Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Libertarians: What party do you prefer?

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 10:10:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't see how you can side with Republicans. The way I see it, Republicans don't really have economic policies that are radically different from Democrats. Eisenhower for example continued many of the New Deal programs and spent a lot on defense as the Cold War escalated (fiscal? I think not). Nixon turned Keynesian midway through the recession he started! Reagan regulated business and tried to interfere with the economy when recession struck, and he skyrocketed taxes (fiscal? I think not). George W. Bush added $4 trillion to the national debt and went on a wild spending spree to finance two wars (fiscal? I think not).

The only clear cut difference between these 2 parties lies in their treatment of American society. Republicans claim smaller government, but that is a boldfaced lie. They would ban abortion, ban gay marriage, ban all drugs, ban flag burning, impose the Christian religion on our secular nation, and regulate the hell out of our lives. Liberal Democrats on the other hand have a more socially libertarian policy. The only material I think you could bring up against us is the extension of the Patriot Act, but I can't defend that, and that's also not very common or usual or principal to our party's policy. However, do also note, that Obama did revise the Patriot Act such that wiretaps are only legal under court order.

So, in the end, you agree with neither of us parties on economics, but you do agree with Democrats on social policy. Logically, you should side with the Democratic party, and vote Obama 2012, No?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 10:12:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
So, you hijacked this thread, in the first post?

Wow.....I've never seen that done before.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 10:13:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 10:12:05 AM, OberHerr wrote:
So, you hijacked this thread, in the first post?

Wow.....I've never seen that done before.

I just created this. What are you talking about?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 10:15:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 10:13:10 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/16/2012 10:12:05 AM, OberHerr wrote:
So, you hijacked this thread, in the first post?

Wow.....I've never seen that done before.

I just created this. What are you talking about?

Well, you start with that question, but then you go into a long tirade of how evil Republicans, and their policies are, ect. ect. ect.

I dunno, I would have just asked the question, and not added the little extra stuff about why they should.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
vmpire321
Posts: 4,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 10:19:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 10:15:34 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/16/2012 10:13:10 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/16/2012 10:12:05 AM, OberHerr wrote:
So, you hijacked this thread, in the first post?

Wow.....I've never seen that done before.

I just created this. What are you talking about?

Well, you start with that question, but then you go into a long tirade of how evil Republicans, and their policies are, ect. ect. ect.

I dunno, I would have just asked the question, and not added the little extra stuff about why they should.

Republicans are evil... Everyone is evil.... Therefore we all are republicans :D!
MasterKage
Posts: 1,257
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 10:22:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 10:10:32 AM, 000ike wrote:
Logically, you should side with the Democratic party, and vote Obama 2012, No?

No, the only reason Obama got the presidency was because of large portion only voted for him because he would be the first president. A large portion did not pay attention to anything he said he would do. And he hasn't even accomplished most of what he said he's do.
This signature is full of timey wimey wibbly wobbly stuff...
Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 10:25:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is a false dichotomy. Neither the Democrats nor Republicans reflect libertarian views. Both primarily campaign for power, as most party's do, and then spend the bulk of their time in office working to keep that power. That's pretty much why there's a libertarian party in the first place.

You are correct that most Republicans want to impose their white Christian morals on a "secular" nation (although most citizens aren't exactly secular). At the same time, most Democrats seek to utilize a largely unaccountable Washington bureaucracy to impose feel-good "social justice" programs on a geographically, ethnically, and ideologically diverse country of over 300 million people.

Both parties strive for a world that is neither pragmatic nor conducive to the decentralized, federal system in which America was designed.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 10:29:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Most Republicans and Democrats are too similar in their beliefs to really be distinguishable. However, Ron Paul and Rand Paul, the libertarians of Congress, are Republican; therefore, I consider myself to be Republican.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 10:29:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 10:22:38 AM, MasterKage wrote:
At 1/16/2012 10:10:32 AM, 000ike wrote:
Logically, you should side with the Democratic party, and vote Obama 2012, No?

No, the only reason Obama got the presidency was because of large portion only voted for him because he would be the first president. A large portion did not pay attention to anything he said he would do. And he hasn't even accomplished most of what he said he's do.

