian mission statement is consistent with the principles this country was founded on? None of the founders would have endorsed such a political absurdity as that, there is nothing logical about it. What they *did* believe was that politics should be kept at the local level, that any laws impacting upon indiviudal rights should be decided at the community level - not by the federal government. So, for example, (and not to start the debate again) the founders would have been appalled at the supreme court's recent sodomy decision. Yet Libertarians, I assume, solidly supported it.
Stan Shannon wrote: What part of that Liberarian mission statement is consistent with the principles this country was founded on? One example? THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE[^] :rolleyes::laugh: Sorry but I get the impression that you have a wrong impression about the Libertarian ideas. Don't get me wrong, I am currently a Libertarian not a lifer. I vote according to what this country needs to preserve my pursuit and happiness and my family's, as should, and probably, everyone else. The problem is, and what makes this complicated, is when a government is oppressive which I have some good evidence of. Actually everyone has access to this proof. One example of this is the way the government handled and still handles the JFK assassination. Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky. -
Stan Shannon wrote: What part of that Liberarian mission statement is consistent with the principles this country was founded on? One example? THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE[^] :rolleyes::laugh: Sorry but I get the impression that you have a wrong impression about the Libertarian ideas. Don't get me wrong, I am currently a Libertarian not a lifer. I vote according to what this country needs to preserve my pursuit and happiness and my family's, as should, and probably, everyone else. The problem is, and what makes this complicated, is when a government is oppressive which I have some good evidence of. Actually everyone has access to this proof. One example of this is the way the government handled and still handles the JFK assassination. Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky.I've actually looked fairly closely at the Libertarian party, and while I endorse some libertarian (small L) principles, as a whole they are not a set of pragmatic ideas as a political party. As I see it, the fatal flaw of Libertarianism is that, ultimately, it is predicated on the concept of absolute rights. That is, one's right to own one's own body, for example, is absolute. Unfortunantly, and ironically, the only way to guarantee an absolute right is with a government that has absolute power. For if the government has no absolute power, than it cannot protect the absolute right. All rights must be relative to some legal structure, and that legal structure must either be imposed from the top down (as desired by the liberal left) or from the bottom up (as desired by the conservative right).
-
I've actually looked fairly closely at the Libertarian party, and while I endorse some libertarian (small L) principles, as a whole they are not a set of pragmatic ideas as a political party. As I see it, the fatal flaw of Libertarianism is that, ultimately, it is predicated on the concept of absolute rights. That is, one's right to own one's own body, for example, is absolute. Unfortunantly, and ironically, the only way to guarantee an absolute right is with a government that has absolute power. For if the government has no absolute power, than it cannot protect the absolute right. All rights must be relative to some legal structure, and that legal structure must either be imposed from the top down (as desired by the liberal left) or from the bottom up (as desired by the conservative right).
Stan Shannon wrote: As I see it, the fatal flaw of Libertarianism is that, ultimately, it is predicated on the concept of absolute rights. That is, one's right to own one's own body, for example, is absolute. Unfortunantly, and ironically, the only way to guarantee an absolute right is with a government that has absolute power. For if the government has no absolute power, than it cannot protect the absolute right. All rights must be relative to some legal structure, and that legal structure must either be imposed from the top down (as desired by the liberal left) or from the bottom up (as desired by the conservative right). Well, if I understand what you are saying, then you have just proven that the Libertarian party/ideas are necessary for the balance of society becuase without the idea of absolute rights what kind of rights would we have? I probably need more time to analyze your response but my intuition tells me something is incorrect about it, but that doesn't mean it is. Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "The worst fad has been these stupid little robots, Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking." -Marvin Minsky.