Quote :

" The Republican Revolution was a failure from the beginning. The Contract with America that was introduced by the new Republican-controlled Congress in 1995 was bogus because it focused on reforming government agencies and programs instead of eliminating them. I, a conservative Christian who has nothing but contempt for the Democratic Party, much prefer the presidency of Bill Clinton the fornicator in chief to that of George Bush the warmonger in chief, spy in chief, and spender in chief. Okay, let’s take two of the worst pieces of legislation passed during Clinton’s first two years. Did the new Republican majority in the 104th Congress repeal the Family and Medical Leave Act (PL 103-3) or the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (PL 103-159)? Of course it didn’t. ...what happened when the Republican-controlled Congress finally got a Republican president? We got an unprecedented increase in the welfare/warfare/surveillance/nanny state. First came the ignoble USA PATRIOT Act . This was followed by the No Child Left Behind Act. Then came the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 , which gave us the senseless, immoral, unconstitutional, unjust war in Iraq that has already cost the American taxpayers about $1 trillion. And then there is the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 – the largest expansion of the welfare state since the Great Society. At the time of Bush’s first inauguration in 2001, the national debt stood at $5,727,776,738,304.64. On the last day of Bush’s second term, the national debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08. Who is responsible for this tremendous increase in the federal debt? Not the Democrats. Not Bill Clinton. It is the party that laughingly said in its 2004 platform that it was committed to "lower taxes, limited regulation, and a limited, efficient government." Yes, the same party that helped the Democrats pass the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the Bailout Bill). When bad revolutions have run their course, they often lead to something just as bad or even worse. The Republican Revolution, like the French and Russian Revolutions, was an absolute disaster. And just as these revolutions gave the world Napoleon and Lenin, so the Republican Revolution has given us Barack Obama – a man with a radical left-wing congressional voting record, with even more radical associations, with a life spent in the service of racial preference, with an aberrant vision of Christianity, and with plans to further redistribute the wealth of taxpayers to tax eaters"

I put the blame of the election of a socialist president squarely on the shoulders of the GOP. We need some type of effective opposing party against the demo/publicans.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance161.html

1/26/2009 11:56:01 PM

What party will that be?

Libertarianism would never catch on.

The republicans simply need to be what they claim they are (fiscal conservatives, pro-no-government-in-your-personal-life) without the xenophobia and divisiveness.

1/27/2009 12:03:25 AM

Quote :

"George Bush the warmonger in chief, spy in chief, and spender in chief."

lol

At least with Obama big spending socialism we are helping the people not the CEO's of bigbusiness or the shareholders of ExXon and Halliburton

1/27/2009 12:11:05 AM

Quote :

"pro-no-government-in-your-personal-life"

If only the would stop messing with personal life decisions and maybe they would have more support.

1/27/2009 12:20:13 AM

Quote :

"I, a conservative Christian who has nothing but contempt for the Democratic Party"

if you can't find one nugget of good in the political beliefs of your "opponent" i find no reason to listen to your opinion

i stopped reading here

1/27/2009 3:00:56 AM

Quote :

"I put the blame of the election of a socialist president squarely on the shoulders of the GOP. We need some type of effective opposing party against the demo/publicans."

Agree and agree.

Quote :

"republicans ..... without the xenophobia and divisiveness."

Yeah, good luck with that...

Quote :

"Libertarianism would never catch on."

I disagree.
Despite a few "small bumps in the road," libertarianism is getting bigger and stronger, and no other "third" party has ever done as well. Sure there are some libertarian "nuts" who's devotion to ideology compels them to lose sight of reality, but there are democratic and republican nuts, as well -- so you can't just generalize all partisans as being excessive.

Nearly everywhere you go, there are thousands of people who haven't even heard of libertarianism only to find out that they are quite libertarian-minded. Libertarianism is in our blood. Our country was founded on libertarianism. This is a libertarian country with a libertarian constitution. The two "major" parties have taken turns raping our precious constitution, and Bush didn't leave much left for Obama, but he'll no doubt take his turn as well. Libertarianism is our destiny, and while it may be a little unpolished and naive in its nascence, it will undoubtedly rise to save this nation.

1/27/2009 3:34:11 AM

Quote :

"there are thousands of people who haven't even heard of libertarianism only to find out that they are quite libertarian-minded. Libertarianism is in our blood. Our country was founded on libertarianism. This is a libertarian country with a libertarian constitution."

the ratio of Libertarian to not-Libertarian in these sentences is startling

1/27/2009 3:57:58 AM

Willy, I pray you are right on that....I really do. However, I think that by the time that happens, too many ignorant people will be dependent on the socialist state for all of their basic needs, thereby making the eroding of that socialism impossible as well as getting people to vote against it.