Do you want to debate whether or not Obama won primarily because he was Black? I'm really fed up with people saying that because its false.

and also, I love how you just blindly say Obama has not accomplished what he promised when in reality, he's accomplished nearly all of it...http://www.politifact.com...

The most famous of his promises include getting rid of Osama, ending the Iraqi War, and ended practices of torture. Don't just blurt out erroneous and untrue assertions because you think they won't be challenged.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
vmpire321
Posts: 4,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 10:30:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 10:22:38 AM, MasterKage wrote:
At 1/16/2012 10:10:32 AM, 000ike wrote:
Logically, you should side with the Democratic party, and vote Obama 2012, No?

No, the only reason Obama got the presidency was because of large portion only voted for him because he would be the first president. A large portion did not pay attention to anything he said he would do. And he hasn't even accomplished most of what he said he's do.

You missing something there? Cuz i'm pretty sure Washington was the first president...
MasterKage
Posts: 1,257
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 10:33:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 10:30:06 AM, vmpire321 wrote:
At 1/16/2012 10:22:38 AM, MasterKage wrote:
At 1/16/2012 10:10:32 AM, 000ike wrote:
Logically, you should side with the Democratic party, and vote Obama 2012, No?

No, the only reason Obama got the presidency was because of large portion only voted for him because he would be the first president. A large portion did not pay attention to anything he said he would do. And he hasn't even accomplished most of what he said he's do.

You missing something there? Cuz i'm pretty sure Washington was the first president

Eh, you know I meant the first black president.
This signature is full of timey wimey wibbly wobbly stuff...
vmpire321
Posts: 4,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 10:35:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 10:33:49 AM, MasterKage wrote:
At 1/16/2012 10:30:06 AM, vmpire321 wrote:
At 1/16/2012 10:22:38 AM, MasterKage wrote:
At 1/16/2012 10:10:32 AM, 000ike wrote:
Logically, you should side with the Democratic party, and vote Obama 2012, No?

No, the only reason Obama got the presidency was because of large portion only voted for him because he would be the first president. A large portion did not pay attention to anything he said he would do. And he hasn't even accomplished most of what he said he's do.

You missing something there? Cuz i'm pretty sure Washington was the first president

Eh, you know I meant the first black president.

lol :) Maybe i did..maybe i didn't
MasterKage
Posts: 1,257
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 10:35:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 10:29:49 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/16/2012 10:22:38 AM, MasterKage wrote:
At 1/16/2012 10:10:32 AM, 000ike wrote:
Logically, you should side with the Democratic party, and vote Obama 2012, No?

No, the only reason Obama got the presidency was because of large portion only voted for him because he would be the first president. A large portion did not pay attention to anything he said he would do. And he hasn't even accomplished most of what he said he's do.

Do you want to debate whether or not Obama won primarily because he was Black? I'm really fed up with people saying that because its false.
I would accept.

and also, I love how you just blindly say Obama has not accomplished what he promised when in reality, he's accomplished nearly all of it...http://www.politifact.com...
Rather poorly, don't you think?

The most famous of his promises include getting rid of Osama, ending the Iraqi War, and ended practices of torture.

Don't just blurt out erroneous and untrue assertions because you think they won't be challenged.

I'd be disappointed if they didn't go unchallenged on DDO.
This signature is full of timey wimey wibbly wobbly stuff...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 10:36:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 10:25:54 AM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
This is a false dichotomy. Neither the Democrats nor Republicans reflect libertarian views. Both primarily campaign for power, as most party's do, and then spend the bulk of their time in office working to keep that power. That's pretty much why there's a libertarian party in the first place.

You are correct that most Republicans want to impose their white Christian morals on a "secular" nation (although most citizens aren't exactly secular). At the same time, most Democrats seek to utilize a largely unaccountable Washington bureaucracy to impose feel-good "social justice" programs on a geographically, ethnically, and ideologically diverse country of over 300 million people.

Both parties strive for a world that is neither pragmatic nor conducive to the decentralized, federal system in which America was designed.

No, America was designed to be centralized. We eliminated the Articles for the Constitution to give the federal government more power, and from there we expanded the power of the Supreme Court and the power of the presidency was stretched several times even as early as Lincoln lifting the Writs of Habeaus Corpus. This country was never decentralized, that's just the Libertarian dream that never was.

