Modern Whig Party

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Nice smackdown bamacre. Over the past few weeks Evan has proven himself a complete ignoramus.

Dude, you've been bounced around so many times that, frankly, it's a bit embarrassing watching you post. After failing to predict the next business cycle, seeing you come back here for more makes you look like a foaming at the mouth child burning with regret for wimping out of my challenges in our debates over the last few weeks.

EDIT; lmao, just noticed you've been trolling for my posts in the last few hours. I've got my own e-stalker, so flattered! :laugh:

It doesn't take any stalking on my part. You interject your buffoonery into most of the threads here, boy.

Says the e-stalker whose 1st post here was about me and continues to wimp out of every challenge. :laugh:

Ah yes, your challenges. Pull out that ePenis, boy! Wave around those three inches of fury with pride!

 

[First]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Evan
You didn't read carefully enough.

WTF? You don't think I can click the back button and see exactly what you wrote?

Here, let me refresh your memory...

Originally posted by: Evan
Huh? Libertarians are uniformly pro-life (either straight out or via state decision), anti-gay, pro-gun, anti-immigrant, etc. That is nowhere near resembling socially progressive.

Sounds pretty fucking clear to me. They are YOUR words, I would hope you understand the words that go from your brain to your keyboard.

And yet I specifically said "Btw, I don't think Paul or Libertarians are overtly anti-gay, because I do believe that fundamentally they want maximal freedom".

What is it with some Libertarians here and reading comp I wonder?

WTF are you talking about? Perhaps you can point me in the direction where the Constitution gives the Federal government authority over marriages.

First point out where I ever said the federal gov't should have unquestioned authority over marriages. Marriage laws vary state by state, and it's of course not hard to fathom why the gov't would have the right to enforce basic marriage rights for all people, given our history of attempting to amend the Constitution to improve its scope of equality, embedded in Amendments 1-10, 13, etc.

No they don't mean the same thing. Maybe they do in your political science book written by a social progressive, I don't know. There's certainly some similarities regarding some issues. But I shouldn't have to tell you the differences.

That's because you don't actually know them and haven't received the proper education to know the difference.

I have done no such thing. I have clearly stated what Paul's stance is on gay marriage, and gun control. Paul fully supports the 2nd Amendment. Paul believes that gay marriage is an issue for the states. He doesn't have to have a position other than that. He is a Congressman. Not a state governor.

And, if you read carefully (woops, not again), you would see I expressly said that "Leave it up to the states" is not an answer to the question of should gays be allowed to marry. By leaving it up to the states Paul leaves open the possibility that states would simply ban marriage. In fact, his answer to practically every major civil issue has been "Leave it up to the states". With that attitude, why didn't we just leave racial integration up to the states? Well, because we would have had decades more of segregation in public schools, mostly in parts of the South.

And "The 2nd amendment" does not address the usefulness of guns in modern-day culture. By your logic we never should have passed the 13th Amendment because it clearly states in the Constitution that blacks/slaves are 3/5ths of a person.

I don't know. And don't care, I'm not voting for them. You are. But it sure is hypocritical of you to say Libertarians are anti-gay, while you go off and vote for Obama who doesn't support gay marriage. Is he a bigot? Are you?

Please link where I said I had made up my mind to support Obama. As with all of your posts, your unreferenced, asinine conclusions are nothing but sad deflectionary tactics because you can't argue based on merit. Facts are facts, and I just asked you a simple question that you have yet to answer; by your logic, since Obama/Biden don't support gay marriage, progressives don't support it either. You would be wrong and it shows the flaw in your argument that because some presidential candidates might not support an issue that their base feels the same way. Wrong.

And yet, they elect and praise people like Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, all of which do NOT support decriminalization of marijuana.

