heywood on 21/9/2008 at 00:45
Quote Posted by Ko0K
That's pretty hard be believe, considering how good a job you are doing at impersonating a wingnut.
Well Ko0K, the problem with being an independent is that depending on what company you're in, you may find yourself holding up one side of the conversation. Just to clarify where I stand, here's a snapshot of my politics:
I'm a civil libertarian, pro-choice, support gay marriage, gun rights, privacy rights, free speech, the ACLU and EFF. I oppose the Patriot act, support decriminalization of marijuana but not other drugs. I'm a capitalist and favor markets, but I think regulation is often necessary (FDA, FCC, SEC, etc.). I favor small business over big business and stricter anti-trust measures, but I have mixed views on unions. I support the minimum wage, EITC, and living wage laws. I believe in helping people help themselves, not supporting a non-working class. I'm a conservationist and environmentalist, not a protectionists. I'm in favor of maintaining a strong military and using it primarily for deterrence and humanitarian missions. I'm opposed to intervening in regional conflicts unless there's a compelling interest and international consensus. I believe in free trade and multinational diplomacy. I support freer immigration, but focused on building citizens not temporary workers. I'm not necessarily in favor of smaller government, but I think the best government is closest to the people. By that I mean government services, decisions, and policies should be at the lowest level practical: local government if possible, then state, last federal.
Does that help?
Ko0K on 21/9/2008 at 02:53
Interesting that you actually felt that you'd respond, but since you did... I won't and can't make you admit to being what you are not, especially after you said that you support women's choice and gay rights. However, in most cases I find that those who claim to be "independent" to be in the same camp as those who use their claimed position to disguise their partisan biases and their restrained rage against the opposing views. Not to call you a liar, but I personally believe that it's rather easier for one to 'hold up one side of the conversation' all the time, regardless as to the current composition of the discussion participants. As for me, it's considerably easier to lean left even when the discussion is already dominated by liberals. Perhaps I'd be less skeptical if I were to see you express your views in conservative-dominated discussions, but how likely is that to happen here? :p
the_grip on 21/9/2008 at 05:51
So, with the advent of this housing bailout, the national debt will likely rise to close to $11 trillion dollars by the end of next year.
Bush has overseen the largest deficit increase in the history of the United States.
Not only that, but he has signed in some of the biggest spending proposals, esp. in regards to Medicare, and then CUT TAXES! WTF?
What's the difference between democrats and republicans these days? Democrats do not lie about spending money and republicans do. Republicans these days have no semblance towards the "classical" republican (which had problems but was far more palpable than the bullshit in the government now).
This latest housing bailout this weekend is one of the biggest "big government" moves I can think of, and it significantly adds to the debt my two young daughters will inherit.
This is absolutely ridiculous and absurd. The Bush administration and congress have allowed outlandishly risky business enterprises to go on within the investment banks because "everyone deserves a house" (to buy votes I'm sure or make money for cronies) and now they will allow the taxpayer to take the windfall. These folks have made billions at the expense of taxpayer money. Sure they mumble about "protecting the taxpayer" but that sentiment can't coexist with this proposal. Taxpayers' protection will last as long as a fart in a storm.
Maybe one day the government can turn all this crap into a buck and help pay down the deficit with the proceeds, but my common sense tells me there is no way in hell that will happen. Taxpayers will pony up to pay the bill and never reap the rewards.
Screw you Bush. Fuck you Paulson. Get us some real leadership. And get this Palin/McCain/Obama soap opera bullshit off the TV. When Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, one of the largest bankruptcies in history and very historically significant, all CNN could talk about was Palin. Fast food to the public who is getting an anal rotor rootering while being "protected". Fucking hell.
SD on 21/9/2008 at 06:09
It always amuses me when people are coughing and spluttering about the Republicans running up a massive national debt, and how could this happen when they're economic conservatives (or more correctly, economic liberals) and small statists.
