PDA

View Full Version : What Party Would Screw Up The Country The Least?


listopencil
06-01-2006, 03:38 PM
What political party do you think would do the least damage to this country given four years holding the office of President Of The United States?

Bob Dole
06-01-2006, 03:38 PM
Bob Dole is going to have to go with The Beer Party.

Simplex3
06-01-2006, 03:38 PM
Libertarian.

JBucc
06-01-2006, 03:39 PM
My party

tyton75
06-01-2006, 03:39 PM
Federalist party

listopencil
06-01-2006, 03:39 PM
Libertarian.



Damn straight!

Donger
06-01-2006, 03:39 PM
Whicever one would leave us the f*ck alone the most. I don't know if any of them qualify.

listopencil
06-01-2006, 03:40 PM
Whicever one would leave us the f*ck alone the most. I don't know if any of them qualify.


That would be the Libertarians.

listopencil
06-01-2006, 03:41 PM
That should be the Libertarian motto:

"We Won't **** You Over!"

Simplex3
06-01-2006, 03:50 PM
That should be the Libertarian motto:

"We Won't **** You Over!"
ROFL

They would do much better if the "legalize weed" contingent would STFU for a while. Once the Libertarians have gotten the ear of the nation we can educate them on why the war on drugs is dumb, but when you lead with it people immediately assume you're just some hippie trying to legalize weed.

htismaqe
06-01-2006, 03:53 PM
If you're truly interested in minimizing the damage to our country, there's only one solution. You have to make sure to vote every two years, not just every 4 for the majors.

If a Democrat is in the White House, fill Congress with Republicans. If a Republican is in the White House, fill Congress with Democrats.

Political gridlock will guarantee that they can't **** with us anymore than they already have.

At the very worst, they have to actually COOPERATE.

BucEyedPea
06-01-2006, 03:55 PM
If you're truly interested in minimizing the damage to our country, there's only one solution. You have to make sure to vote every two years, not just every 4 for the majors.

If a Democrat is in the White House, fill Congress with Republicans. If a Republican is in the White House, fill Congress with Democrats.

Political gridlock will guarantee that they can't **** with us anymore than they already have.

At the very worst, they have to actually COOPERATE.

This is why I checked other. I like GRIDLOCK!
Afterall nobody's money and property are safe when both parties are in session.
:)

listopencil
06-01-2006, 03:55 PM
ROFL

They would do much better if the "legalize weed" contingent would STFU for a while. Once the Libertarians have gotten the ear of the nation we can educate them on why the war on drugs is dumb, but when you lead with it people immediately assume you're just some hippie trying to legalize weed.


Yeah, I think detractors latch on to the more sensational aspects of the patform and it doesn't help when some of the people who are sympathetic play it up so much.

listopencil
06-01-2006, 03:56 PM
This is why I checked other. I like GRIDLOCK!
Afterall nobody's money and property are safe when both parties are in session.
:)


Libertarians don't even need GRIDLOCK. Their goal is to take away as much Federal political power as possible.

Simplex3
06-01-2006, 04:00 PM
If you're truly interested in minimizing the damage to our country, there's only one solution. You have to make sure to vote every two years, not just every 4 for the majors.

If a Democrat is in the White House, fill Congress with Republicans. If a Republican is in the White House, fill Congress with Democrats.

Political gridlock will guarantee that they can't **** with us anymore than they already have.

At the very worst, they have to actually COOPERATE.
I just don't see the difference anymore. They both want to steal my property (land and/or money) and give it to someone else. They both want to reward people for breaking laws and others for being useless s**tbags. The only difference is the Republicans want to get into my bedroom and the Demoncrats want to bring everyone's bedroom out into public.

listopencil
06-01-2006, 04:00 PM
If you're truly interested in minimizing the damage to our country, there's only one solution. You have to make sure to vote every two years, not just every 4 for the majors.

If a Democrat is in the White House, fill Congress with Republicans. If a Republican is in the White House, fill Congress with Democrats.

Political gridlock will guarantee that they can't **** with us anymore than they already have.

At the very worst, they have to actually COOPERATE.


I'd like to seee the country go back to the idea of the vote winner being the POTUS and the runner-up being Vice President. Instant static balance. Also, to steal an idea from Robert Heinlein, it should be much easier to repeal laws than it is to enact them.

listopencil
06-01-2006, 04:01 PM
I just don't see the difference anymore. They both want to steal my property (land and/or money) and give it to someone else. They both want to reward people for breaking laws and others for being useless s**tbags. The only difference is the Republicans want to get into my bedroom and the Demoncrats want to bring everyone's bedroom out into public.


No shit. I'm sick of both of them.

htismaqe
06-01-2006, 04:01 PM
Libertarians don't even need GRIDLOCK. Their goal is to take away as much Federal political power as possible.

At some point you have to be realistic about it, though.

The Libertarians will NEVER hold significant office. They're not part of the ruling class.

htismaqe
06-01-2006, 04:02 PM
I just don't see the difference anymore. They both want to steal my property (land and/or money) and give it to someone else. They both want to reward people for breaking laws and others for being useless s**tbags. The only difference is the Republicans want to get into my bedroom and the Demoncrats want to bring everyone's bedroom out into public.

Tis, unfortunately, true.

Simplex3
06-01-2006, 04:02 PM
I'd like to seee the country go back to the idea of the vote winner being the POTUS and the runner-up being Vice President. Instant static balance. Also, too steal an idea from Robert Heinlein, it should be much easier to repeal laws than it is to enact them.
All laws should expire after one year and all laws should have to be passed individually every year. Then these idiots in Washington DC would have to start thinking about what was actually necessary, otherwise they'd run out of time.

htismaqe
06-01-2006, 04:04 PM
Are you the guy that can get me a copy of the Planet source code?

Why? How much you gonna give me for it?

listopencil
06-01-2006, 04:06 PM
At some point you have to be realistic about it, though.

The Libertarians will NEVER hold significant office. They're not part of the ruling class.

Well, Libertarians already hold a lot of lesser positions right now. The last POTUS election was decided by about 25% of the voting age population. I don't know what it will take to make a difference but I'm going to keep hoping. We definitely need election reform. The Libertarian candidate being arrested outside of an Arizona campus while protesting the exclusive nature of public funded debates was sickening to me.

listopencil
06-01-2006, 04:07 PM
All laws should expire after one year and all laws should have to be passed individually every year. Then these idiots in Washington DC would have to start thinking about what was actually necessary, otherwise they'd run out of time.



Sounds good to me...

Simplex3
06-01-2006, 04:08 PM
Well, Libertarians already hold a lot of lesser positions right now. The last POTUS election was decided by about 25% of the voting age population. I don't know what it will take to make a difference but I'm going to keep hoping. We definitely need election reform. The Libertarian candidate being arrested outside of an Arizona campus while protesting the exclusive nature of public funded debates was sickening to me.
Little known fact that the Presidential debates are run by a company owned by the two parties. Yeah, there's no collusion there.

patteeu
06-01-2006, 04:08 PM
Libertarian

Sully
06-01-2006, 04:09 PM
All laws should expire after one year and all laws should have to be passed individually every year. Then these idiots in Washington DC would have to start thinking about what was actually necessary, otherwise they'd run out of time.

I'm in. Where do I sign up?

listopencil
06-01-2006, 04:11 PM
Little known fact that the Presidential debates are run by a company owned by the two parties. Yeah, there's no collusion there.

The fact that they use money that is taken from me to fund it absolutely pisses me off.

BIG_DADDY
06-01-2006, 04:12 PM
Libertarian Amen

Simplex3
06-01-2006, 04:14 PM
The fact that they use money that is taken from me to fund it absolutely pisses me off.
Then use their police powers and their exclusive abilty to use force to keep everyone else out. That's really cool, too.

Clint in Wichita
06-01-2006, 04:14 PM
All laws should expire after one year and all laws should have to be passed individually every year. Then these idiots in Washington DC would have to start thinking about what was actually necessary, otherwise they'd run out of time.


How about making sure that those sacks of menstrual clots on Capitol Hill actually read every word of every bill they vote on?

listopencil
06-01-2006, 04:19 PM
Then use their police powers and their exclusive abilty to use force to keep everyone else out. That's really cool, too.


Oh yeah, gotta love a bunch of ****ing Death Squad goons controlling the populace. That's conducive to a free society.