This has already been debunked. I'll debunk it for you again; Republicans en masse do not support immigration bills (like McCain's two summers ago), yet they elected Bush twice (who is strongly pro-immigrant) and picked McCain in their primary. In your world, this cannot happen, yet you still spout this bullshit. Pretty funny you don't see it though. :laugh:

Are you trying to save face here, or what? You're certainly not doing a good job of it. Get it through your thick skull. Out of ALL the Democrat candidates for president, only ONE supported decriminalization of marijuana. How many Republicans? Exactly the same number. One. Congrats, Democrats, you're as socially liberal as Republicans. Good grief.

rofl.

I'm not surprised you think that way. But ironically, its the people you support that will revert us back even further. To the days of authoritarians and dictators, where governments manage people, instead of people managing governments.

Your ilk has been saying this for decades. Still waiting.... :laugh:

BTW, how is that government-managed economy working out?

Since 1982, the greatest bull market in U.S. history. So pretty good if you're not a backwards anarchist.

 

[SP33Demon]

Evan, please explain why you think states deciding over gay marriage isn't socially progressive?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Nice smackdown bamacre. Over the past few weeks Evan has proven himself a complete ignoramus.

Dude, you've been bounced around so many times that, frankly, it's a bit embarrassing watching you post. After failing to predict the next business cycle, seeing you come back here for more makes you look like a foaming at the mouth child burning with regret for wimping out of my challenges in our debates over the last few weeks.

EDIT; lmao, just noticed you've been trolling for my posts in the last few hours. I've got my own e-stalker, so flattered! :laugh:

It doesn't take any stalking on my part. You interject your buffoonery into most of the threads here, boy.

Says the e-stalker whose 1st post here was about me and continues to wimp out of every challenge. :laugh:

Ah yes, your challenges. Pull out that ePenis, boy! Wave around those three inches of fury with pride!

Oh noes, now he's requesting peep shows! Stick to worshiping video game characters kiddie.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Evan, please explain why you think states deciding over gay marriage isn't socially progressive?

Leaving it up to the states ignores the reality that some states will inevitably declare gay marriage illegal. This is a fundamental inequality that rightfully requires federal action, one of the few in a list that includes freeing slaves (13th amendment), desegregating public schools (Brown vs. Board of Education), and giving women the fundamental right to choose (Roe v. Wade). Particularly with the latter two decisions, there was no chance in hell states would have agreed across the board to legalize abortion and desegregation, and that's exactly why there had to be a federal law; a truly fundamental right was being denied. I don't see an inordinate difference with gay marriage, i.e. gay rights.

 

[First]

^ Unless your definition of progressive is different from liberal, which is false, but I won't argue with you if you truly believe it.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Originally posted by: Evan
^ Unless your definition of progressive is different from liberal, which is false, but I won't argue with you if you truly believe it.

Progressive means moving forward, if we are going in the wrong direction with a liberal policy then said liberalism is regressive.

I?ll give an example: Affirmative action is regressive, equal opportunity laws are progressive.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: DixyCrat

Originally posted by: Evan
^ Unless your definition of progressive is different from liberal, which is false, but I won't argue with you if you truly believe it.

Progressive means moving forward, if we are going in the wrong direction with a liberal policy then said liberalism is regressive.

I?ll give an example: Affirmative action is regressive, equal opportunity laws are progressive.

Perhaps per Merriam Webster (I haven't looked), but I'm using it's political science definition. Nowadays progressivism is synonymous with liberalism, and conservatism is synonymous with traditional (less so, but still true for the most part). The Democratic and Republican parties are also synonymous with those ideologies, respectively. If that's how you define it, again, it's splitting hairs but I won't argue with you if you want to define it that way. However, I would ask that you look at how liberals define themselves nowadays on their own blogs and web sites; for example, here.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: DixyCrat

Originally posted by: Evan
^ Unless your definition of progressive is different from liberal, which is false, but I won't argue with you if you truly believe it.

Progressive means moving forward, if we are going in the wrong direction with a liberal policy then said liberalism is regressive.

I?ll give an example: Affirmative action is regressive, equal opportunity laws are progressive.