And you just know that millions of people will vote McCain because they'll trust him to do a better job on the economy than Obama, even though the only POTUS in the last 20 years to run a surplus has been the only Democrat in the last 20 years. And the rest of the world will watch President McCain take America further into the red and shake their heads and wonder just how stupid you have to be to swallow that Republican bullshit about fiscal conservatism for a fourth or fifth or sixth time.
scumble on 21/9/2008 at 08:05
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
This is one of the prime reasons why I think anyone who claims to be a Republican
and a supporter of the Bush administration is either lying, ignorant of what the traditional values of the Republican Party have been / of what the obvious values of the latest crop of Republicans have been, or just plain stupid.
I just figure that if Republicans were now what Republicans have typically always been, there would have been absolutely no need for a Libertarian party other than to placate the real wingnuts.
From my reading of the history of the Rupublican Party, it has been "help out the capitalists" from day one (meaning action in favour of capitalists, not leaving them alone). They just consistently use the "rhetoric of liberty", whatever that turns out to be. Say "free markets" often enough and many people are fooled apparently.
heywood on 21/9/2008 at 13:11
Ko0K - Not sure why you want to make this personal. And I'm not sure it's possible to have a reasonable discussion with somebody who's all for having a civil war over party politics. But if you want to discuss any of my political
positions or my statements in this thread, feel free.
Quote Posted by SD
And you just know that millions of people will vote McCain because they'll trust him to do a better job on the economy than Obama, even though the only POTUS in the last 20 years to run a surplus has been the only Democrat in the last 20 years. And the rest of the world will watch President McCain take America further into the red and shake their heads and wonder just how stupid you have to be to swallow that Republican bullshit about fiscal conservatism for a fourth or fifth or sixth time.
Fiscal conservatives have no horse in this race. Based on McCain's proposals, it looks like he's abandoned fiscal conservatism. And I think if Obama was out there on the stump talking about restoring Clinton era fiscal policy, he'd be blowing McCain away. But unfortunately, he's not. Both of these guys are proposing to add trillions to the national debt.
Starrfall on 21/9/2008 at 14:20
^^ Luckily one of them has a much better explanation for how he'll also cut trillions, so there's some separation there.
But aside from that, I'm going to echo whatever sentiment there is to the effect that it's surprising that libertarians haven't made more gains. Are people just too stuck on the republican line? Are the libertarians just terrible politicians? Is it because the fringe won't stop whining about things like seatbelt laws? (I suspect this last one is the biggest problem.)
Maybe we'll see a bigger showing for them this time around? I don't expect everyone to like Obama but I suspect a lot of those who don't like him also want nothing to do with McCain. If I was in their boat I'd be voting libertarian in a probably futile attempt to show them how mad I was (but then I think I'm just repeating myself here.)
Fringe on 21/9/2008 at 15:21
Another problem might be that a number of people who call themselves libertarians are actually militaristic authoritarians in the Heinlein mold.
"Schmibertarians" is the word on the street, I believe.
Ko0K on 21/9/2008 at 16:03
Quote Posted by heywood
Ko0K - Not sure why you want to make this personal. And I'm not sure it's possible to have a reasonable discussion with somebody who's all for having a civil war over party politics. But if you want to discuss any of my political
positions or my statements in this thread, feel free.
You're way off. The only thing I said above that actually applies to you is the second sentence. Everything after that is my rationale for being skeptical toward some of the so-called "independents," although in hindsight it seems that I didn't make it clear. Rest assured that you don't have to take it personally if it doesn't apply to you.
As for the civil war comment, 'getting it out of the system' is the meat of the point I was getting at, because all this pussy-footing around the tension and throwing cyber-jabs at each other doesn't seem to accomplish anything. It may be convenient for you to throw that at me to write me off as unreasonable, though.
Ghostly Apparition on 21/9/2008 at 16:29
I have to laugh at the fact that when mention of a single payer health care system the republicans all scream "that's socialism"
But on 'This week with stephanopolis' I actually heard George Will state that
with the Government Bailout that they are proposing that George Bush just became a Socialist.
I find that endlessly amusing. :laff:
