[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
It’s a bill moyers special from 1987 that aired on PBS. That is the administration after they guy you posted was speaking.
[/quote]
Reagan was President for two terms fella, 81 - 85 then 85 - 89.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I have to give Paul credit however, he knows that the only demographic he attracts in any serious numbers are male 20 somethings. So here he is trying to attact women:
http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/n/w/1/ron_paul_woman2.jpg[/quote]
And Obama’s going all out for the gay vote again.[/quote]
All kidding aside he has the gay vote locked up. That’s why i laugh when Mufasa says that if Romney gets the nomination the Christian right will stay home, or actually vote for Obama because Romney is a Mormon. Obama has been for every far left idea that’s come down the pike from gay marriage to higher taxes, to more regulation. And he’s also been taped mocking the Bible. Yeah, just the type of candidate that the Christian right wants to give four more years to.
Okay I got carried away…funny photo though.[/quote]
Yes, I imagine Obama does already have the gay vote sewn up. No other candidate has a proven record of gag reflex control. 
Obama gave defacto amnesty yesterday, deportations will now be under review and any of those who qualify for the Dream Act will not be deported at all.
This man sold Americans citizens up the river, all for the Latino vote. That is how much trouble he feels he is in.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
…All kidding aside he has the gay vote locked up. That’s why i laugh when Mufasa says that if Romney gets the nomination the Christian right will stay home, or actually vote for Obama because Romney is a Mormon…[/quote]
Zeb:
I never, EVER have written that the Christian Right will vote for Obama.
What they WILL do if given the choice between Romney and Obama is anyone’s guess, since they view one as a Marxist/Socialist/Muslim and the other as having “Satanic” beliefs.
Some WILL probably stay home…but they will NOT vote for Obama.
Mufasa
I think the lesson US Republicans need to learn is that without the libertarian vote, broadly defined as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, they will lose.
If push comes to shove and Ron Paul runs as a libertarian, Obama has excellent chances of winning this.
Should that not be enough, maybe President Frank will do the trick.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Ron Paul[/quote]
[quote]orion wrote:
I think the lesson US Republicans need to learn is that without the libertarian vote, broadly defined as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, they will lose.
[/quote]
Yeah, let’s nominate the ‘fiscal conservative’ (libertarian) somehow, and then watch as he get’s stomped into the floor during the general elections as his long term planning for scrapping SS and medicare comes into focus. The Tea Party folks would be the first to lynch him. I’d sooner give up on the republicans completely, and try to support socially conservative Democrats (if they still run for office). Libertarians have a party, no one cares. So why the hell do you think we’re stupid enough to let a non-winning ideology, one responsible for the welfare state anyways, take over the GoP. I will never, ever vote for a libertarian.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
I think the lesson US Republicans need to learn is that without the libertarian vote, broadly defined as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, they will lose.
[/quote]
Yeah, let’s nominate the ‘fiscal conservative’ (libertarian) somehow, and then watch as he get’s stomped into the floor during the general elections as his long term planning for scrapping SS and medicare comes into focus. I’d sooner give up on the republicans completely, and try to support socially conservative Democrats (if they still run for office). Libertarians have a party, no one cares. So why the hell do you think we’re stupid enough to let a non-winning ideology, one responsible for the welfare state anyways, take over the GoP. I will never, ever vote for a libertarian. [/quote]
No worries, say hello to your next commander in chief.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
I think the lesson US Republicans need to learn is that without the libertarian vote, broadly defined as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, they will lose.
[/quote]
Yeah, let’s nominate the ‘fiscal conservative’ (libertarian) somehow, and then watch as he get’s stomped into the floor during the general elections as his long term planning for scrapping SS and medicare comes into focus. I’d sooner give up on the republicans completely, and try to support socially conservative Democrats (if they still run for office). Libertarians have a party, no one cares. So why the hell do you think we’re stupid enough to let a non-winning ideology, one responsible for the welfare state anyways, take over the GoP. I will never, ever vote for a libertarian. [/quote]
No worries, say hello to your next commander in chief.
[/quote]
Better governance than a libertarian could offer.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
I think the lesson US Republicans need to learn is that without the libertarian vote, broadly defined as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, they will lose.