Perhaps per Merriam Webster (I haven't looked), but I'm using it's political science definition. Nowadays progressivism is synonymous with liberalism, and conservatism is synonymous with traditional (less so, but still true for the most part). The Democratic and Republican parties are also synonymous with those ideologies, respectively. If that's how you define it, again, it's splitting hairs but I won't argue with you if you want to define it that way. However, I would ask that you look at how liberals define themselves nowadays on their own blogs and web sites; for example, here.

You make a good point, I simply wanted to clarify what I believe to be the meaning of the terms as they are used in this context. I would also like to point out that being fiscally conservative has little to do with how much you tax or spend and much do to with how well you tax and spend.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: DixyCrat

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: DixyCrat

Originally posted by: Evan
^ Unless your definition of progressive is different from liberal, which is false, but I won't argue with you if you truly believe it.

Progressive means moving forward, if we are going in the wrong direction with a liberal policy then said liberalism is regressive.

I?ll give an example: Affirmative action is regressive, equal opportunity laws are progressive.

Perhaps per Merriam Webster (I haven't looked), but I'm using it's political science definition. Nowadays progressivism is synonymous with liberalism, and conservatism is synonymous with traditional (less so, but still true for the most part). The Democratic and Republican parties are also synonymous with those ideologies, respectively. If that's how you define it, again, it's splitting hairs but I won't argue with you if you want to define it that way. However, I would ask that you look at how liberals define themselves nowadays on their own blogs and web sites; for example, here.

You make a good point, I simply wanted to clarify what I believe to be the meaning of the terms as they are used in this context. I would also like to point out that being fiscally conservative has little to do with how much you tax or spend and much do to with how well you tax and spend.

Well, I wouldn't disagree with that characterization except to say that it's a combination of quantity and quality of spending, not either/or, which I think we agree on. Frankly, I don't care how much a POTUS spends as long as his net effect is 2-tiered; he reduces the spending of the most recent administrations as much as possible while cutting the fat of government programs (mostly social welfare programs) while mitigating bureaucratic drift. Some areas of gov't clearly need more spending just as some areas of government clearly need less.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Evan
And yet I specifically said "Btw, I don't think Paul or Libertarians are overtly anti-gay, because I do believe that fundamentally they want maximal freedom".

What is it with some Libertarians here and reading comp I wonder?

I know what you said. The first time and the second time. I just wanted to clearly point out your back-peddling when confronted with facts.

First point out where I ever said the federal gov't should have unquestioned authority over marriages. Marriage laws vary state by state, and it's of course not hard to fathom why the gov't would have the right to enforce basic marriage rights for all people, given our history of attempting to amend the Constitution to improve its scope of equality, embedded in Amendments 1-10, 13, etc.

Well, you kept asking me what Paul's stance is on gay marriage, even after I answered you.

That's because you don't actually know them and haven't received the proper education to know the difference.

LOL, I've been educating you throughout this entire thread. And it is evident you are actually learning. I'm proud of you, Evan.

The differences should be rather obvious. But since you are the student, and I am the teacher, let me whip out the drawing board. The biggest differences would be in fiscal policy, and in the role of government. Social progressives are much more likely to support bigger government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_progressive

Basically...
Social Liberal --> individual choice, individual responsibility
Social Progressive --> government choice, government responsibility

And, if you read carefully (woops, not again), you would see I expressly said that "Leave it up to the states" is not an answer to the question of should gays be allowed to marry.

It is an answer if that is what one believes. Unless, that one person is involved in state government, where is further opinion would certainly be relevant.

By leaving it up to the states Paul leaves open the possibility that states would simply ban marriage. In fact, his answer to practically every major civil issue has been "Leave it up to the states".

Perhaps you are not familiar with the relevant line from our Constitution, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

With that attitude, why didn't we just leave racial integration up to the states? Well, because we would have had decades more of segregation in public schools, mostly in parts of the South.

A statement like this is a slap in the face to the African Americans who experienced those times.

And "The 2nd amendment" does not address the usefulness of guns in modern-day culture. By your logic we never should have passed the 13th Amendment because it clearly states in the Constitution that blacks/slaves are 3/5ths of a person.