I also disagree that this is a false dichotomy, its generally accepted that the Republican party harbors extremely religiously charged policies, while Democrats largely advocate social freedom. This is like calling a it a black and white depiction that Libertarians want less government and authoritarians want more. Its just a fact of ideology.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 10:45:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 10:35:58 AM, MasterKage wrote:
At 1/16/2012 10:29:49 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/16/2012 10:22:38 AM, MasterKage wrote:
At 1/16/2012 10:10:32 AM, 000ike wrote:
Logically, you should side with the Democratic party, and vote Obama 2012, No?

No, the only reason Obama got the presidency was because of large portion only voted for him because he would be the first president. A large portion did not pay attention to anything he said he would do. And he hasn't even accomplished most of what he said he's do.

Do you want to debate whether or not Obama won primarily because he was Black? I'm really fed up with people saying that because its false.
I would accept.

Challenge sent.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 10:47:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Me-too Republicans

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 11:04:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 10:10:32 AM, 000ike wrote:
So, in the end, you agree with neither of us parties on economics, but you do agree with Democrats on social policy. Logically, you should side with the Democratic party, and vote Obama 2012, No?

See this is what happens when people over emphasize the provisional Nolan chart.

Modern liberals are social liberals combining progressivism and classic liberalism
Modern conservatives are liberal conservatives combining traditional conservatism and classic liberalism.

libertarians are split between left and right, left wing is anarchists, right wing is minarchists (classic liberals)

Left wing libertarians are less likely to vote, since they are anarchists.

Democrats favor a stronger federal government, republicans favor more state's rights.

Democrats want redistributive policies like national healthcare
Republicans are against redistributive policies.

Libertarians believe the only role of government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of the people, and they believe in limitted government.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 1:11:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 10:12:05 AM, OberHerr wrote:
So, you hijacked this thread, in the first post?

Wow.....I've never seen that done before.

That's actually exactly what I was thinking. Can't we at least hold the guise of a civil conversation for a few posts before it becomes more of the same?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 1:15:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 1:11:48 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 1/16/2012 10:12:05 AM, OberHerr wrote:
So, you hijacked this thread, in the first post?

Wow.....I've never seen that done before.

That's actually exactly what I was thinking. Can't we at least hold the guise of a civil conversation for a few posts before it becomes more of the same?

Alas, this is DDO, where threads discussing Avatar Week turn into a thread interrogating a user on their political party.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 1:23:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 10:10:32 AM, 000ike wrote:
I don't see how you can side with Republicans. The way I see it, Republicans don't really have economic policies that are radically different from Democrats. Eisenhower for example continued many of the New Deal programs and spent a lot on defense as the Cold War escalated (fiscal? I think not). Nixon turned Keynesian midway through the recession he started! Reagan regulated business and tried to interfere with the economy when recession struck, and he skyrocketed taxes (fiscal? I think not). George W. Bush added $4 trillion to the national debt and went on a wild spending spree to finance two wars (fiscal? I think not).

The only clear cut difference between these 2 parties lies in their treatment of American society. Republicans claim smaller government, but that is a boldfaced lie. They would ban abortion, ban gay marriage, ban all drugs, ban flag burning, impose the Christian religion on our secular nation, and regulate the hell out of our lives. Liberal Democrats on the other hand have a more socially libertarian policy. The only material I think you could bring up against us is the extension of the Patriot Act, but I can't defend that, and that's also not very common or usual or principal to our party's policy. However, do also note, that Obama did revise the Patriot Act such that wiretaps are only legal under court order.

So, in the end, you agree with neither of us parties on economics, but you do agree with Democrats on social policy. Logically, you should side with the Democratic party, and vote Obama 2012, No?

No, logically libertarians should not side with Obama.

The Republican Party has a strong libertarian tradition. See the Old Right, a group of conservatives and libertarians in the 1930s–1960s who supported a non-interventionist foreign policy and limited government. They were united in opposition to the New Deal.

See Barry Goldwater, the Republican nominee in 1964. His book The Conscience Of A Conservative has influenced countless conservatives, and arguably laid the foundation for the "Reagan Revolution" in 1980.

See the platform Ronald Reagan was elected on in 1980. "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." - Reagan's first inaugural address in 1981.

Even see the non-interventionist foreign policy GWB was elected on in 2000.