[Edited on January 27, 2009 at 4:00 AM. Reason : .]

1/27/2009 3:58:05 AM

the only problem with libertarians is the guys who take it too far and wonder why they're not legally allowed to own a pot farm/anthrax/slaves

[Edited on January 27, 2009 at 4:00 AM. Reason : other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?]

1/27/2009 3:59:39 AM

Quote :

"the ratio of Libertarian to not-Libertarian in these sentences is startling"

How? The fact is, as I said, many people have not even heard of "libertarianism" (the word...not the set of ideas behind it). They hold many of those ideas, but they don't attribute them to "libertarianism". Just because they don't realize it, just because they aren't familiar with the word "libertarian", doesn't mean that libertarianism isn't "in their blood".

There's a difference between a "libertarian" and "libertarianism".
There can be plenty of one and little of the other.

Quote :

"the only problem with libertarians is the guys who take it too far "

No, that's the problem with all partisans. Libertarians are not the only ones that "take it too far". The way you're saying it implies that only libertarians are characterized by this failing. Even if that's not what you meant to say, that's how it comes off. In the future, make sure not to make such generalizations about libertarians without explicitly pointing out that the same is true for democrats and republicans.

1/27/2009 4:21:23 AM

Quote :

""republicans ..... without the xenophobia and divisiveness.""

Somehow implying that Republicans are more divisive than Democrats? lol...

Republicans are any more xenophobic than Democrats how exactly?

1/27/2009 5:35:50 AM

A socialist president.

Lol.

1/27/2009 9:59:35 AM

OH NOES SOCIALIST PRESIDENT RUN AWAY TO YOUR CHURCHES!

1/27/2009 10:07:49 AM

Quote :

"a socialist president"

OMG THE REDS ARE COMING!!!!

THEY'RE COMING FOR GRANDMA!!!!

1/27/2009 11:21:54 AM

Quote :

" Somehow implying that Republicans are more divisive than Democrats? lol..."

Have you not been paying any attention to Obama's actions recently? He's constantly acknowledging there's another side to things, something the right never did under Bush.

Quote :

"Republicans are any more xenophobic than Democrats how exactly?"

Are you kidding me? I hope you don't seriously think the democrats are remotely as xenophobic.

But, it's obvious in Obama's approach to foreign policy, acknowledging the nuance implicit in other cultures, as oppose to the us vs. them promoted by the Bush/Palin/Limbaugh/JtP folks.

Quote :

"However, I think that by the time that happens, too many ignorant people will be dependent on the socialist state for all of their basic needs, thereby making the eroding of that socialism impossible as well as getting people to vote against it."

Without artificially stifling technology, some form of socialism is the only way forward. The current economic crisis demonstrates this, as well as just general economies of scale.

[Edited on January 27, 2009 at 12:37 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2009 12:35:22 PM

Quote :

"When bad revolutions have run their course, they often lead to something just as bad or even worse. The Republican Revolution, like the French and Russian Revolutions, was an absolute disaster. And just as these revolutions gave the world Napoleon and Lenin, so the Republican Revolution has given us Barack Obama – a man with a radical left-wing congressional voting record, with even more radical associations, with a life spent in the service of racial preference, with an aberrant vision of Christianity, and with plans to further redistribute the wealth of taxpayers to tax eaters""

I was with this person up until this drivel. Is Barack Obama the second coming? Probably not, but I also doubt he's going to bring (further) ruin to America. Even if he was some kind of pinko commie who hates capitalism and loves the welfare state, I think he'll have his hands full just trying to fix this damn country.

As for the Libs becoming a viable option, I could see it happening (though our current system has many road blocks in the way). The Republicans have been so thoroughly discredited that people will be too pissed to vote for them for quite some time. But I can't shake the feeling that the Repubs will simply hijack the Libertarian party and use it to put themselves into power once again.

1/27/2009 1:43:46 PM

Quote :

"fiscal conservatives, pro-no-government-in-your-personal-life"

The repubs have tended to support more economic freedom and less social freedom. The dems seem to favor more social freedom and less economic freedom. Libertarians generally support both social and economic freedom.