How many times are you going to slap them? Pathetic, and disgusting really.

The 2nd Amendment becomes even more important when government tries to get rid of it. Throughout history, the removal of guns from citizens was followed by the slaughtering of those citizens. Do I need to point our examples, or can you use google on your own?

Please link where I said I had made up my mind to support Obama.

Ok...
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...eadid=2149085#28096339

Originally posted by: Evan
I pray to god Hillary doesn't take CA. As a resident of Cali, that would seriously annoy me. I hope everyone is voting for Obama.

Well, in your defense, that doesn't really say you were going to vote for Obama.

And there's proof of this when you said this...

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=2145781&STARTPAGE=2

Originally posted by: Evan
I'm impressed Pab, didn't expect this from you. Even though I'm voting Paul, who you denigrate, I can respect your choice of Obama. And while I'd certainly vote for McCain over Clinton, I have to admit that I'd have a difficult time deciding between McCain and Obama in a presidential election. But at least either choice would bring about more bipartisan legislation in Congress. IMO.

LOL, well what do we have here. Evan was a Paulbot afterall. :laugh:

Your ilk has been saying this for decades. Still waiting.... :laugh:

And they've been absolutely correct. The government keeps getting bigger, and peoples' rights are slowly trickling away. Hell, you're ready to yank away the 2nd Amendment.

Since 1982, the greatest bull market in U.S. history.

And with central banking and government management, the bigger the bubble, the bigger the bursts. Of course, you'll brag about the bubbles, but blame someone else for the busts.

So pretty good if you're not a backwards anarchist.

In reality, Evan, the government-managed economy has gone to hell, or rather quickly heading there. Not just for anarchists, but for pretty much everyone.

But we're not too worried, because of course, that "bailout will be a boon for the world."

:laugh:

 

[BoomerD]

http://www.populistamerica.com/

"The Populist Party of America seeks solutions to our problems through the decentralization of power; limiting the federal government to those duties listed in the Constitution along with a strict aderence to the Bill of Rights. The rest must be left to "The States or to The People." Your liberty is our goal; governmental form is simply the method to achieving it. "

http://www.populistamerica.com/ten_planks

http://www.populistamerica.com..._do_something_congress

 

[First]

Originally posted by: bamacre

I know what you said. The first time and the second time. I just wanted to clearly point out your back-peddling when confronted with facts.

You mean the facts I linked to? :laugh:

Well, you kept asking me what Paul's stance is on gay marriage, even after I answered you.

I'm not surprised you still cannot answer any of my questions here. I have specifically stated what Paul's was before, on many occasions; let the state's decide.

LOL, I've been educating you throughout this entire thread. And it is evident you are actually learning. I'm proud of you, Evan.

Yes, and soon the US of A is soon going to be a 3rd world fascist country. Run! :laugh:

The differences should be rather obvious. But since you are the student, and I am the teacher, let me whip out the drawing board. The biggest differences would be in fiscal policy, and in the role of government. Social progressives are much more likely to support bigger government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_progressive

Basically...
Social Liberal --> individual choice, individual responsibility
Social Progressive --> government choice, government responsibility

Oh my, this is just embarrassing. From your very own Wikipedia link on social liberalism:

Originally posted by: WikipediaIn terms of semantics European social liberalism in the U.S. is simply referred to as liberalism. Social Democracy and Socialism, however, may also be referred to as liberalism since Americans commonly label all ideologies of the center-left and beyond as "liberal".[9] The term "social liberalism" is also used in the US as a synonym for social progressivism.

To further drive the point home, you are incorrect in your characterization with regards to social progressive vs. social liberal, and here is more information from your very own Wiki link on social liberalism (your Wiki social progressivism link sites absolutely no sources, and it's just not very complete at all):

Originally posted by: Wikipedia

Social Liberalism in the United States

In the United States, the party system wasn't developed based on strong ideological differences, for example, the Democrats of the South have traditionally been right wing, while northern Democrats are traditionally left wing, although particularly since the 1970s the Democrats in general have tended more to the left and Republicans to the right. Ideologically, all major US parties are Liberal and always have been. Essentially they follow classic liberalism, merging constitutionalism with free markets and centering the differences on the influences of social liberalism.[9]

Presently, the agendas of European social liberals and modern American liberals tend to be very similar, with both taking a distinctly left-of-center stance on social issues, whilst taking a more centrist stance on economic issues.[17] Since the ideological center of the United States lies further to the right than that of Western Europe, policies considered centrist, or even right-wing, in Europe may be considered left-of-center in the U.S. Universal single-payer health care, for example, is considered a largely centrist policy in Europe but distinctly center-left in the U.S. Social democrats and socialists may also be labeled as "liberal" in the U.S. but constitute only a small minority of the American left. Liberals in the U.S. constitute roughly 19% to 26% of the population and form circa 46% of the Democratic base.[18]

Like European social liberals, most modern American liberals advocate cultural pluralism, diplomacy over military action, stem-cell research, the legalization of same-sex marriage, secular government, environmental protection laws and the preservation of abortion rights.

However, there are also some relevant differences. For example, American liberals tend to be rather divided on free trade agreements and organizations such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)[18], while the international social liberals are very strong supporters of free trade.[19] Also, while most liberals oppose increased military standing and the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings, the Democratic party still has references to religion and God on its party documents,[20][21] something that goes against the clearly anti-clerical stance of social liberal parties worldwide. We can also find differences regarding immigration and cultural diversity, which while deemed positive by social liberals worldwide, is handled in a different way by the American liberals with the so called positive discrimination, which would be considered anti-liberal by social-liberal parties, as they would consider it to be an effective form of discrimination.

Modern liberalism in the United States is most commonly embraced by college-educated professionals who have shifted the focus of the Democratic Party.[22]. American liberals are the most highly educated and among the most affluent ideological demographics. They differ greatly from the traditional working class wing of party[18]

Perhaps you are not familiar with the relevant line from our Constitution, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

You don't know much about our history or Constitution, otherwise you would realize that you have been totally unreasonable in your assertion of human rights considering decisions like Brown, Roe, and the 13th Amendment (unless, of course, you want to argue here and now we shouldn't have freed slaves, integrated schools, or legalized abortion, though at least that last one makes a tiny bit of sense). So by your own logic we shouldn't have let these pass because of your minimalist interpretation of the Constitution.

A statement like this is a slap in the face to the African Americans who experienced those times.

Say wat? :roll:

How many times are you going to slap them? Pathetic, and disgusting really.

Again, wat? Come on, you can do better than this. At least attempt to reply to the question with actual substance. Your response makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

The 2nd Amendment becomes even more important when government tries to get rid of it. Throughout history, the removal of guns from citizens was followed by the slaughtering of those citizens. Do I need to point our examples, or can you use google on your own?

I'm sure you'll be linking me infowars.com next, telling me the New World Order is nearing.

Ok...

Well, in your defense, that doesn't really say you were going to vote for Obama.

And there's proof of this when you said this...

LOL, well what do we have here. Evan was a Paulbot afterall. :laugh:

So you wade through my posts, finding I haven't ever declared I'm voting Obama, and then find that I once said I was voting Paul 9 months ago (and I've since changed my mind, which you're allowed to do). You can do much better.

And they've been absolutely correct. The government keeps getting bigger, and peoples' rights are slowly trickling away. Hell, you're ready to yank away the 2nd Amendment.

Except, up until the last handful of years, we've never been stronger. You can claim a few years is a pattern, but fact is the president and GOP are being voted out of office for good reason; 60%-75% of Americans are against the war, Bush, and the GOP.

And with central banking and government management, the bigger the bubble, the bigger the bursts. Of course, you'll brag about the bubbles, but blame someone else for the busts.

I'm stating a fact you'll just have to deal with, because when you take bubbles and busts into account we're still far ahead of ancient fixed exchange rate gold-backed non-Fed American economies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Deal with it.

In reality, Evan, the government-managed economy has gone to hell, or rather quickly heading there. Not just for anarchists, but for pretty much everyone.

But we're not too worried, because of course, that "bailout will be a boon for the world."

:laugh:

Sadly you'll continue to look foolish as we recover and boom. History just says you're going to look bad.

 

[bamacre]

Getting bored with the rest.

Originally posted by: Evan
Except, up until the last handful of years, we've never been stronger.

LOL, of course, the bubble is bursting.

I'm stating a fact you'll just have to deal with, because when you take bubbles and busts into account we're still far ahead of ancient fixed exchange rate gold-backed non-Fed American economies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Deal with it.

Yeah, and our middle class is getting bigger, and individual debt is down. :roll:

At least you can admit that the Fed is responsible for the booms and busts. :thumbsup:

But then, isn't one of the Fed's jobs to keep the economy stable?

Sadly you'll continue to look foolish as we recover and boom. History just says you're going to look bad.

And here, only time will tell.

Unfortunately, those who predicted this mess say you're wrong.

We've already paid a very heavy price for the mess, and they're still trying to pump some life in it.

Perhaps they can keep the bubble going a bit longer, but that'll only mean more hell to pay when it eventually busts.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Evan, please explain why you think states deciding over gay marriage isn't socially progressive?

'state rights' has always been little more than a mechanism to deprive people in a given area of their rights when people can't deprive the nation of its rights.

States rights defended slavery, segregation, are being used to oppose gay rights, and would be used to block abortion and privacy rights. In other words states rights is all about giving people the opportunity to be as repressive as that state wishes, which certainly makes it less than credible when it comes to advancing liberty.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Evan, please explain why you think states deciding over gay marriage isn't socially progressive?

Leaving it up to the states ignores the reality that some states will inevitably declare gay marriage illegal. This is a fundamental inequality that rightfully requires federal action, one of the few in a list that includes freeing slaves (13th amendment), desegregating public schools (Brown vs. Board of Education), and giving women the fundamental right to choose (Roe v. Wade). Particularly with the latter two decisions, there was no chance in hell states would have agreed across the board to legalize abortion and desegregation, and that's exactly why there had to be a federal law; a truly fundamental right was being denied. I don't see an inordinate difference with gay marriage, i.e. gay rights.

I asked because I'm not convinced that states banning gay marriage is necessarily regressive. Why? Simply because there are pockets of people (i.e. Bible Belt) who will never agree that gay marriage will ever be acceptable because they're Christian. To federally force someone to go against their religion is not right IMO, and that's why I'm Libertarian. A federal decision would really cause deep enmity among Christians, who would label such a decision as socially regressive, not progressive. In addition, just because Christians don't support gay marriage doesn't mean they cannot compromise and just call it a "union" but not recognize it as technically a marriage. You may call it regressive, but it's arguably progressive as well.

There are many states that offer different things for our populace, such as people moving to Delaware who don't like state tax. People moving to NV or NJ who like to gamble. People moving to states where they allow nude beaches or lax marijuana laws. My point is that federalization of such a hot topic takes people's choice away (like commies do) which I don't agree with. If I feel that gay "marriage" should be called gay "union", then I should be able to move to a state where Uncle Sam doesn't define something against my religion.

I disagree that gay marriage is the same as abortion. It's not something that endangers the health of the populace (such as shady abortions). It's not something that many will agree is a necessity in rape/incest cases. Hence the federal government should not define it and they should leave it up to the states IMO. That is a step towards being "socially progressive" which is simply giving people a choice on the matter with regards to where they live, rather than taking that choice away. That is the true mentality of a Libertarian, living your life without harming others. A federal decision on this WILL cause harm in this country. My .02

 

[Dr. Zaus]

That is the true mentality of a Libertarian, living your life without harming others.

Isn't harming the 'freedom' of those that would harm others an essential harm that the government must undertake?