BIG_DADDY
06-01-2006, 04:23 PM
The fact that they use money that is taken from me to fund it absolutely pisses me off.

And then say who can't be there.

Chiefaholic
06-01-2006, 04:24 PM
Chiefs Draft Party

Rain Man
06-01-2006, 04:36 PM
I voted Republican just because the Libertarians would probably cause a lot of damage before they fixed anything.

Truthfully, I'd prefer that science party that was around for a few years. Their platform was that everything would be examined objectively and optimized before a decision was made. I have a feeling that's a pipe dream, but it's a nice pipe dream.

listopencil
06-01-2006, 04:38 PM
Here's a link to the May 2004 platform:

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

If you choose to look into this, realise that the party itself has stated that many of their ideals would take time to enact and that they would be done in stages as they are substantially different than what is going on now at the Federal level.

Taco John
06-01-2006, 04:56 PM
Libertarians would mop the floor with Republicans and Democrats if they were allowed to participate in the presidential debates.

listopencil
06-01-2006, 04:57 PM
Libertarians would mop the floor with Republicans and Democrats if they were allowed to participate in the presidential debates.


Yep. Neither party wants anything to do with them. They make way too much sense.

Dave Lane
06-01-2006, 04:58 PM
Whigs.

Dave

listopencil
06-01-2006, 04:59 PM
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?


I got in trouble once for writing that on my little plastic construction hat in the Navy while we were in dry dock. No sense of humor, I tell ya'.

Taco John
06-01-2006, 05:00 PM
Whigs.

Dave



I much more prefer extensions.

Taco John
06-01-2006, 05:02 PM
I got in trouble once for writing that on my little plastic construction hat in the Navy while we were in dry dock. No sense of humor, I tell ya'.


ROFL That's brilliant! Nice job.

banyon
06-01-2006, 05:03 PM
It's gotta be the "Natural Law Party" whatever they are about.

keg in kc
06-01-2006, 05:03 PM
I don't think it matters. Short of a 2nd constitutional convention, I don't think we're ever going to solve the things that have gone wrong. Because as long as we have a government where public "service" has fallen to the wayside in favor of long political careers, those in power will never actually be working for their constituents. It's not about doing what's right or what's wrong or even what's in the best interest of the nation; it's about doing what it takes to stay in office.

Taco John
06-01-2006, 05:06 PM
I don't think it matters. Short of a 2nd constitutional convention, I don't think we're ever going to solve the things that have gone wrong. Because as long as we have a government where public "service" has fallen to the wayside in favor of long political careers, those in power will never actually be working for their constituents. It's not about doing what's right or what's wrong or even what's in the best interest of the nation; it's about doing what it takes to stay in office.



I would never, EVER trust these crooked assclowns to crack open the Constitution... Least of all the Bush administration. What a disaster that would be.

JBucc
06-01-2006, 05:07 PM
I would never, EVER trust these crooked assclowns to crack open the ConstitutionI'll do it then

Adept Havelock
06-01-2006, 05:09 PM
There's no option for my choice. An offshoot of the "Monster Raving Looney Party" of the UK.

http://www.omrlp.com/

Failing that, I'm with htismaqe. Vote however it takes to ensure gridlock.

keg in kc
06-01-2006, 05:10 PM
I would never, EVER trust these crooked assclowns to crack open the Constitution... Least of all the Bush administration. What a disaster that would be.Oh, they're doing their best already.

But you know that wasn't what I meant...

listopencil
06-01-2006, 05:11 PM
There's no option for my choice. An offshoot of the "Monster Raving Looney Party" of the UK.

http://www.omrlp.com/

Failing that, I'm with htismaqe. Vote however it takes to ensure gridlock.


That's "other".

listopencil
06-01-2006, 05:11 PM
Oh, they're doing their best already.


Heh...no shit.

Psyko Tek
06-01-2006, 05:23 PM
Bob Dole is going to have to go with The Beer Party.


this is perfect 'cause how many times have you and a bunch of friends been sitting around getting faced and end up solving the worlds problems??


the problem is Ted Kennedy would have to be president for life

listopencil
06-01-2006, 06:49 PM
this is perfect 'cause how many times have you and a bunch of friends been sitting around getting faced and end up solving the worlds problems??


the problem is Ted Kennedy would have to be president for life


Hmmm...


...drunken idiot...what we have now...drunken idiot...what we have now...


...I'll have to get back to you on that. It's a tough choice.

unlurking
06-01-2006, 07:25 PM
Amazing that the Libertarian party is leading the poll right now, but come election time they'll be licky to get .5% again. Must be too much of that "lesser of two evils" thing going on.

Out of curiosity, of those that voted Libertarian, did you vote that way in 04, and who plans to in 08?

I'm yes to both.

listopencil
06-01-2006, 07:45 PM
Amazing that the Libertarian party is leading the poll right now, but come election time they'll be licky to get .5% again. Must be too much of that "lesser of two evils" thing going on.

Out of curiosity, of those that voted Libertarian, did you vote that way in 04, and who plans to in 08?

I'm yes to both.

I didn't vote that way in '00. I was suckered into thinking Bush was Conservative. That mistake pissed me off enough to find a party that was closer to my beliefs. I voted Libertarian in '04 and I'll do it again in '08.

Brock
06-01-2006, 07:51 PM
Amazing that the Libertarian party is leading the poll right now, but come election time they'll be licky to get .5% again. Must be too much of that "lesser of two evils" thing going on.

Out of curiosity, of those that voted Libertarian, did you vote that way in 04, and who plans to in 08?

I'm yes to both.

I vote LIbertarian in presidential races, not that it matters.

Not Tom Cash
06-01-2006, 09:16 PM
Isn't this a political thread?

Mr. Kotter
06-01-2006, 10:38 PM
Republicans, at the national level....STRICTLY as the "lesser of two evils." I vote Democratic, at state and local level most often; and will at the national level when the coup de tat by the moon-bats in the Democratic party is over....then I'll consider returning.

Third party, at this point, is a wasted vote. I'm not gonna lead that "charge".....that's WAY too pointless, IMO; unless the two other parties continue to polarize as they have been....:shake:

Simplex3
06-01-2006, 10:41 PM
Amazing that the Libertarian party is leading the poll right now, but come election time they'll be licky to get .5% again. Must be too much of that "lesser of two evils" thing going on.

Out of curiosity, of those that voted Libertarian, did you vote that way in 04, and who plans to in 08?

I'm yes to both.
I'm another one that was suckered into thinking Bush was a conservative. I've since decide that I will no longer be suckered. Basically I vote for the Libertarian when there is one, then I vote for any challengers over incumbants unless the challenger is a total d**kweed.

Rausch
06-01-2006, 11:18 PM
Libertarians.

I'm done voting "major party that I most agree with most of the time."

Mr. Kotter
06-01-2006, 11:27 PM
Libertarians.

I'm done voting "major party that I most agree with most of the time."
And if that had ANY chance of changing things, many of us would be right there with you....the problem is, short of what political scientists call a "realignment".....it won't help.

On the upside, if the two major parties continue the downward spiral they are BOTH, currently, in IMHO.....a realignment may happen, in the next 10-20 years. Until then, voting the "lesser of two evils" is the pragmatic choice.

Read up on it, if you are really interested. James Q. Wilson's stuff on it is pretty good....

Rausch
06-01-2006, 11:34 PM
And if that had ANY chance of changing things, many of us would be right there with you....the problem is, short of what political scientists call a "realignment".....it won't help.

On the upside, if the two major parties continue the downward spiral they are BOTH in.....a realignment may happen, in the next 10-20 years.

Read up on it, if you are really interested. James Q. Wilson's stuff on it is pretty good....

If you forget the tights and WWF stuff Ventura's right up my alley. Take the time to read his book and you'd be shocked to see how much of a political mind the man has.

The people I want to run (Powell, Condi) won't and I can't stomach the people who look to be front runners (Clinton, McCain.)

Rausch
06-01-2006, 11:35 PM
More people have voted for Other/Lib than voted Dem/Rep.

That tells me plenty of people are willing to vote 3rd party, there just needs to be someone worth a $#it to run...

Simplex3
06-01-2006, 11:36 PM
And if that had ANY chance of changing things, many of us would be right there with you....the problem is, short of what political scientists call a "realignment".....it won't help.