Quote :

"they're not legally allowed to own a pot farm/anthrax/slaves"

Every party has a wacko side. But libertarians understand the need for some level of gov't. But the role of that gov't is to protect individual rights. And one person's right should never infringe on another person's rights. A majority of people shouldn't be able to get together and vote out the rights of a minority...with the individual being the smallest minority.

Someone's money shouldn't be taken away to be given to someone else who didn't earn it..even if the excuse is to "save the economy" or to "spread the wealth around"

Quote :

"RUN AWAY TO YOUR CHURCHES! THEY'RE COMING FOR GRANDMA!!!!"

Funny. But I think you're whistling past the socialist grave-yard.

I read today that Obama told CitiGroup that it shouldn't buy a $50 million jet saying it was a too wasteful use of taxpayer bail-out money. (isn't that how much taxpayers paid for Obama's recent inaugural celebration in DC?).

Once you start letting gov't "help" you with paying your bills, you'd better get use to them controlling how you live. Made me think about socialized medicine- some gov't worker telling you that your'e too old and it would be a waste of taxpayer money to give you that needed operation.

Quote :

"some form of socialism is the only way forward. "

That's a pretty sad attitude. Hopefully there are still enough people out there who reject this kind of thinking.

1/27/2009 8:33:57 PM

Quote :

"I read today that Obama told CitiGroup that it shouldn't buy a $50 million jet saying it was a too wasteful use of taxpayer bail-out money. (isn't that how much taxpayers paid for Obama's recent inaugural celebration in DC?)."

I think a lot of that was helping to pay for services and security necessary to prevent any kind of incident from happening. Combine angry rednecks who don't like Obama with your certain "groups" that exclusively support Obama add a lack of avaliable porta johns, water, and food. What u got is a riot waiting to happen.

[Edited on January 27, 2009 at 8:38 PM. Reason : l]

1/27/2009 8:37:47 PM

^
OK maybe. And maybe the Management at CITI decided that a $50 million jet was needed to be able to get to parts of the country quickly -bypassing the commercial airline delays.

Point is...with gov't nationalization of industry, more and more decision-making will be done by politicians.

1/27/2009 9:06:47 PM

Quote :

"Libertarianism is our destiny, and while it may be a little unpolished and naive in its nascence, it will undoubtedly rise to save this nation."

As much as I wish you were right, it seems inevitable that the US will eventually exist under the rule of a socialist dictatorship until it collapses and a new libertarian-esque government system is built from the ground up. So I'd phrase it more as "The US is doomed, but the new state that will be built in its ruins will almost certainly be libertarian... until the whole cycle repeats itself and the future parties rape the future constitution and eventually gravitate towards a future socialism... and so on."

1/27/2009 9:15:27 PM

Quote :

". And maybe the Management at CITI decided that a $50 million jet was needed to be able to get to parts of the country quickly"

Don't get me wrong; I actually agree with this. What they have to understand though is the current climate within this country. Even if the luxury jet is a rational idea beneficial to the profitability of teh company given the current situation with people getting laid off and bank bailouts it is going to be perceived as frivolous spending. Billy Bob from Clayton who has never been on an airplane is going to hear CITI buying new jet than is goign to call his senator bitching about using part of his $16/hr laying pipes to pay taxes that went toward this jet.

1/27/2009 10:48:46 PM

I don't think the people in this thread who used the word socialism/socialist even know what it means.

[Edited on January 27, 2009 at 11:01 PM. Reason : .]

1/27/2009 10:52:31 PM

I have been saying that for a year, Jason.

1/27/2009 10:55:47 PM

^^ Then correct em right quick so they quit doing it.

Part of the reason you all just get at each other's throats and troll the shit out of each other all the time is because you'll make a statement like that and not properly follow up.

The other reasoning for that is that it's damned fun to troll the shit out of somebody and watch them get upset over what amounts to a difference in opinion.

1/27/2009 11:07:48 PM

Quote :

"fiscal conservatives, pro-no-government-in-your-personal-life"

No can do.
Morality must be codified into law

1/27/2009 11:12:45 PM

i dont care where you're from: a company that needs a billion-dollar taxpayer-funded bailout does NOT need a(nother) private jet.

does not. and ain't no socialist about it. its common sense.

the sumbitches need to learn to videoconference like the rest of us, until they can quit asking our government for money. THEN they can buy all the jets they please.

who says that? I say that. I'm Billy gotdam Bob from Clayton.