And most recently, see the Tea Party movement, specifically the original one before it was hi-jacked by the Republican establishment. They focused on true economic freedom - reducing our monstrous debt being priority #1 - and in general, getting the government out of our personal lives. There was also a distinct faction of non-interventionists as well, who wanted to focus on solving our problems, not entangling alliances and fiscally irresponsible endless wars abroad.

You make a solid point that the Republican Party has rarely actually delivered on its small government rhetoric, and usually just expanded its size, even when they had legitimate opportunities to do the opposite. You correctly state that Reagan and Bush were anything but fiscal conservatives, and most of the Republican establishment is perfectly content with electing another Bush-type candidate - and certainly would be more than content with another Reagan - to replace Obama. The history of the Republican Party for the last half century has rarely been "conservative."

But I think you ignore two very important things:

1) Just because the party hasn't actually delivered on its small government rhetoric doesn't mean libertarians shouldn't work to bring the party back to its conservative roots. In the Republican Party, the "roots" and the history of glimpses of small government conservatism are there. The fact is the GOP has been home to many influential libertarian thinkers and voters over the years and there's still a remnant of those voters in the party....

So did the party usually fail at reducing the size of government? Yeah. But does that mean that we should vote for Obama and go Democratic instead? No, it means we should just work harder to get the GOP to recognize its libertarian roots. Even Reagan said libertarianism was the "heart and soul" of conservatism. Libertarians just have to get the Republican Party, supposedly the party of conservatism, to recognize that. It's a challenge but it's a possibility. The Democratic Party has no history/roots of libertarianism and its philosophy isn't nearly as intertwined with libertarianism as true conservatism is.

2) Most importantly, you ignore the fact that Democrats too have failed miserably at delivering on their liberal rhetoric. Yeah, Republicans failed at limiting the size of government. But what about Obama, who campaigned on ending the Iraq war immediately and only started doing it at the end of 2011 - because the Iraqis essentially forced us out? (He tried to negotiate to stay longer.) What about the war in Afghanistan? What about the War on Drugs that Obama did absolutely nothing about? The administration is still cracking down on medical marijuana dispensaries in California. What about Guantanamo that Obama lied about closing? What about the Patriot Act which authorizes warrantless wiretapping? What about the NDAA which Obama signed and in fact refused to sign unless it included the party about indefinite detention of American citizens?

My point is that you paint a relatively accurate picture of Republicans as hardly ever standing for real small government across the board. In other words, they haven't been true to their promises or their philosophy. But you totally ignore the fact that neither have Democrats, that Obama hasn't done any of the liberal things that he promised he would (see above), and that by and large, he had the support of nearly ever liberal Democrats... on all those issues. How many liberal Democrats voted against the Iraq war? Afghanistan? The Patriot Act? The War On Drugs? The NDAA?

Far more accurate than saying that Republicans have never seriously limited government would be to say that BOTH parties are the parties of big government in nearly all the same ways, and there are hardly any substantial differences between the two.

And as I said before, the Republican Party does have a history of including libertarian ideas and thinkers and influences. The Old Right, Goldwater, Reagan (before he exploded the side of government), The Tea Party movement.

So no, libertarians should definitely strive to turn the Republican Party into a real force for limiting government instead of starting anew in the Democratic Party. If you couldn't tell by the fact that Ron Paul got over 20% in the first two primaries, and that he's about 15% nationally despite being hated and ignored by the media and Republican establishment, we're already well on our way to making that goal a reality.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 1:32:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
While for the most part I would say that I don't support either party as most politicians from either side are very similar and are completely antithetical to the libertarian position.
However, if pressed, (and looking from an american perspective - I'm sure you guys aren't nearly as interested in British politics as I am in american politics) I would say republican because;
- Ron Paul
- Smaller government is more frequently found as an ideal in republicans
- Obama has been awful

However, if it were Romney vs Obama, I could not decide. Its just choosing whether you are boiled alive in pepsi or coke. I don't have the empiric data to suggest which is preferable.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 1:34:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I also wouldn't look to the history of either party more than 10 years when deciding which to support. The parties change quite rapidly. (This is one reason why arguing which party increased the deficit the most or brought xyz policy is pointless - it doesn't have any bearing on the politics of today)
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 1:59:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 10:22:38 AM, MasterKage wrote:
No, the only reason Obama got the presidency was because of large portion only voted for him because he would be the first president. A large portion did not pay attention to anything he said he would do. And he hasn't even accomplished most of what he said he's do.