On the upside, if the two major parties continue the downward spiral they are BOTH, currently, in IMHO.....a realignment may happen, in the next 10-20 years. Until then, voting the "lesser of two evils" is the pragmatic choice.

Read up on it, if you are really interested. James Q. Wilson's stuff on it is pretty good....
So 34% of us are going to not vote Libertarian because it isn't pragmatic?

If all conservative Republicans and Democrats started voting Libertarian it would take about 2 election cycles before the religious extremeists and moobats were back on the fringe with the Green Party and other losers where they belong. The second those parties see errosion they'll swing back to reality faster than a bolt of lightening.

Mr. Kotter
06-01-2006, 11:40 PM
If you forget the tights and WWF stuff Ventura's right up my alley. Take the time to read his book and you'd be shocked to see how much of a political mind the man has.

The people I want to run (Powell, Condi) won't and I can't stomach the people who look to be front runners (Clinton, McCain.)

Living in SD, I'm quite familiar with Jesse. And you are right about him....but I'll add his book to the list (of books I'll probably never really get to....)

As for the people you want to run....you are just like most of us.....average, mainstream types.....want a "moderate" or "independent" (depending on how you define the terms) to bring some common sense back to this pissin' match we've had going on for 40 or so years now.....

The problem is, the parties control the NOMINATION process. Until that changes, it may be asking too much for the parties to nominate "mainstream" candidates, when the moonbats and holy rollers are doing the nominating.....:shake:

Rausch
06-01-2006, 11:43 PM
Living in SD, I'm quite familiar with Jesse. And you are right about him....but I'll add his book to the list (of books I'll probably never really get to....)

You should. I only read it to prove someone wrong and he's got a lot of revolutionary (in a good way) ideas.

As for the people you want to run....you are just like most of us.....average, mainstream types.....want a "moderate" or "independent" (depending on how you define the terms) to bring some common sense back to this pissin' match we've had going on for 40 or so years now.....

The problem is, the parties control the NOMINATION process. Until that changes, it may be asking too much for the parties to nominate "mainstream" candidates, when the moonbats and holy rollers are doing the nominating.....:shake:

Neither nominated Ross Perot and the man would have easily come in 2nd (perhaps won the election) if not for getting cold feet half way through the race...

Simplex3
06-01-2006, 11:51 PM
You should. I only read it to prove someone wrong and he's got a lot of revolutionary (in a good way) ideas.



Neither nominated Ross Perot and the man would have easily come in 2nd (perhaps won the election) if not for getting cold feet half way through the race...
Hey, I firmly believe Ross had a big hand in scaring the Repugnicons into going conservative for a while.

Mr. Kotter
06-01-2006, 11:54 PM
So 34% of us are going to not vote Libertarian because it isn't pragmatic?

If all conservative Republicans and Democrats started voting Libertarian it would take about 2 election cycles before the religious extremeists and moobats were back on the fringe with the Green Party and other losers where they belong. The second those parties see errosion they'll swing back to reality faster than a bolt of lightening.

The "if" in your hypothetical, and the propensity of of disgruntled party members to "go home" when they actually vote.....is the flaw in your analysis.

Third parties CAN influence major parties, IF the major parties are listening....because the "major" parties will co-opt third party ideas and issues as their own, in subsequent elections. Like the Republicans did with the "Dixiecrats" in the 50s....and the Wallace-voters in the 60s and 70s. You may not "like" the motivation, but the results were impressive.

The difference today seems to be, we have reached a point where NEITHER of the two major parties seem to be really "listening" to the electorate.....but remain lock-step with their ideological (primary) voters. That means, they are both out-of-step with the "main stream."

In THAT situation, we need a serious realignment BEFORE voting third party will really make a difference. We are far too polarized, at this point anyway, to be seriously engaged in a realignment. Personally, I hope it DOES happen sooner than I'm expecting.....but my head tells me we are still 2 or 3 election cycles away at least.

There is simply too much acrimony, too much ideological sniping, and a polarized public to accomodate a "realignment" any time soon. It would take a charismatic and skilled politician to lead that (FDR, JFK, Reagan....) and I just don't see one on the horizon. I hope I'm wrong....

Taco John
06-01-2006, 11:55 PM
More people have voted for Other/Lib than voted Dem/Rep.

That tells me plenty of people are willing to vote 3rd party, there just needs to be someone worth a $#it to run...



He's currently running for congress:

http://www.badnarik.org/

Rausch
06-01-2006, 11:56 PM
Hey, I firmly believe Ross had a big hand in scaring the Repugnicons into going conservative for a while.

Steve Forbes could have been the next Perot if not for the fact he looked like a child molestor/serial killer...

http://www.harrywalker.com/photos/Forbes_Steve.jpg

Taco John
06-01-2006, 11:56 PM
http://www.badnarik.org/press/downloads/posters/Liberty_music_poster_art_best.jpg

Mr. Kotter
06-01-2006, 11:57 PM
You should. I only read it to prove someone wrong and he's got a lot of revolutionary (in a good way) ideas.



Neither nominated Ross Perot and the man would have easily come in 2nd (perhaps won the election) if not for getting cold feet half way through the race...
He got 19 per cent in 1992. Impressive. But he got ZERO electoral votes.

1992 was going to be his high water vote, regardless; by 1996, both Clinton and the Republicans had coopted him on enough issues.....he would not have matched his 1992 performance, regardless....IMO.

Rausch
06-01-2006, 11:59 PM
He's currently running for congress:

http://www.badnarik.org/

I hate his immigration ideas.

Outside of that I'm pretty square in the man's camp right now...

Rausch
06-02-2006, 12:01 AM
He got 19 per cent in 1992. Impressive. But he got ZERO electoral votes.

You forget the polls that had him in tight BEFORE he dropped out. After he released that he was going to drop out he never got back the momentum he once had.

And as far as the electoral college goes the winner gets ALL the votes. The electoral college is all or nothing, it's not representitive of the votes of the state...

Taco John
06-02-2006, 12:02 AM
Amazing that the Libertarian party is leading the poll right now, but come election time they'll be licky to get .5% again. Must be too much of that "lesser of two evils" thing going on.

Out of curiosity, of those that voted Libertarian, did you vote that way in 04, and who plans to in 08?

I'm yes to both.



I voted for Badnarik in the last election, though I'll admit that I'd have voted for Kerry if I thought George Bush had a shot at winning the state. Mostly because of how utterly stupid George Bush is.

Rausch
06-02-2006, 12:05 AM
If it's McCain V. Clinton in 08 I'll vote Libertarian and so will the g/f (or I'll kill her and hide the body...)

Taco John
06-02-2006, 12:06 AM
I hate his immigration ideas.

Outside of that I'm pretty square in the man's camp right now...

Which part do you have a problem with...


From his platform:

Immigration and border security are two separate issues.

When immigration and border security are jumbled together, the result is both deadly to peaceful immigrants and subversive of the security of the United States.

By any reasonable measure, properly-regulated immigration is not just beneficial to the American economy but indispensable to the goal of a nation of freedom and opportunity. This nation was built on immigration. Allowing peaceful people to enter our country appropriately is not just an option. It's a benchmark by which we measure whether or not we're living up to the American ideal. Coupled with a benign foreign policy, it is what makes America the beacon of Liberty in what was once and would be again an otherwise dark world for most people.

Peaceful immigrants should be allowed to enter the US at conveniently located Customs and Immigration stations, subject only to brief vetting to ensure that they are not terrorists or criminals, and reasonable consideration of the nation's ability to assimilate them.

Unreasonable restrictions and quotas should not leave potential productive citizens with no options other than to remain destitute elsewhere or to place their lives at risk by attempting to cross the border at remote and dangerous locations; this, often under the guidance of ruthless "coyotes" who are as likely to leave them to die as to get them safely across, and then only to lead embarrassingly criminal lives of fear of detection, detention and deportation.

This does not mean, however, that the national defense must be sacrificed to some naive utopian conception of "open borders." Contrary to the opinions of a vocal few among us, the Libertarian Party is not a harbinger of anarchy.

Coupled with reasonable immigration for the peaceful, we must maintain a vigorous national defense against our enemies.

Terrorists and criminals who attempt to enter the US via a Customs and Immigration station should be denied entry and, where applicable, arrested and detained or extradited.