1/27/2009 11:13:45 PM

Quote :

"I'm Billy gotdam Bob from Clayton."

git er dun boi

1/27/2009 11:52:10 PM

Quote :

" How? WHARGARBL"

simmer down there

you're trying to shove 8 pounds of crazy into a 6 pound sack

the comment i made was about the fact that you used roughly 20-25 words, and like 5 of them were "libertarian"

[Edited on January 28, 2009 at 1:36 AM. Reason : you're the type of person that keeps normal people from the libertarian party]

1/28/2009 1:34:41 AM

Quote :

"That's a pretty sad attitude. Hopefully there are still enough people out there who reject this kind of thinking. "

It's not an attitude, it's reality.

Libertarianism only works for small groups of people. It doesn't work in a modernized global society (not the "big L" kind anyway).

1/28/2009 1:48:38 AM

Quote :

"does NOT need a(nother) private jet...and ain't no socialist about it. its common sense. "

A business should have the ability to not follow 'common sense'. Let the CEOs answer to the stock-holders... not the gov't.

Quote :

"Libertarianism only works for small groups of people. It doesn't work in a modernized global society "

Socialism has never worked. It deadens the populace, and kills the soul. Our country started out as a fledgling libertarian society...but power-hungry politicians ruined it.

1/28/2009 2:25:37 AM

^ the US and practically all 1st world nations are socialist to meaningful degrees.

1/28/2009 2:27:57 AM

Quote :

"libertarianism is getting bigger and stronger, and no other "third" party has ever done as well."

Tell that to Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Winfield Scott, John Tyler, and Millard Filmore.

They would argue that their party did pretty damn well for 25 years.

[Edited on January 28, 2009 at 2:38 AM. Reason : The Bald Eagle looked better in a Whig]

1/28/2009 2:34:28 AM

Quote :

" How? WHARGARBL"

Quote :

"simmer down there you're trying to shove 8 pounds of crazy into a 6 pound sack....you used roughly 20-25 words, and like 5 of them were "libertarian"

Excuse me, but if you'd read what I posted, you'd realize that "libertarian" and "libertarianism' are the fucking subjects and objects of those sentences. So, if you can tell me how I should effectively refer to those concepts without actually using the word that defines them.... please do.

I mean, WTF? You glance at a post, skim it for words, then meager out some unnecessary and off-topic bullshit insults? Please actually read what I fucking wrote next time.

Quote :

"the comment i made was about the fact that you used roughly 20-25 words, and like 5 of them were "libertarian""

Stop lying. This is what I posted:

Quote :

"there are thousands of people who haven't even heard of libertarianism only to find out that they are quite libertarian-minded. Libertarianism is in our blood. Our country was founded on libertarianism. This is a libertarian country with a libertarian constitution."

then you posted this in response:

Quote :

"the ratio of Libertarian to not-Libertarian in these sentences is startling"

You were clearly pointing out an incorrectly perceived inconsistency between there being "thousands of people who haven't even heard of libertarianism" and "Libertarianism is in our blood.... This is a libertarian country". Only you were wrong. There is no inconsistency. I responded:

Quote :

" How? The fact is, as I said, many people have not even heard of "libertarianism" (the word...not the set of ideas behind it). They hold many of those ideas, but they don't attribute them to "libertarianism". Just because they don't realize it, just because they aren't familiar with the word "libertarian", doesn't mean that libertarianism isn't "in their blood". There's a difference between a "libertarian" and "libertarianism". There can be plenty of one and little of the other."

You see? Your comment was not "about the fact that [I] used roughly 20-25 words, and like 5 of them were "libertarian" -- so don't fucking say that it was. You are back-peddling and avoiding the fact that I rightly corrected you. I'll simmer down when you stop fucking lying and making god damn straw-men.

Quote :

"you're the type of person that keeps normal people from the libertarian party"

If you're supposedly an example of "normal", then we libertarians don't want you. Good day, sir.

Quote :

"It's not an attitude, it's reality. Libertarianism only works for small groups of people. It doesn't work in a modernized global society (not the "big L" kind anyway)."

Sure sounds like an attitude. Whichever... "attitude", "sentiment", "observation".... it's still pretty sad. And a whole separate thread could be devoted to your misconceptions about how (and how not,) libertarianism works. Earthdogg put it well:

Quote :

"Socialism has never worked. It deadens the populace, and kills the soul. Our country started out as a fledgling libertarian society...but power-hungry politicians ruined it."