[/quote]
Yeah, let’s nominate the ‘fiscal conservative’ (libertarian) somehow, and then watch as he get’s stomped into the floor during the general elections as his long term planning for scrapping SS and medicare comes into focus. I’d sooner give up on the republicans completely, and try to support socially conservative Democrats (if they still run for office). Libertarians have a party, no one cares. So why the hell do you think we’re stupid enough to let a non-winning ideology, one responsible for the welfare state anyways, take over the GoP. I will never, ever vote for a libertarian. [/quote]
No worries, say hello to your next commander in chief.
[/quote]
Better governance than a libertarian could offer. [/quote]
By default.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
I think the lesson US Republicans need to learn is that without the libertarian vote, broadly defined as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, they will lose.
[/quote]
Yeah, let’s nominate the ‘fiscal conservative’ (libertarian) somehow, and then watch as he get’s stomped into the floor during the general elections as his long term planning for scrapping SS and medicare comes into focus. I’d sooner give up on the republicans completely, and try to support socially conservative Democrats (if they still run for office). Libertarians have a party, no one cares. So why the hell do you think we’re stupid enough to let a non-winning ideology, one responsible for the welfare state anyways, take over the GoP. I will never, ever vote for a libertarian. [/quote]
No worries, say hello to your next commander in chief.
[/quote]
Better governance than a libertarian could offer. [/quote]
By default. [/quote]
Absolutely. A libertarian would find himself as a lame duck president when the people turn on him. Meanwhile, he’s deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to invoking those moral, familial, community, and yes, religious institutions that actually cultivate a self governing people for the future.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
I think the lesson US Republicans need to learn is that without the libertarian vote, broadly defined as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, they will lose.
[/quote]
Yeah, let’s nominate the ‘fiscal conservative’ (libertarian) somehow, and then watch as he get’s stomped into the floor during the general elections as his long term planning for scrapping SS and medicare comes into focus. I’d sooner give up on the republicans completely, and try to support socially conservative Democrats (if they still run for office). Libertarians have a party, no one cares. So why the hell do you think we’re stupid enough to let a non-winning ideology, one responsible for the welfare state anyways, take over the GoP. I will never, ever vote for a libertarian. [/quote]
No worries, say hello to your next commander in chief.
[/quote]
Better governance than a libertarian could offer. [/quote]
By default. [/quote]
Absolutely. A libertarian would find himself as a lame duck president when the people turn on him. Meanwhile, he’s deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to invoking those moral, familial, community, and yes, religious institutions that actually cultivate a self governing people for the future.
[/quote]
Sure, and those institutions did such a marvelous job too.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
I think the lesson US Republicans need to learn is that without the libertarian vote, broadly defined as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, they will lose.
[/quote]
Yeah, let’s nominate the ‘fiscal conservative’ (libertarian) somehow, and then watch as he get’s stomped into the floor during the general elections as his long term planning for scrapping SS and medicare comes into focus. I’d sooner give up on the republicans completely, and try to support socially conservative Democrats (if they still run for office). Libertarians have a party, no one cares. So why the hell do you think we’re stupid enough to let a non-winning ideology, one responsible for the welfare state anyways, take over the GoP. I will never, ever vote for a libertarian. [/quote]
No worries, say hello to your next commander in chief.
[/quote]
Better governance than a libertarian could offer. [/quote]
By default. [/quote]
Absolutely. A libertarian would find himself as a lame duck president when the people turn on him. Meanwhile, he’s deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to invoking those moral, familial, community, and yes, religious institutions that actually cultivate a self governing people for the future.
[/quote]
Sure, and those institutions did such a marvelous job too.
[/quote]
Oh, but they did. It was people such as yourself that begin to undermine them. If not outright counter to traditional values and morals, dead silent as they came under attack.
Oh, and what’s funny is that by denying that they did, you imply they won’t. Curious, when so often (and the only time libertarians might mention religious institutions) you folks assure us these very things could fill the void of SS, Medicare, food stamps, etc. You’ve nothing to replace the welfare state with, then. It is the new family, the new church.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
I think the lesson US Republicans need to learn is that without the libertarian vote, broadly defined as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, they will lose.