Terrorists and criminals who attempt to enter the US via other points along its 95,000 miles of border and coastline should be treated as what they are: invaders against whom we must respond. As long as our defense forces restrain themselves to reasonable rules of engagement, doing this will much better guarantee our security with little risk of dire consequences to occasional innocent refugees.

The privilege of entering the United States is not the right to invade the United States in contest with its legitimate interest in securing itself against those who would do it harm. It doesn't matter whether the invasion is in the form of an organized military unit or an privately

Current US policy invites enemies

We must reject the foreign-adventurist concept of national defense that keeps American troops overseas covering for nationalist and corporate meddling in the affairs of other nations. That concept invites retaliation. A better national defense policy would be one which, lacking any real attack which might require retaliation elsewhere, focuses on the logical area: the nation's borders.

Separating Immigration from Borders, we must work to either replace or reclassify the Border Patrol and treat border issues as what they are: national defense issues coming under the mission and scope of our defense forces. In an age where the equivalent of a large invasion force can be packed into a suitcase-sized box containing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, no lesser response will do.

Not only is the current border policy not working, it is making national defense a more difficult task. Foreign nationals crossing into the US illegally and away from valid ports of entry, because they were denied legal entry without good reason, provide cover, by their sheer numbers, for terrorists and criminals. The black market in smuggling people constitutes a vector for also bringing the nation's enemies into our homeland.

The welfare-state incentive needs to be eliminated whether immigration is an issue or not.

We should not have to worry about foreign nationals moving in just so they can eat out our substance on the dole. Still, the possibility of "safety net" abuse is not a good excuse for excluding immigrants. The so-called safety net is not a solution for the plight of poor immigrants, it is for immigrants as much as for native-born citizens, n insidious enticement to laziness. Real immigranst don't want welfare, and private charities could handle their occasional start-up needs.



http://www.badnarik.org/plans_immigration.php

Simplex3
06-02-2006, 12:06 AM
If it's McCain V. Clinton in 08 I'll vote Libertarian and so will the g/f (or I'll kill her and hide the body...)
I'll be looking to move out of the country... :shudder:

Taco John
06-02-2006, 12:09 AM
If it's McCain V. Clinton in 08 I'll vote Libertarian and so will the g/f (or I'll kill her and hide the body...)



I was a big fan of McCain until he became Bush's shoe shine boy. The romantic in me still wants to look at the man the same as I did when he was running in '99 against Dumbo the Stuttering Spend Monkey. But I think I'd rather lend my support to someone *really* outside the Washington establishment.

Taco John
06-02-2006, 12:11 AM
ANd for what it's worth, I think Gore is going to get the Democratic nomination... And win by a landslide thanks in large part to the conservative vote being split via a third party.

Mr. Kotter
06-02-2006, 12:12 AM
You forget the polls that had him in tight BEFORE he dropped out. After he released that he was going to drop out he never got back the momentum he once had.

And as far as the electoral college goes the winner gets ALL the votes. The electoral college is all or nothing, it's not representitive of the votes of the state...
Polls don't mean jack shit until October (similar to preseason NFL playoff picks). That is especially true of third party candidates.....

People talk a good talk; but when it comes to voting, most wuss out and vote for their party....regardless of their summer rhetoric.

Rausch
06-02-2006, 12:12 AM
Which part do you have a problem with...


From his platform:

The welfare-state incentive needs to be eliminated whether immigration is an issue or not.

We should not have to worry about foreign nationals moving in just so they can eat out our substance on the dole. Still, the possibility of "safety net" abuse is not a good excuse for excluding immigrants. The so-called safety net is not a solution for the plight of poor immigrants, it is for immigrants as much as for native-born citizens, n insidious enticement to laziness. Real immigranst don't want welfare, and private charities could handle their occasional start-up needs.



http://www.badnarik.org/plans_immigration.php

Nevermind. I'm ready to see the man in a debate.

In fact, I'm curious how to help it happen at this point.

For some reason I thought I heard he was for naturalizing the current illegal population...

Mr. Kotter
06-02-2006, 12:13 AM
ANd for what it's worth, I think Gore is going to get the Democratic nomination... And win by a landslide thanks in large part to the conservative vote being split via a third party.
IF that happens, you will be right. I don't see him winning the nomination though....

I don't see a split, yet; though I would not dismiss it completely. Who are you thinking? Santorum?

If so, Gore will win....going away.

Simplex3
06-02-2006, 12:14 AM
ANd for what it's worth, I think Gore is going to get the Democratic nomination... And win by a landslide thanks in large part to the conservative vote being split via a third party.
If Algore is the Dem and the Dems take one house of Congress I might be force to vote Repugnicon just in case. That guy is a train wreck.

Rausch
06-02-2006, 12:16 AM
I was a big fan of McCain until he became Bush's shoe shine boy. The romantic in me still wants to look at the man the same as I did when he was running in '99 against Dumbo the Stuttering Spend Monkey. But I think I'd rather lend my support to someone *really* outside the Washington establishment.

When he said Americans wouldn't pick fruit for $25 an hour I was out.

I'd eat the $#it that fertalizes the strawberries for $25 an hour...

greg63
06-02-2006, 12:33 AM
I know this comes as a surprise to all, but I voted "Gaz". :p

Guru
06-02-2006, 12:35 AM
I know this comes as a surprise to all, but I voted "Gaz". :p


Shocking I tell ya. Absolutely SHOCKING!!! :eek:

listopencil
06-02-2006, 12:39 AM
Nevermind. I'm ready to see the man in a debate.



Yeah, I looked through the party site and I like what I see. Including Immigration. Eliminate immigrant access to social programs and we have an immediate screen for the type of "immigration" that is damaging this country.

Moooo
06-02-2006, 12:41 AM
Our country is in a very conservative state right now. Going with a liberal leader might help us restore to equilibrium. As far as Libertarian, if a Libertarian ever got elected, he would try and change EVERYTHING, so that would be a definite no.

So my answer is Gaz.

Moooo

greg63
06-02-2006, 12:44 AM
Shocking I tell ya. Absolutely SHOCKING!!! :eek:


ROFL


Yeah; just when folks think they got me figured out.

listopencil
06-02-2006, 12:45 AM
Our country is in a very conservative state right now. Going with a liberal leader might help us restore to equilibrium. As far as Libertarian, if a Libertarian ever got elected, he would try and change EVERYTHING, so that would be a definite no.

So my answer is Gaz.

Moooo


No it's not. Our Federal government is steadily leaning away from Comservatism and has been for some time. The Republican Party is not Conservative. Someone made up this bullshit label, "Neocon", to help them pretend to adhere to Conservative ideals when they obviously don't. Don't be suckered like I was.

Moooo
06-02-2006, 12:45 AM
Yeah, I looked through the party site and I like what I see. Including Immigration. Eliminate immigrant access to social programs and we have an immediate screen for the type of "immigration" that is damaging this country.

What about the legal immigrants who are the child of two illegal immigrants? If you're born on American soil, you're legal, whether your parents are or not. Do you only give the children benefits and not the parents? Thatmight cause for some unsafe living environments some unfortunate children in the crossfire might have to suffer with.

Don't get me wrong, I think its an okay idea too, but like most problems the answer is not going to be summed up in one or two sentences.

No it's not. Our Federal government is steadily leaning away from Comservatism and has been for some time. The Republican Party is not Conservative. Someone made up this bullshit label, "Neocon", to help them pretend to adhere to Conservative ideals when they obviously don't. Don't be suckered like I was.

The country will always naturally go in a way of liberalism, however right now there are some very conservative ideas taking place on capitol hill (that will happen when you've had 12 years of Republican majority in Congress). If you look at people's thoughs and beliefs about ethical issues righ tnow, America is very conservative.

Moooo

listopencil
06-02-2006, 12:46 AM
When he said Americans wouldn't pick fruit for $25 an hour I was out.

I'd eat the $#it that fertalizes the strawberries for $25 an hour...


No shit. There are a lot of things I would do for $25 an hour. Pick fruit? I'll bring my own gloves.

listopencil
06-02-2006, 12:49 AM
What about the legal immigrants who are the child of two illegal immigrants? If you're born on American soil, you're legal, whether your parents are or not. Do you only give the children benefits and not the parents? Thatmight cause for some unsafe living environments some unfortunate children in the crossfire might have to suffer with.

Don't get me wrong, I think its an okay idea too, but like most problems the answer is not going to be summed up in one or two sentences.

Moooo


Give the parents a choice: Either the child retains the nationality of the parents or the child becomes a ward of the state. Do you have any idea how many people are waiting to adopt an infant? Pregnant women don't accidentally cross the border and have a child here, all I've heard is that they do it to give their children the best possible chance. OK, you've given your child that chance. Now go home.

Moooo
06-02-2006, 12:50 AM
Give the parents a choice: Either the child retains the nationality of the parents or the child becomes a ward of the state. Do you have any idea how many people are waiting to adopt an infant? Pregnant women don't accidentally cross the border and have a child here, all I've heard is that they do it to give their children the best possible chance. OK, you've given your child that chance. Now go home.

So you don't think those children deserve to be raised by their own parents? I think you'd be suprised too how many people "waiting to adopt an infant," would refuse a hispanic baby.

Moooo

listopencil
06-02-2006, 12:52 AM
The country will always naturally go in a way of liberalism, however right now there are some very conservative ideas taking place on capitol hill (that will happen when you've had 12 years of Republican majority in Congress). If you look at people's thoughs and beliefs about ethical issues righ tnow, America is very conservative.

Moooo


Perhaps we have conflicting views of what is "Conservative" because I don't see that at all.

Rausch
06-02-2006, 12:53 AM
No it's not. Our Federal government is steadily leaning away from Comservatism and has been for some time. The Republican Party is not Conservative. Someone made up this bullshit label, "Neocon", to help them pretend to adhere to Conservative ideals when they obviously don't. Don't be suckered like I was.

If Bush was a true conservative I wouldn't completely ****ing hate the man right now.

I voted for the retard with balls over the brain who was a puzzy.

Now I find out not only is he completely retarded, he doesn't have any testicles either...

Rausch
06-02-2006, 12:54 AM
So you don't think those children deserve to be raised by their own parents? I think you'd be suprised too how many people "waiting to adopt an infant," would refuse a hispanic baby.

Moooo

I think you'd be shocked how many wouldn't refuse.

Rausch
06-02-2006, 12:56 AM
No shit. There are a lot of things I would do for $25 an hour. Pick fruit? I'll bring my own gloves.

I talked to a prostitute in Vegas back in 99 for about an hour.

She makes $500 an hour. A ****ING HOUR!

I'm not gay or twisted but I'd screw animal, mineral, or vegetable for $500 an hour and feel good about it at the end of the work day...

listopencil
06-02-2006, 12:58 AM
So you don't think those children deserve to be raised by their own parents? I think you'd be suprised too how many people "waiting to adopt an infant," would refuse a hispanic baby.

Moooo


No, I don't think children necessarily deserve to be raised by their own parents. There are way too many cases of parents who will not consider the safety or well-being of their children on a daily basis...and you think racism is going to be a barrier to adoption? These would be parents are desperate. If one set steps away from the plate because a baby's skin is a little too dark there is a column of willing parents waiting behind them.

It comes down to why these mothers (and fathers to a lesser degree) travel here to have these babies. If they do it to help their children then don't do it half-assed. Take the plunge and allow your child the best possible situation. If, that is, you are truly doing it for the child.

listopencil
06-02-2006, 12:59 AM
If Bush was a true conservative I wouldn't completely ****ing hate the man right now.




No shit. Same here.

Moooo
06-02-2006, 12:59 AM
Perhaps we have conflicting views of what is "Conservative" because I don't see that at all.

People's views on immigration, abortion, economy (partially due to outsourcing) are all getting less and less liberal. More people are becoming pro-life, wanting to restrict the rights of immigrants (illegal or not, restricting rights is a conservative act), people wanting us raise import taxes to force people to buy American...all conservative.

Moooo

Rausch
06-02-2006, 01:00 AM
No, I don't think children necessarily deserve to be raised by their own parents. There are way too many cases of parents who will not consider the safety or well-being of their children on a daily basis...

They're called Gen-X'ers...

listopencil
06-02-2006, 01:00 AM
I talked to a prostitute in Vegas back in 99 for about an hour.

She makes $500 an hour. A ****ING HOUR!

I'm not gay or twisted but I'd screw animal, mineral, or vegetable for $500 an hour and feel good about it at the end of the work day...


$500 an hour? Hell yeah, I'd be a man-ho for $500 an hour if the ladies were willing to pony up.

listopencil
06-02-2006, 01:03 AM
(illegal or not, restricting rights is a conservative act),

Moooo


This is the flaw in your understanding of what a Conservative is. Restricting rights is absolutely never a Conservative act. Rights are what are to be conserved. The Constitution is what is to be conserved. What did you think was supposed to be conserved under the title of Conservative?

Moooo
06-02-2006, 01:03 AM
No, I don't think children necessarily deserve to be raised by their own parents. There are way too many cases of parents who will not consider the safety or well-being of their children on a daily basis...and you think racism is going to be a barrier to adoption? These would be parents are desperate. If one set steps away from the plate because a baby's skin is a little too dark there is a column of willing parents waiting behind them.

It comes down to why these mothers (and fathers to a lesser degree) travel here to have these babies. If they do it to help their children then don't do it half-assed. Take the plunge and allow your child the best possible situation. If, that is, you are truly doing it for the child.

Who's decision should it be to determine whether or not the conditions are suitable? And I'm sorry, but if a baby gets above the age of 2 (which there are plenty of kids out there who are older than that), they are nearly impossible to adopt. They become custody of the state, which ends up costing the taxpayers more money, cause then their parents aren't supporting them even the little they were. You have to pay the foster parents, and all sorts of stuff.

I'm sorry, but the only difference between an illegal immigrant and us is where we happened to be born. The only reason we have it as good as we do is because we're Americans. We're no smarter, or better than any other country without our sanitary living conditions, proper nutrition and education system.

Moooo

Moooo

listopencil
06-02-2006, 01:05 AM
They're called Gen-X'ers...



I'm telling you, I've seen too much. Shit that would make your skin crawl. Shit that would make a grown man just break down and cry. ****ed up shit that you really don't want to hear about. Sometimes I just want to beat the living **** out of some of these people. They richly deserve it.

Rausch
06-02-2006, 01:05 AM
$500 an hour? Hell yeah, I'd be a man-ho for $500 an hour if the ladies were willing to pony up.

I'd bone a light post or automobile for $500 an hour...

Rausch
06-02-2006, 01:07 AM
This is the flaw in your understanding of what a Conservative is. Restricting rights is absolutely never a Conservative act. Rights are what are to be conserved. The Constitution is what is to be conserved.


EXACLTY!

Moooo
06-02-2006, 01:07 AM
This is the flaw in your understanding of what a Conservative is. Restricting rights is absolutely never a Conservative act. Rights are what are to be conserved. The Constitution is what is to be conserved. What did you think was supposed to be conserved under the title of Conservative?

Unless you're talking about illegal immigrants, then conservatives are all about giving them the boot. Also goes for things like affirmative action, though most conservatives would think that they're not entitled to it.

The right to stem-cell research, abortion, so on and so forth.

Moooo

listopencil
06-02-2006, 01:11 AM
Who's decision should it be to determine whether or not the conditions are suitable? And I'm sorry, but if a baby gets above the age of 2 (which there are plenty of kids out there who are older than that), they are nearly impossible to adopt. They become custody of the state, which ends up costing the taxpayers more money, cause then their parents aren't supporting them even the little they were. You have to pay the foster parents, and all sorts of stuff.


I never said anything about taking kids away from parents when they were two years old. Go back and read my proposal. I'm saying give the parents that choice when the child is born, either to retain the parents' nationality or become a ward of the state. A child that immigrates with its his/her parents would have nothing to do with American citizenship.

I'm sorry, but the only difference between an illegal immigrant and us is where we happened to be born. The only reason we have it as good as we do is because we're Americans. We're no smarter, or better than any other country without our sanitary living conditions, proper nutrition and education system.

Moooo

Moooo


The other difference between an illegal immigrant and I is that I'm not breaking the law. Following your reasoning, I should be able to go to your house and steal your big screen TV because I want one really badly.

listopencil
06-02-2006, 01:12 AM
I'd bone a light post or automobile for $500 an hour...


Hell yeah!