1. If that were true, every other black candidate who ran before him would have won. They did not, so clearly that's not the "only" reason.

2. John McCain was GWB lite, and GWB was wildly unpopular. Furthermore he is a very pro-war politician, while ending the various war(s) were some of the most important campaign issues for many Americans. McCain's age also worked against him, amongst other factors.

3. Two words: Sarah Palin.

4. Obama's opposition within the Democratic party was Hillary, a woman. America certainly "isn't ready" for that (you pansies). Beyond that, there is a 50/50 shot at winning the presidency between Democratic and Republican candidates, realistically speaking. Those are pretty good odds in Obama's favor.
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 2:01:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 1:59:08 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 1/16/2012 10:22:38 AM, MasterKage wrote:
No, the only reason Obama got the presidency was because of large portion only voted for him because he would be the first president. A large portion did not pay attention to anything he said he would do. And he hasn't even accomplished most of what he said he's do.

1. If that were true, every other black candidate who ran before him would have won. They did not, so clearly that's not the "only" reason.

2. John McCain was GWB lite, and GWB was wildly unpopular. Furthermore he is a very pro-war politician, while ending the various war(s) were some of the most important campaign issues for many Americans. McCain's age also worked against him, amongst other factors.

3. Two words: Sarah Palin.

4. Obama's opposition within the Democratic party was Hillary, a woman. America certainly "isn't ready" for that (you pansies). Beyond that, there is a 50/50 shot at winning the presidency between Democratic and Republican candidates, realistically speaking. Those are pretty good odds in Obama's favor.

lol thats a good one, I forgot about that. They did pick Obama over Hillary. I'll add that to my argument
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
bhatti1020
Posts: 216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 2:06:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The ideology of republicans and democrats are different, the closes ideology to mine is the one that the democratic party/liberals hold,therefore, I'm a democrat. However, the overwhelming majority of politicians on both sides can be bought with money, and have their own personal agendas...
-Tourism & Immigration minister for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
"hey, no Jerry springer here!"
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 2:07:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is a growing core in the republican party that is libertarian-ish, especially when you look at the party regionally.

Democrats are more about expanding the scope of government, not just government itself, and that to me is more alarming than the annoying hawks in the republican party who need to reassess their usefulness to our country.

It is certainly true that there are a lot of republicans who are just as invasive into my personal life as the democrats, and who use a self-righteous yard stick in their policy positions.

I am, after all, pragmatic in most things, and I look at which party will hurt me or the country least and go with that, which happens to usually be republicans.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 2:11:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 2:01:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/16/2012 1:59:08 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 1/16/2012 10:22:38 AM, MasterKage wrote:
No, the only reason Obama got the presidency was because of large portion only voted for him because he would be the first president. A large portion did not pay attention to anything he said he would do. And he hasn't even accomplished most of what he said he's do.

1. If that were true, every other black candidate who ran before him would have won. They did not, so clearly that's not the "only" reason.

2. John McCain was GWB lite, and GWB was wildly unpopular. Furthermore he is a very pro-war politician, while ending the various war(s) were some of the most important campaign issues for many Americans. McCain's age also worked against him, amongst other factors.

3. Two words: Sarah Palin.

4. Obama's opposition within the Democratic party was Hillary, a woman. America certainly "isn't ready" for that (you pansies). Beyond that, there is a 50/50 shot at winning the presidency between Democratic and Republican candidates, realistically speaking. Those are pretty good odds in Obama's favor.

lol thats a good one, I forgot about that. They did pick Obama over Hillary. I'll add that to my argument

Personally, I think he would have been laughed out of the primaries if he wasn't black. His inexperience is laughable.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 2:30:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Liberals are socially libertarian? Not since they started crapping on the first and second amendments.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 2:32:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 2:30:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Liberals are socially libertarian? Not since they started crapping on the first and second amendments.

In what way?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 2:33:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 2:32:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/16/2012 2:30:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Liberals are socially libertarian? Not since they started crapping on the first and second amendments.

In what way?

Have you never heard of hate speech and gun control laws?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran