Free Market Capitalism
Hell yeah! That's a fact!
Both believe in using force to assert their wishes
I think you're underestimating what they mean by "force". If you mean calling in the national guard to restore order, you may be on to something.
Tend to oppress the lower classes while making the upper class stronger
The GOP doesn't "oppress the lower classes", the Socialist/Democrats "redistribute" the wealth of the upper class. I don't know how you could call the resistance of that "oppression"!
Hell yeah! That's a fact!
Both believe in using force to assert their wishes
I think you're underestimating what they mean by "force". If you mean calling in the national guard to restore order, you may be on to something.
Tend to oppress the lower classes while making the upper class stronger
The GOP doesn't "oppress the lower classes", the Socialist/Democrats "redistribute" the wealth of the upper class. I don't know how you could call the resistance of that "oppression"!
Oh, how bout the Cuban Missile crisis. We had thousands of nuclear weapons stationed in countries surrounding Russia, and we had aircraft in the air 24/7/365 circling russia with nukes ready to drop at any moment, yet the moment Russia moves 12 missiles into cuba, the rightists in this country decided it was a crisis provoked by the Russians.
BTW: In my opinion, completely free market capitalism is a very bad thing.
BTW: In my opinion, completely free market capitalism is a very bad thing.
"bout the Cuban Missile crisis...
...the rightists in this country decided it was a crisis"
Only the rightists? I can see where you might consider Kennedy a rightist, with his schtick about "ask not what your country can do for you...", but what does this have to do with, uh, anything?
"In my opinion, completely free market capitalism is a very bad thing"
OK, I'll bite. Expound...
...the rightists in this country decided it was a crisis"
Only the rightists? I can see where you might consider Kennedy a rightist, with his schtick about "ask not what your country can do for you...", but what does this have to do with, uh, anything?
"In my opinion, completely free market capitalism is a very bad thing"
OK, I'll bite. Expound...
Ill admit I just like to argue for the sake of arguing, and I am a conservative although a very mild conservative. But you have to admit that generally the right tends to use force to get their way. The reason I think free market capitalism is bad is that when you have 95% of the people living in poverty, you might classify that as a bad economic system. I believe capitalism is superior, but you have to have compromises such as the minimum wage law, or unemployment protection.
Also, maybe you can fill me in with some info. Im not sure which country this was, but there was a country where the people were going to democratically elect a socialist leader. The US knew thats what the people wanted, so we went in there and stopped the elections and put in who we wanted to put in, a fascist dictator, who murdered about a 1/3 of his people. If you dont know the countries name, its alright, Ill find it for you on Monday.
Also, maybe you can fill me in with some info. Im not sure which country this was, but there was a country where the people were going to democratically elect a socialist leader. The US knew thats what the people wanted, so we went in there and stopped the elections and put in who we wanted to put in, a fascist dictator, who murdered about a 1/3 of his people. If you dont know the countries name, its alright, Ill find it for you on Monday.
Ok, I'm here to clear some things up with you Ornery. First of all the Republican = Libertarian theory, that is simply not true.
The Libertarian platform is feuled by smaller government. This is not the case with Republicans. GWB says he for smaller government, yet he has not proposed an elimination of a single government program. He has only added programs to his agenda. Kinda makes you wonder how he claims himself to be the savoir of smaller federal government when he's making it bigger (I kinda have a problem with liars in the white house yet we keep electing them!).
He supports heavier penelties on drug offenders, he has no problem income tax as the way it is now, he thinks there is nothing wrong with social security, wtf does he get off as being Libertarian-like?
There are some blatent errors in the candidate selector linki that I'd like to bring out as well.
<< 1. ABORTION ISSUES: Which views on the issue of abortion would you prefer your candidate advocate?
"Pro-Choice" Harry Browne, Gore
Neither
"Pro-Life" Bush >>
Harry Browne is personally pro-life, but his political view is that the gov't should stay away from it at a federal level (given the fact that the constitution gives the fed. gov't no power to intigate any laws not dealing with piracy, treason or counter-feit). And while Bush claims to be pro-life, he has no plans to abolish abortion, so it's really a mute point if you vote for Bush based on that issue.
<< 3. CAMPAIGN FINANCE: Would you prefer your candidate support or oppose campaign finance reform?
Oppose Reform (Lift restrictions on contributions) Bush, Harry Browne, Gore
Neither
Support Reform (Abolish "softmoney" contributions, etc.) >>
Browne wants to get rid of all campain finance restrictions and eliminate the FCC, what Gore and Bush want are petty in comparision.
<< 7. GAY RIGHTS: Some candidates believe that sexual orientation is an unchangeable characteristic and support across the board equality under civil law for gay and lesbian Americans. On the other end of the spectrum, some believe that gay relationships are a destructive assault on the heterosexual, marriage-based family. What policies would you like your candidate to favor?
Support legislative equality for homosexuals. Gore
Neither
Oppose special legislation concerning homosexuality. Bush, Harry Browne >>
Again, Browne feels that the federal government should have nothing to do with new legislation about this, but let the people decide if there comes to be some local vote regarding the issue (in other words who cares either way?).
<< 12. GUN CONTROL: Would you prefer your candidate oppose or support gun control legislation?