Rausch
06-02-2006, 01:12 AM
Unless you're talking about illegal immigrants, then conservatives are all about giving them the boot.

Because it's ILLEGAL.

Just like denying the rights of minorities, or the rights of women to vote, or to STEAL $#it from people.

Also goes for things like affirmative action, though most conservatives would think that they're not entitled to it.

Guilty.

Prosecute those who'd deny the right of someone to life, liberty, and all that happiness.

But don't take from someone else to achieve it.

The right to stem-cell research, abortion, so on and so forth.

Moooo

I'm with you on both counts there brother.

Stem cells could revolutionize medicine.

And as far as abortion goes, if even the parents of a child think it doesn't deserve to live, hey......they're probably right...

listopencil
06-02-2006, 01:13 AM
Unless you're talking about illegal immigrants, then conservatives are all about giving them the boot. Also goes for things like affirmative action, though most conservatives would think that they're not entitled to it.

The right to stem-cell research, abortion, so on and so forth.

Moooo



You are confusing Republicans with Conservatives. Understandable, I did it when I voted for Bush in '00.

Rausch
06-02-2006, 01:14 AM
You are confusing Republicans with Conservatives. Understandable, I did it when I voted for Bush in '00.
ROFL

Moooo
06-02-2006, 01:20 AM
I never said anything about taking kids away from parents when they were two years old. Go back and read my proposal. I'm saying give the parents that choice when the child is born, either to retain the parents' nationality or become a ward of the state. A child that immigrates with its his/her parents would have nothing to do with American citizenship.

The other difference between an illegal immigrant and I is that I'm not breaking the law. Following your reasoning, I should be able to go to your house and steal your big screen TV because I want one really badly.

But if these people are illegal immigrants, they would just keep a low profile until their child gets old enough. They'd sneak around, have the baby at home, resulting in who knows how many deaths and injuries, not to mention how much less safe the living conditions would be for the child. The child would develop who knows what sort of illnesses with parents who would be AFRAID to take their child in for fear they would be taken away from them.

And I'd more equate it to a starving person stealing a loaf of bread. Although its still wrong, that doesn't mean it doesn't have an upside as well.

Illegal immigration will always be there, period. You can either turn your back on it and deny them, increasing crime, drug use, spreading diseases and all sorts of stuff, or you can accept the fact their actions of illegal immigration are inevitable, and allow it to happen under your terms, thereby increasing the safety of those who have to interact with them.

Moooo

Moooo
06-02-2006, 01:22 AM
You are confusing Republicans with Conservatives. Understandable, I did it when I voted for Bush in '00.

Although there are some conservative Democrats, I have yet to see a liberal Republican. Our president is NOT liberal, his policies on the war in Iraq (basically his reenactment of the Monroe Doctrine), his views on stemcell research, immigration, all conservative. Just because he comes up with his own crazy stuff doesn't make him liberal.

Moooo

listopencil
06-02-2006, 01:26 AM
But if these people are illegal immigrants, they would just keep a low profile until their child gets old enough. They'd sneak around, have the baby at home, resulting in who knows how many deaths and injuries, not to mention how much less safe the living conditions would be for the child. The child would develop who knows what sort of illnesses with parents who would be AFRAID to take their child in for fear they would be taken away from them.

..or they could get jobs and pay taxes like the rest of us, get Legal Resident Alien status and raise their child with their own nationality.

And I'd more equate it to a starving person stealing a loaf of bread. Although its still wrong, that doesn't mean it doesn't have an upside as well.

It is not a matter of life and death to live in this country. Billions of people have existed outside the USA for centuries and will probably continue to do so.

Illegal immigration will always be there, period. You can either turn your back on it and deny them, increasing crime, drug use, spreading diseases and all sorts of stuff, or you can accept the fact their actions of illegal immigration are inevitable, and allow it to happen under your terms, thereby increasing the safety of those who have to interact with them.

Moooo


And how do you propose to do that? My proposition is to eliminate access to social programs by non citizens, allow Resident Legal Alien status to anyone who can verify employment here and verify employment by payroll deduction of income tax. Pretty straightforward.

listopencil
06-02-2006, 01:30 AM
Although there are some conservative Democrats, I have yet to see a liberal Republican. Our president is NOT liberal, his policies on the war in Iraq (basically his reenactment of the Monroe Doctrine), his views on stemcell research, immigration, all conservative. Just because he comes up with his own crazy stuff doesn't make him liberal.

Moooo


Our President is a Fundamentalist Christian. He allows that to influence his actions. The Faith Based Initiatives that he enacted with an Executive Order are Liberal. His views on stem cell research, abortion and gay marriage are not Conservative, they are Fundamentalist Christian.

Rausch
06-02-2006, 01:34 AM
But if these people are illegal immigrants, they would just keep a low profile until their child gets old enough. They'd sneak around, have the baby at home, resulting in who knows how many deaths and injuries, not to mention how much less safe the living conditions would be for the child.

Who's fault is that?

If you're more concerned with breaking the law (or circumventing it) than your child...

Moooo
06-02-2006, 01:35 AM
..or they could get jobs and pay taxes like the rest of us, get Legal Resident Alien status and raise their child with their own nationality.

It is not a matter of life and death to live in this country. Billions of people have existed outside the USA for centuries and will probably continue to do so.

And how do you propose to do that? My proposition is to eliminate access to social programs by non citizens, allow Resident Legal Alien status to anyone who can verify employment here and verify employment by payroll deduction of income tax. Pretty straightforward.

They only give out so many Legal Resident Alien awards, and its usually to people who show proficent educational skills or something else that would benefit our economy. America is not a charity, she only lets in who will benefit her. And Living in the USA is a matter of life or death whenever you get cancer, or something else. Many Latin Americans fall victim to diseases veterinarians don't even see in the US. 20% of the World lives on less than 375 dollars a year. No offense, cause I can't either, but I don't think there's an American out there who could fathom that without having experienced it first hand.

I can also say the population of the US would go up AT LEAST 50 million in 5 years if we opened our borders to everyone. A slum here is paradise to most of the world.

Moooo

Rausch
06-02-2006, 01:38 AM
America is not a charity, she only lets in who will benefit her.


Oh how I wish that were true...

Taco John
06-02-2006, 01:39 AM
This is the flaw in your understanding of what a Conservative is. Restricting rights is absolutely never a Conservative act. Rights are what are to be conserved. The Constitution is what is to be conserved. What did you think was supposed to be conserved under the title of Conservative?



This is what drives me nuts about modern conservatives... It's culture and religion that they believe needs to be conserved, the Constitution be damned if it gets in the way.

listopencil
06-02-2006, 01:41 AM
They only give out so many Legal Resident Alien awards, and its usually to people who show proficent educational skills or something else that would benefit our economy.

I managed a Taco Bell for eight and a half years. There sure were a lot of taco benders there that must have shown proficient educational skills, because I hired quite a few of them.

America is not a charity
What do you call it when you let someone move into your house and feed them? I call it charity.


she only lets in who will benefit her. And Living in the USA is a matter of life or death whenever you get cancer, or something else. Many Latin Americans fall victim to diseases veterinarians don't even see in the US. 20% of the World lives on less than 375 dollars a year. No offense, cause I can't either, but I don't think there's an American out there who could fathom that without having experienced it first hand. I can also say the population of the US would go up 50 million in 5 years if we opened our borders to everyone. A slum here is paradise to most of the world.

Moooo


...and continuing to allow illegal immigration then giving them access to social programs designed for American citizens brings that reality closer to us. I don't want to keep paying for it. We have enough slackers here already.

listopencil
06-02-2006, 01:42 AM
This is what drives me nuts about modern conservatives... It's culture and religion that they believe needs to be conserved, the Constitution be damned if it gets in the way.

Yep.

Rausch
06-02-2006, 01:44 AM
This is what drives me nuts about modern conservatives... It's culture and religion that they believe needs to be conserved, the Constitution be damned if it gets in the way.

Well, if the wing-tards didn't own the right and left it wouldn't be that way.

Unfortunatley, only the screaming lunatics get heard...

Moooo
06-02-2006, 01:55 AM
I managed a Taco Bell for eight and a half years. There sure were a lot of taco benders there that must have shown proficient educational skills, because I hired quite a few of them.

What do you call it when you let someone move into your house and feed them? I call it charity.