[/quote]
Yeah, let’s nominate the ‘fiscal conservative’ (libertarian) somehow, and then watch as he get’s stomped into the floor during the general elections as his long term planning for scrapping SS and medicare comes into focus. I’d sooner give up on the republicans completely, and try to support socially conservative Democrats (if they still run for office). Libertarians have a party, no one cares. So why the hell do you think we’re stupid enough to let a non-winning ideology, one responsible for the welfare state anyways, take over the GoP. I will never, ever vote for a libertarian. [/quote]
No worries, say hello to your next commander in chief.
[/quote]
Better governance than a libertarian could offer. [/quote]
By default. [/quote]
Absolutely. A libertarian would find himself as a lame duck president when the people turn on him. Meanwhile, he’s deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to invoking those moral, familial, community, and yes, religious institutions that actually cultivate a self governing people for the future.
[/quote]
Sure, and those institutions did such a marvelous job too.
[/quote]
Oh, but they did. It was people such as yourself that begin to undermine them. If not outright counter to traditional values and morals, dead silent as they came under attack. [/quote]
What you do not seem to get is that if they are marginalized so easily, they were weak to begin with.
Once again, for the fifth time or so, it is not the deterioration of churches and families that led to the welfare state, it is the welfare state that led to their decline.
This is pretty much the historical order in which it happened and I doubt that you can get them to fill a niche that simply does not exist as long as there is a welfare state, they have no real reason for existing.
So, they dont.
Either way, either you go for the hail Mary pass and try to cut it down significantly, along with the US empire or you are trying to be all reasonable and responsible and watch it crumble.
Your choice.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh, and what’s funny is that by denying that they did, you imply they won’t. Curious, when so often (and the only time libertarians might mention religious institutions) you folks assure us these very things could fill the void of SS, Medicare, food stamps, etc. You’ve nothing to replace the welfare state with, then. It is the new family, the new church. [/quote]
No, we have nothing.
But, since we do not believe in central planning and in the pretension of knowledge that it requires, what should we have?
People will come up with something, they always have.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
I think the lesson US Republicans need to learn is that without the libertarian vote, broadly defined as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, they will lose.
[/quote]
Yeah, let’s nominate the ‘fiscal conservative’ (libertarian) somehow, and then watch as he get’s stomped into the floor during the general elections as his long term planning for scrapping SS and medicare comes into focus. I’d sooner give up on the republicans completely, and try to support socially conservative Democrats (if they still run for office). Libertarians have a party, no one cares. So why the hell do you think we’re stupid enough to let a non-winning ideology, one responsible for the welfare state anyways, take over the GoP. I will never, ever vote for a libertarian. [/quote]
No worries, say hello to your next commander in chief.
[/quote]
Better governance than a libertarian could offer. [/quote]
By default. [/quote]
Absolutely. A libertarian would find himself as a lame duck president when the people turn on him. Meanwhile, he’s deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to invoking those moral, familial, community, and yes, religious institutions that actually cultivate a self governing people for the future.
[/quote]
Sure, and those institutions did such a marvelous job too.
[/quote]
Oh, but they did. It was people such as yourself that begin to undermine them. If not outright counter to traditional values and morals, dead silent as they came under attack. [/quote]
What you do not seem to get is that if they are marginalized so easily, they were weak to begin with.
Once again, for the fifth time or so, it is not the deterioration of churches and families that led to the welfare state, it is the welfare state that led to their decline.
This is pretty much the historical order in which it happened and I doubt that you can get them to fill a niche that simply does not exist as long as there is a welfare state, they have no real reason for existing.
So, they dont.
Either way, either you go for the hail Mary pass and try to cut it down significantly, along with the US empire or you are trying to be all reasonable and responsible and watch it crumble.
Your choice. [/quote]
Your civil society is dead, killed by hyper individualism. Long live the welfare state. Government is now the missing father, the supporting child(ren) of the elderly, and the committed spouse bringing home the bacon. Your ideology is a castle built on sand. Your libertarians couldn’t produce a people capable, much less willing, to govern themselves. Instead, you’ve done nothing but confound small government reality. You offer nothing, outside of waiting for some collapse. A collapse that is most likely to be blamed on ‘the market.’ As for ‘empire,’ most likely. But we’ll just be replaced, if not out…‘empired.’
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
I think the lesson US Republicans need to learn is that without the libertarian vote, broadly defined as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, they will lose.