Quote :

"libertarianism is getting bigger and stronger, and no other "third" party has ever done as well"

Quote :

"Tell that to Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Winfield Scott, John Tyler, and Millard Filmore. They would argue that their party did pretty damn well for 25 years."

Sure it did, except that their party, the whig party, wasn't a "third party". I'm saying that libertarians have been the most successful "third party" in the history of america. That is not an opinion.

[Edited on January 28, 2009 at 10:05 AM. Reason : ]

1/28/2009 10:01:37 AM

Quote :

"A business should have the ability to not follow 'common sense'. Let the CEOs answer to the stock-holders... not the gov't. "

look, you beret-wearing, parent's-basement-dwelling libertarian crackmonkey,

when a PRIVATE business starts demanding PUBLIC tax money to bail their sorry asses out of bankruptcy

then they GIVE UP their right to go splurge on 50 million dollar luxury corporate jets.

what part of this dont you understand?

1/28/2009 10:26:35 AM

I agree with you joe, but I also believe the govt money was a loan and there were no conditions giving when they aquired the loan. The outrage should be placed on the politicans who handed over money without strings. imo

1/28/2009 10:42:48 AM

so they need to pay back the loan before splurging on luxury jets.

the fact is, accepting public money as emergency funds brings with it public scrutiny on how they conduct their business.

and yes, you're right. I AM outraged at this whole mess. I'm outraged at the politicians who gave away such obscene sums of money, outraged at the pork that's attached to these bailout bills, outraged at the executives who continue to live the high life after being publicly bailed out, outraged at my own fatass congressman who blew smoke up my ass in response to my written concerns prior to the bailout.

and most of all, I'm outraged at my own impotence to do a goddamned thing about any of it.



so when i see Citi getting publicly berated for attempting to buy a luxury jet after accepting public funds, and then they have to cancel their order ... I feel vindicated at a fundamental level.






[Edited on January 28, 2009 at 11:07 AM. Reason : ]

1/28/2009 11:04:24 AM

Quote :

"they GIVE UP their right to go splurge on 50 million dollar luxury corporate jets."

Perhaps you misunderstand my point Joe.

I agree that once you start accepting gov't money or let the gov't fill most of your daily needs, you lose the ability for independent action. You become a serf. You do as you are told. You scramble to pick up the scraps some gov't bureaucrat tosses down to you.

The point is that gov't shouldn't be bailing out anyone. If Obama is supposed to be the "responsibility" president, why is he giving money to failing enterprises? It's not the gov't's role to save the economy.

Remember the law of unintended consequences. It starts with telling company fat-cats what they can and cannot do...spreads to who gets medical care and who does not...and eventually leads to gov't controlling every little trivial mundane thing in our lives.

1/28/2009 11:17:32 AM

i have zero sympathy for anyone receiving public money, complaining that they're being told "what to do" with that money.

i agree they shouldn't be bailed out in the first place.

i tried to stop it from happening, but neither George W. Bush nor the U.S. Congress listened to me.

1/28/2009 11:40:15 AM

It appears that in recent history Republican politicians have had to regroup and reinvent their party more often than Democrat politicians. ?

And why did the Democrats win when the Republicans are such master manipulators? Did the people briefly wise up? That's hard for me to believe, but still, I've gone from feeling alone and frustrated to feeling okay. For nearly eight years, since the age of 16 when I was actually old enough to give two shits about politics, I've had to get out of bed every day and see that dumb, arrogant son of bitch smirking--fucking smirking--his way through one of the most important jobs in the world. But I digress...

What's the deal with Republicans having to change they shit up all the time?

1/28/2009 1:14:47 PM

Joe, I think we actually agree on something. I too am frustrated and outraged at what our govt does, esp when they hand money to people who through thier own bad decisions have put them in a position where they need to be bailed out... and when they are they continue with the same behaviors that got them in trouble in the first place.. right

1/28/2009 1:14:53 PM

^I agree in some cases.

The only problem is that those bad decision-makers often have children or employees that rely on them. And its tough to make them suffer just so we can stick it to the bad decision-makers, especially when we are as wealthy as we are.

1/28/2009 1:29:45 PM

Quote :

"I'm saying that libertarians have been the most successful "third party" in the history of america. That is not an opinion."

The "Connecticut for Lieberman Party" has a 100% success rate in candidates being elected to office.

1/28/2009 2:26:18 PM

but the problem is, the option seems to be to use public money to continuously prop up a failing (or failed) business model, when the executives apparently have zero remorse for their failure and zero inclination to make fundamental changes, and continue to enjoy the perks and privileges of the ruling elite.

the inevitable results of THAT sort of strategy is far more disastrous than a few failed companies.