...and continuing to allow illegal immigration then giving them access to social programs designed for American citizens brings that reality closer to us. I don't want to keep paying for it. We have enough slackers here already.

How do you know those, "taco benders" weren't legal, god-fearing, tax-paying citizens who were born here? One out of every 8 Americans are hispanic. I knew a few Korean chicks who had such a thick accents you'd think they were in school with a study abroad program, but they are just as American as I am, despite the fact they weren't anywhere near rich or the such. They don't have to be millionaires, they just have to show proficiency in some way. I think you'd be in for a rude awakening if you were someone of another country (especially third world) trying for a chance to get into America. A lot of times you have to show a HS diploma-equivelant proficiency in education, prove what you could do to make this country better and so on. Most people in this world are screwed before they can walk if you gauge success on the scale our country does.

Moooo

Taco John
06-02-2006, 02:04 AM
Well, if the wing-tards didn't own the right and left it wouldn't be that way.

Unfortunatley, only the screaming lunatics get heard...



My opinion... It's not the wingtards that is the problem so much as it is the system, including the ratings driven media that has been taken out of the hands of the many and put into the hands of the few. When the media can drive up ratings by catering to a polarizing view of American politics while ignoring the variations in between, you get what we have today: lesser of evil elections.

Moooo
06-02-2006, 02:07 AM
My opinion... It's not the wingtards that is the problem so much as it is the system, including the ratings driven media that has been taken out of the hands of the many and put into the hands of the few. When the media can drive up ratings by catering to a polarizing view of American politics while ignoring the variations in between, you get what we have today: lesser of evil elections.

I'm out for tonight. But I did want to say that people intentionally ask for more than what they want in order for the compromise to be closer to their ideal.

I use the analogy of a car. If you see a car you want for 10k, and you only wanna spend 9,500, you ask 9, so the person's counteroffer is what you want.

Moooo

patteeu
06-02-2006, 05:42 AM
Amazing that the Libertarian party is leading the poll right now, but come election time they'll be licky to get .5% again. Must be too much of that "lesser of two evils" thing going on.

Out of curiosity, of those that voted Libertarian, did you vote that way in 04, and who plans to in 08?

I'm yes to both.

I voted for Bush in 04 after voting Libertarian in 96 and 00. It will depend on who the Republicans, and to a lesser extent the Libertarians, nominate as to whether I will vote Republican or Libertarian in 08.

patteeu
06-02-2006, 05:57 AM
Which part do you have a problem with...


From his platform:

"subject only to brief vetting to ensure that they are not terrorists or criminals, and reasonable consideration of the nation's ability to assimilate them."

This is the part I'd have to hear more detail about to be completely comfortable with his immigration position. He denies that Libertarians are in favor of a utopian open borders concept, but that is exactly what the ideal of the party has been for as long as I can remember. How close to that ideal he thinks we can come in practice is the question to be answered. Some people think we need to close the borders and assimilate those who are already here before we admit more immigrants. Others think we should increase legal immigration from it's current levels and that we'd have no trouble assimilating the increased flow. I suspect Badnarik is in the latter camp. If this is true, I'd be interested to know how much he'd increase legal immigration, what mechanisms he'd use to regulate it (e.g. quotas?) and whether or not he'd change the way we pick and choose which immigrants we admit and which ones we reject.

patteeu
06-02-2006, 06:04 AM
The country will always naturally go in a way of liberalism, however right now there are some very conservative ideas taking place on capitol hill (that will happen when you've had 12 years of Republican majority in Congress). If you look at people's thoughs and beliefs about ethical issues righ tnow, America is very conservative.

Moooo

Like what conservative ideas? Are these ideas that just a few conservatives are supporting or are you seeing some actual conservative policy coming out of Washington DC?

BucEyedPea
06-02-2006, 07:00 AM
This is the part I'd have to hear more detail about to be completely comfortable with his immigration position. He denies that Libertarians are in favor of a utopian open borders concept, but that is exactly what the ideal of the party has been for as long as I can remember. How close to that ideal he thinks we can come in practice is the question to be answered. Some people think we need to close the borders and assimilate those who are already here before we admit more immigrants. Others think we should increase legal immigration from it's current levels and that we'd have no trouble assimilating the increased flow. I suspect Badnarik is in the latter camp. If this is true, I'd be interested to know how much he'd increase legal immigration, what mechanisms he'd use to regulate it (e.g. quotas?) and whether or not he'd change the way we pick and choose which immigrants we admit and which ones we reject.

The open borders stance of libertarians is one place I do disagree with them.
It is the same stance as of commies--->one world! I think nations are good things, as it group people according to a set of values, agreements and identity. Thus their laws reflect those things. Doesn't mean we can't trade.

First, according the Nat'l Association of Manufacturers industry has been leaving this country due to the socialism we have legislated. They are fleeing socialism. If that hadn't happened, Americans would be more competitive without as much outsourcing and conditions would have developed around that. I feel this is the same reason Mexicans want out of Mexico. Allegedly NAFTA was supposed to help lessen immigration. But NAFTA is loaded with protectionism and socialism too.

listopencil
06-02-2006, 09:34 AM
How do you know those, "taco benders" weren't legal, god-fearing, tax-paying citizens who were born here? One out of every 8 Americans are hispanic. I knew a few Korean chicks who had such a thick accents you'd think they were in school with a study abroad program, but they are just as American as I am, despite the fact they weren't anywhere near rich or the such. They don't have to be millionaires, they just have to show proficiency in some way. I think you'd be in for a rude awakening if you were someone of another country (especially third world) trying for a chance to get into America. A lot of times you have to show a HS diploma-equivelant proficiency in education, prove what you could do to make this country better and so on. Most people in this world are screwed before they can walk if you gauge success on the scale our country does.

Moooo


Good Lord. I don't know if we are just having trouble communicating or you're just not reading what I post. I managed the place. I had to fill out the new hire paperwork. They had to show me proof that they were legal to work here, so I saw the Legal Resident Alien cards and wrote down the ID numbers on their I-9 forms. I know what I am talking about here. Have you ever been in any kind of position like that?

patteeu
06-02-2006, 10:11 AM
The open borders stance of libertarians is one place I do disagree with them.
It is the same stance as of commies--->one world! I think nations are good things, as it group people according to a set of values, agreements and identity. Thus their laws reflect those things. Doesn't mean we can't trade.

First, according the Nat'l Association of Manufacturers industry has been leaving this country due to the socialism we have legislated. They are fleeing socialism. If that hadn't happened, Americans would be more competitive without as much outsourcing and conditions would have developed around that. I feel this is the same reason Mexicans want out of Mexico. Allegedly NAFTA was supposed to help lessen immigration. But NAFTA is loaded with protectionism and socialism too.

I agree with everything you said here. :thumb:

banyon
06-02-2006, 10:33 AM
First, according the Nat'l Association of Manufacturers industry has been leaving this country due to the socialism we have legislated. They are fleeing socialism. If that hadn't happened, Americans would be more competitive without as much outsourcing and conditions would have developed around that. I feel this is the same reason Mexicans want out of Mexico. Allegedly NAFTA was supposed to help lessen immigration. But NAFTA is loaded with protectionism and socialism too.

Of course that's what their lobby is saying. They couldn't very well put on a public face and say "we are leaving to find the cheapest labor possible so that he can have the highest profit margins, whatever the social or economic repercussions."

But that's exactly what they are doing. They aren't fleeing to bastions of Capitalism. If that was their goal, everyone would want to locate in Japan or Germany. But those countries have too high of a standard of living and don't allow child labor, unsafe working conditions or environmental carte blanche. They are fleeing to China (an actual Communist dictatorship), Indonesia (a military dictatorship), and Mexico (have you seen their protests lately? They are clearly not heading towards more capitalism).

Taco John
06-02-2006, 11:19 AM
This is the part I'd have to hear more detail about to be completely comfortable with his immigration position. He denies that Libertarians are in favor of a utopian open borders concept, but that is exactly what the ideal of the party has been for as long as I can remember.



I think most people misunderstand the Libertarian position on open borders... Most Libertarian thinkers are more pragmatic about this than given credit for. Open borders is something that you strive towards, starting with open trade. Libertarians believe that if you allow free trade, you enrich your own country while at the same time enriching others. Illegal immigration becomes less of an issue because people find opportunity in their own countries and choose to stay there rather than emmigrate from their homes. Libertarians also believe in cutting corporate welfare, including welfare to farmers. When the government provides welfare to US farmers, they put farmers in Mexico out of business, forcing them to immigrate over here where the opportunity is.