[/quote]
Yeah, let’s nominate the ‘fiscal conservative’ (libertarian) somehow, and then watch as he get’s stomped into the floor during the general elections as his long term planning for scrapping SS and medicare comes into focus. I’d sooner give up on the republicans completely, and try to support socially conservative Democrats (if they still run for office). Libertarians have a party, no one cares. So why the hell do you think we’re stupid enough to let a non-winning ideology, one responsible for the welfare state anyways, take over the GoP. I will never, ever vote for a libertarian. [/quote]
No worries, say hello to your next commander in chief.
[/quote]
Better governance than a libertarian could offer. [/quote]
By default. [/quote]
Absolutely. A libertarian would find himself as a lame duck president when the people turn on him. Meanwhile, he’s deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to invoking those moral, familial, community, and yes, religious institutions that actually cultivate a self governing people for the future.
[/quote]
Sure, and those institutions did such a marvelous job too.
[/quote]
Oh, but they did. It was people such as yourself that begin to undermine them. If not outright counter to traditional values and morals, dead silent as they came under attack. [/quote]
What you do not seem to get is that if they are marginalized so easily, they were weak to begin with.
Once again, for the fifth time or so, it is not the deterioration of churches and families that led to the welfare state, it is the welfare state that led to their decline.
This is pretty much the historical order in which it happened and I doubt that you can get them to fill a niche that simply does not exist as long as there is a welfare state, they have no real reason for existing.
So, they dont.
Either way, either you go for the hail Mary pass and try to cut it down significantly, along with the US empire or you are trying to be all reasonable and responsible and watch it crumble.
Your choice. [/quote]
Your civil society is dead, killed by hyper individualism. Long live the welfare state. Government is now the missing father, the supporting child(ren) of the elderly, and the committed spouse bringing home the bacon. Your ideology is a castle built on sand. Your libertarians couldn’t produce a people capable, much less willing, to govern themselves. Instead, you’ve done nothing but confound small government reality. You offer nothing, outside of waiting for some collapse. A collapse that is most likely to be blamed on ‘the market.’ As for ‘empire,’ most likely. But we’ll just be replaced, if not out…‘empired.’
[/quote]
This is not how it works.
In this day and age you automatically are part of several collectives, whether you want to or not.
You also cannot get kicked out, no matter how badly you fuck up, because your membership is framed in the language of basic “rights”.
That necessarily leads to a trend towards more individualism.
If you have no statist collective to fall back on, most people would have to choose their collectives, hope that they take them in and live up to their standards, or else get kicked out and lose all they security they offer.
In short, being thrown unto themselves, facing an uncaring universe, people tend to flock together. Having been promised a safety net and actually believing in it, they dare to “explore their individuality”, those precious little snowflakes.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
I think the lesson US Republicans need to learn is that without the libertarian vote, broadly defined as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, they will lose.
[/quote]
Yeah, let’s nominate the ‘fiscal conservative’ (libertarian) somehow, and then watch as he get’s stomped into the floor during the general elections as his long term planning for scrapping SS and medicare comes into focus. I’d sooner give up on the republicans completely, and try to support socially conservative Democrats (if they still run for office). Libertarians have a party, no one cares. So why the hell do you think we’re stupid enough to let a non-winning ideology, one responsible for the welfare state anyways, take over the GoP. I will never, ever vote for a libertarian. [/quote]
No worries, say hello to your next commander in chief.
[/quote]
Better governance than a libertarian could offer. [/quote]
By default. [/quote]
Absolutely. A libertarian would find himself as a lame duck president when the people turn on him. Meanwhile, he’s deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to invoking those moral, familial, community, and yes, religious institutions that actually cultivate a self governing people for the future.
[/quote]
Sure, and those institutions did such a marvelous job too.
[/quote]
Oh, but they did. It was people such as yourself that begin to undermine them. If not outright counter to traditional values and morals, dead silent as they came under attack. [/quote]
What you do not seem to get is that if they are marginalized so easily, they were weak to begin with.
Once again, for the fifth time or so, it is not the deterioration of churches and families that led to the welfare state, it is the welfare state that led to their decline.
This is pretty much the historical order in which it happened and I doubt that you can get them to fill a niche that simply does not exist as long as there is a welfare state, they have no real reason for existing.
So, they dont.
Either way, either you go for the hail Mary pass and try to cut it down significantly, along with the US empire or you are trying to be all reasonable and responsible and watch it crumble.