1/28/2009 2:26:42 PM

^I agree. But the good doctor isn't just talking about companies. He's also talking about individuals, and a few starving kids represent a disaster to me.

[Edited on January 28, 2009 at 2:32 PM. Reason : sss]

1/28/2009 2:30:59 PM

you do have to be careful talking to our good doctor, lest he go on a rant against the socialist welfare state taking over our country.

at any rate, I am NOT talking about individual/family welfare. Corporate welfare, as we are witnessing, completely DWARFS the cost of individual and family welfare programs and makes it completely insignificant.

but, I will admit the fundamentals are the same ... people accepting public assistance (welfare) should have some limits on what they spend their public money on. Its why we give food stamps, and not cold cash. the goal of course is to get them off welfare as soon as reasonably possible.

this would not apply to insurance payments like unemployment or disability, or to retirement benefits like social security. You pay for that in deductions from your paycheck. so anything you collect there is yours to do as you see fit.

1/28/2009 2:42:39 PM

bridget is on to me.

I was trying to illustrate the outrage is to our govt handing out OUR money to people who continue to make bad decisions and without any strings attached for them to quit making those bad decisions. Citi was under NO obligation legally to not continue with the plane bc our govt basically just loaned them money without any restrictions on how it spent.

Where you get upset at this when it comes to businesses doing it, you call me racist(which is funny, bc I have a problem with a mindset and actions not a race) when I speakout about our govt doing it with social programs with no strings attached. Its all just human nature, when you are given money you didnt earn or work for, you are more likely to piss it away on wants, not needs(esp if those are provided for too). And certainly under no pressure to change your behavior or lifestyle especially if the checks just keep on coming regardless of your own behavior. So the bad behavior and dependency continues. Whether it be coorporations or someone choosing to live off the system. Either way, I think it clearly doesnt help the country in the long term.

^I agree with your last post joe. gg

[Edited on January 28, 2009 at 2:46 PM. Reason : .]

1/28/2009 2:44:40 PM

Quote :

"I think a lot of that was helping to pay for services and security necessary to prevent any kind of incident from happening. Combine angry rednecks who don't like Obama with your certain "groups" that exclusively support Obama add a lack of avaliable porta johns, water, and food. What u got is a riot waiting to happen."

His inauguration cost $140 million, champ. I don't think the extra $100 million was on "security" (Bush's last inauguration cost $40 million).

In general reply to the thread, I agree with almost everything being said, especially that of joe_schmoe (!!!!) and the doc.

1/28/2009 3:34:22 PM

Quote :

"The "Connecticut for Lieberman Party" has a 100% success rate in candidates being elected to office."

LOL
Yeah, I'm sure we'll have a president from the Connecticut for Lieberman Party someday...
Was that party even on any of the other 49 states' ballots? I doubt it...
Has that party been on the presidential ballot in all 50 states for 2 presidential elections in a row? (and almost 3?)
Has that party ever received an electoral vote?
Ha ha ha, but seriously, 100% success rate in candidates being elected to office is pretty impressive. Let's see if they can keep it up.

1/28/2009 3:41:05 PM

On the subject of American libertarianism, I don't think that it's possible - under our current system - for there to be a successful third party. Both parties are interested in staying in power, and they won't share that power unless they're forced to. I don't have enough faith in the public to do anything except continue to pick "R" or "D."

I don't think we'll see libertarian ideals in government unless there is some sort of systemic collapse. Realistically, this type of collapse is likely. The Republican party of the past 8 years has supported unrestrained spending and "social conservatism." Democrats continue to display a lack of understanding of fundamental economic principles. The current goal of congress is to spend our way out of this mess. Everyone knows, or should know, that it won't work. How could it work?

A recession or depression is in our future. It should have come sooner. When it becomes clear to Americans that the government no longer has the means to help us, we'll have to take a long hard look at things. Fiscal conservatism will be necessary, whether it's desired by legislators or not. Social conservatives need to realize that you can't expect to have gun rights, while also taking a shit on the rights of everyone else. Civil liberties are civil liberties, and we should aim to have a more free society.

1/28/2009 4:12:06 PM

do you think its possible to do away with the party system at all? I mean it would make people actually learn about both candidates before voting or most simply would not vote bc they dont know enough? Just throwing it out there.

1/28/2009 4:17:25 PM