I'm a modified libertarian in that I believe in free trade and open borders, but only with democratic nations who also provide the same benefits in return. I think the US policy should reflect the idea that we reward democracy with openness, and penalize non-democratic nations with closed borders and increased tarriffs. It's tough love denying people from oppressed regimes from entering our country. I also think it should be our policy to support popular uprisings against totalitarian regimes. This is why I hate the Bush family, George the Wimp who turned his back on a popular uprising in Iraq when it first happened... and Dumbo the Stuttering Spend Monkey for forcing the issue when there really wasn't a popular uprising to be found.

patteeu
06-02-2006, 12:06 PM
I think most people misunderstand the Libertarian position on open borders... Most Libertarian thinkers are more pragmatic about this than given credit for. Open borders is something that you strive towards, starting with open trade. Libertarians believe that if you allow free trade, you enrich your own country while at the same time enriching others. Illegal immigration becomes less of an issue because people find opportunity in their own countries and choose to stay there rather than emmigrate from their homes. Libertarians also believe in cutting corporate welfare, including welfare to farmers. When the government provides welfare to US farmers, they put farmers in Mexico out of business, forcing them to immigrate over here where the opportunity is.

I'm a modified libertarian in that I believe in free trade and open borders, but only with democratic nations who also provide the same benefits in return. I think the US policy should reflect the idea that we reward democracy with openness, and penalize non-democratic nations with closed borders and increased tarriffs. It's tough love denying people from oppressed regimes from entering our country. I also think it should be our policy to support popular uprisings against totalitarian regimes. This is why I hate the Bush family, George the Wimp who turned his back on a popular uprising in Iraq when it first happened... and Dumbo the Stuttering Spend Monkey for forcing the issue when there really wasn't a popular uprising to be found.


Other than your last sentence about the Bushes, I think that makes a lot of sense. What we don't hear from Libertarian candidates like Badnarik is what the short term, pragmatic steps toward that longer-term goal would be. I can nod my head in agreement when they talk about getting rid of the welfare state and the trade practices that encourage so much immigration and about limiting legal immigration to that which can be assimilated, but I'm left wondering what that means in terms of policy over the next 4 years.

Don't get me wrong, I see that the major parties are just as difficult to pin down on what they are going to do, but with the Libertarians and immigration, they have a backdrop of favoring fewer restrictions on immigration and not more and that, at this point in our history, is one of the bigger areas of concern I have with them. Having said that, there's still a pretty decent chance I'd vote for them again although Iraq/GWoT is probably the biggest sticking point I'll have in 08.

unlurking
06-02-2006, 12:38 PM
Other than your last sentence about the Bushes, I think that makes a lot of sense. What we don't hear from Libertarian candidates like Badnarik is what the short term, pragmatic steps toward that longer-term goal would be. I can nod my head in agreement when they talk about getting rid of the welfare state and the trade practices that encourage so much immigration and about limiting legal immigration to that which can be assimilated, but I'm left wondering what that means in terms of policy over the next 4 years.

...

I agree with this portion 100%, and what TJ stated about Libertatian long-term vs short term goals.

If the LP could come out with some detailed plans on the steps they would like to see taken to "begin" achieving their long term goals, I think you'd see a lot more people falling in behind them. Their PR has just been crap for a long time. They need to get a more professional look as well.

BucEyedPea
06-02-2006, 04:44 PM
Of course that's what their lobby is saying. They couldn't very well put on a public face and say "we are leaving to find the cheapest labor possible so that he can have the highest profit margins, whatever the social or economic repercussions."

But that's exactly what they are doing. They aren't fleeing to bastions of Capitalism. If that was their goal, everyone would want to locate in Japan or Germany. But those countries have too high of a standard of living and don't allow child labor, unsafe working conditions or environmental carte blanche. They are fleeing to China (an actual Communist dictatorship), Indonesia (a military dictatorship), and Mexico (have you seen their protests lately? They are clearly not heading towards more capitalism).

What I don't understand about progressives, banyon, is that you take the most extreme examples such as child labor and unsafe working conditions as something free-marketers are striving to achieve. It's really the same rhetoric as cited above with the "cheapest" labor theory. We have monumental gross micro-management of industry in this country, well beyond public safety issues and child labor in order to make everybody equal. That's the type of thing I'm against.

These corps are also getting free-markets for profits and socialism for losses with these free trade deals.

But as far as the Nat'l Assoc of Manufacturers goes...well I make my money off of those businesses. Their success makes success for the small guy...'er I mean ladies too.

BucEyedPea
06-02-2006, 04:54 PM
Taco John
I think most people misunderstand the Libertarian position on open borders... Most Libertarian thinkers are more pragmatic about this than given credit for. Open borders is something that you strive towards, starting with open trade. Libertarians believe that if you allow free trade, you enrich your own country while at the same time enriching others. Illegal immigration becomes less of an issue because people find opportunity in their own countries and choose to stay there rather than emmigrate from their homes.

Libertarians also believe in cutting corporate welfare, including welfare to farmers. When the government provides welfare to US farmers, they put farmers in Mexico out of business, forcing them to immigrate over here where the opportunity is.

You make some good points on illegal immigration being less of an issue with this part, I still just don't like the idea of seeing America as a country/nation gone.


I'm a modified libertarian in that I believe in free trade and open borders, but only with democratic nations who also provide the same benefits in return. I think the US policy should reflect the idea that we reward democracy with openness, and penalize non-democratic nations with closed borders and increased tarriffs. It's tough love denying people from oppressed regimes from entering our country. I also think it should be our policy to support popular uprisings against totalitarian regimes. This is why I hate the Bush family, George the Wimp who turned his back on a popular uprising in Iraq when it first happened... and Dumbo the Stuttering Spend Monkey for forcing the issue when there really wasn't a popular uprising to be found.

Glad you call it "modifed"...this is why I call myself conservative with a libertarian streak. By that I mean originalist interpretation of Constitution for that form of limited gov with decentralization.

I don't know what libertarian sources you read TJ but I am not a big fan of "democracy" because it's just code for socialism. You're more likely to see a direct democracy vote themselves largesse and into bankruptcy than any other gov't. That's why they don't last.

I also prefer, under the paleo-conservative banner to not socially engineer the world with a walk-noisely-and-carry-some-carrots either. That is soooooo Teddy Rooooosevelt. As well as neo-connish. I think we should mind our own business unless it's a threat to us...and keep tradin' as the contact will eventually bring in new ideas which are more powerful than bullets.

listopencil
06-06-2006, 07:56 PM
Slightly over 30% picked Libertarian. If only the VAP would go that way we'd be in business.

htismaqe
06-07-2006, 07:32 AM
Slightly over 30% picked Libertarian. If only the VAP would go that way we'd be in business.

The difference is that we don't have Democrats and Republicans here conspiring to wipe out that 30%.

Rooster
06-07-2006, 03:00 PM
I voted GAZ. I'm sick of all the cock suckers in DC. :mad:

listopencil
06-07-2006, 03:18 PM
The difference is that we don't have Democrats and Republicans here conspiring to wipe out that 30%.



Heh, so true.

HC_Chief
06-07-2006, 03:40 PM
I voted "other": they're <i>all</i> f*cked.

Chief Henry
06-07-2006, 04:31 PM
It looks like the people of Southern California beleave that the Republican Party will not screw up
there part of America. And the Dems thought they
were going to win that congressional spot. It looks like the Dems will have to use a different game plan other than the same old "Bush Sucks" mantra.

jAZ
06-07-2006, 04:52 PM
It looks like the people of Southern California beleave that the Republican Party will not screw up
there part of America. And the Dems thought they
were going to win that congressional spot. It looks like the Dems will have to use a different game plan other than the same old "Bush Sucks" mantra.
You mean that massively Republican district that only under such conditions would even be as close as it was? That one?

patteeu
06-07-2006, 07:06 PM
You mean that massively Republican district that only under such conditions would even be as close as it was? That one?

:LOL: "We didn't win but we came kinda close."

jAZ
06-07-2006, 07:56 PM
:LOL: "We didn't win but we came kinda close."
Who's cheering?