Your choice. [/quote]
Your civil society is dead, killed by hyper individualism. Long live the welfare state. Government is now the missing father, the supporting child(ren) of the elderly, and the committed spouse bringing home the bacon. Your ideology is a castle built on sand. Your libertarians couldn’t produce a people capable, much less willing, to govern themselves. Instead, you’ve done nothing but confound small government reality. You offer nothing, outside of waiting for some collapse. A collapse that is most likely to be blamed on ‘the market.’ As for ‘empire,’ most likely. But we’ll just be replaced, if not out…‘empired.’
[/quote]
This is not how it works.
In this day and age you automatically are part of several collectives, whether you want to or not.
You also cannot get kicked out, no matter how badly you fuck up, because your membership is framed in the language of basic “rights”.
That necessarily leads to a trend towards more individualism.
If you have no statist collective to fall back on, most people would have to choose their collectives, hope that they take them in and live up to their standards, or else get kicked out and lose all they security they offer.
In short, being thrown unto themselves, facing an uncaring universe, people tend to flock together. Having been promised a safety net and actually believing in it, they dare to “explore their individuality”, those precious little snowflakes.
[/quote]
You’ve just described how the hyper-individualistic language of libertarianism supports progressiveness.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
I think the lesson US Republicans need to learn is that without the libertarian vote, broadly defined as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, they will lose.
[/quote]
Yeah, let’s nominate the ‘fiscal conservative’ (libertarian) somehow, and then watch as he get’s stomped into the floor during the general elections as his long term planning for scrapping SS and medicare comes into focus. I’d sooner give up on the republicans completely, and try to support socially conservative Democrats (if they still run for office). Libertarians have a party, no one cares. So why the hell do you think we’re stupid enough to let a non-winning ideology, one responsible for the welfare state anyways, take over the GoP. I will never, ever vote for a libertarian. [/quote]
No worries, say hello to your next commander in chief.
[/quote]
Better governance than a libertarian could offer. [/quote]
By default. [/quote]
Absolutely. A libertarian would find himself as a lame duck president when the people turn on him. Meanwhile, he’s deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to invoking those moral, familial, community, and yes, religious institutions that actually cultivate a self governing people for the future.
[/quote]
Sure, and those institutions did such a marvelous job too.
[/quote]
Oh, but they did. It was people such as yourself that begin to undermine them. If not outright counter to traditional values and morals, dead silent as they came under attack. [/quote]
What you do not seem to get is that if they are marginalized so easily, they were weak to begin with.
Once again, for the fifth time or so, it is not the deterioration of churches and families that led to the welfare state, it is the welfare state that led to their decline.
This is pretty much the historical order in which it happened and I doubt that you can get them to fill a niche that simply does not exist as long as there is a welfare state, they have no real reason for existing.
So, they dont.
Either way, either you go for the hail Mary pass and try to cut it down significantly, along with the US empire or you are trying to be all reasonable and responsible and watch it crumble.
Your choice. [/quote]
Your civil society is dead, killed by hyper individualism. Long live the welfare state. Government is now the missing father, the supporting child(ren) of the elderly, and the committed spouse bringing home the bacon. Your ideology is a castle built on sand. Your libertarians couldn’t produce a people capable, much less willing, to govern themselves. Instead, you’ve done nothing but confound small government reality. You offer nothing, outside of waiting for some collapse. A collapse that is most likely to be blamed on ‘the market.’ As for ‘empire,’ most likely. But we’ll just be replaced, if not out…‘empired.’
[/quote]
This is not how it works.
In this day and age you automatically are part of several collectives, whether you want to or not.
You also cannot get kicked out, no matter how badly you fuck up, because your membership is framed in the language of basic “rights”.
That necessarily leads to a trend towards more individualism.
If you have no statist collective to fall back on, most people would have to choose their collectives, hope that they take them in and live up to their standards, or else get kicked out and lose all they security they offer.
In short, being thrown unto themselves, facing an uncaring universe, people tend to flock together. Having been promised a safety net and actually believing in it, they dare to “explore their individuality”, those precious little snowflakes.
[/quote]
You’ve just described how the hyper-individualistic language of libertarianism supports progressiveness.[/quote]
There is nothing hyper individualist about libertarianism.
There is only the basic acknowledgment that in the end we all are individuals.