Oppose Bush, Harry Browne
Neither
Support Gore >>
Bush has not suggested the elimaination of one single gun law, where Browne wants all 20,000 gone from the books. These bland yes/no/neither answers do not serve the real positions justice.
<< 13. HEALTH CARE: Would you prefer your candidate support increased federal involvement in health care? Or would you prefer health care be an area outside governmental control?
Support health care as primarily the responsibility of the individual Bush, Harry Browne
Neither
Support health care as primarily the responsibility of the government Gore >>
Bush should be on the other side.
<< 15. SOCIAL SECURITY: Would you prefer your candidate promise to preserve or reform (including dismantle) Social Security?
Support reforming Bush, Harry Browne
Neither
Support preserving Gore >>
What is Bush reforming it to? Browne wants it eliminated, and whatever reform Bush wants is so incredibly small, that its not even worth the consideration.
<< 16. TAX POLICY: Various candidates have promised to overhaul the federal income tax codes. They differ in how extreme the proposed changes would be.
Support retaining current system Gore
Neither
Support reforming or abolishing Bush, Harry Browne >>
Read above statement.
And lastly
<< Libertarianist USA has been dead since FDR took over. And thank God! >>
It was badly injured during the FDR years, but the JFK/LBJ years did more damage if you look at it.
The Libertarian platform is feuled by smaller government. This is not the case with Republicans. GWB says he for smaller government, yet he has not proposed an elimination of a single government program. He has only added programs to his agenda. Kinda makes you wonder how he claims himself to be the savoir of smaller federal government when he's making it bigger (I kinda have a problem with liars in the white house yet we keep electing them!).
He supports heavier penelties on drug offenders, he has no problem income tax as the way it is now, he thinks there is nothing wrong with social security, wtf does he get off as being Libertarian-like?
There are some blatent errors in the candidate selector linki that I'd like to bring out as well.
<< 1. ABORTION ISSUES: Which views on the issue of abortion would you prefer your candidate advocate?
"Pro-Choice" Harry Browne, Gore
Neither
"Pro-Life" Bush >>
Harry Browne is personally pro-life, but his political view is that the gov't should stay away from it at a federal level (given the fact that the constitution gives the fed. gov't no power to intigate any laws not dealing with piracy, treason or counter-feit). And while Bush claims to be pro-life, he has no plans to abolish abortion, so it's really a mute point if you vote for Bush based on that issue.
<< 3. CAMPAIGN FINANCE: Would you prefer your candidate support or oppose campaign finance reform?
Oppose Reform (Lift restrictions on contributions) Bush, Harry Browne, Gore
Neither
Support Reform (Abolish "softmoney" contributions, etc.) >>
Browne wants to get rid of all campain finance restrictions and eliminate the FCC, what Gore and Bush want are petty in comparision.
<< 7. GAY RIGHTS: Some candidates believe that sexual orientation is an unchangeable characteristic and support across the board equality under civil law for gay and lesbian Americans. On the other end of the spectrum, some believe that gay relationships are a destructive assault on the heterosexual, marriage-based family. What policies would you like your candidate to favor?
Support legislative equality for homosexuals. Gore
Neither
Oppose special legislation concerning homosexuality. Bush, Harry Browne >>
Again, Browne feels that the federal government should have nothing to do with new legislation about this, but let the people decide if there comes to be some local vote regarding the issue (in other words who cares either way?).
<< 12. GUN CONTROL: Would you prefer your candidate oppose or support gun control legislation?
Oppose Bush, Harry Browne
Neither
Support Gore >>
Bush has not suggested the elimaination of one single gun law, where Browne wants all 20,000 gone from the books. These bland yes/no/neither answers do not serve the real positions justice.
<< 13. HEALTH CARE: Would you prefer your candidate support increased federal involvement in health care? Or would you prefer health care be an area outside governmental control?
Support health care as primarily the responsibility of the individual Bush, Harry Browne
Neither
Support health care as primarily the responsibility of the government Gore >>
Bush should be on the other side.
<< 15. SOCIAL SECURITY: Would you prefer your candidate promise to preserve or reform (including dismantle) Social Security?
Support reforming Bush, Harry Browne
Neither
Support preserving Gore >>
What is Bush reforming it to? Browne wants it eliminated, and whatever reform Bush wants is so incredibly small, that its not even worth the consideration.
<< 16. TAX POLICY: Various candidates have promised to overhaul the federal income tax codes. They differ in how extreme the proposed changes would be.
Support retaining current system Gore
Neither
Support reforming or abolishing Bush, Harry Browne >>
Read above statement.
And lastly
<< Libertarianist USA has been dead since FDR took over. And thank God! >>
It was badly injured during the FDR years, but the JFK/LBJ years did more damage if you look at it.
"...but you have to have compromises such as the minimum wage law, or unemployment protection"
That's news to me!
Don't ask me about the foreign "interference" stuff. I don't agree with it most of the time, but I don't exactly know what the ramifications would be if we didn't, so I'll just keep my mouth shut about it.
That's news to me!
Don't ask me about the foreign "interference" stuff. I don't agree with it most of the time, but I don't exactly know what the ramifications would be if we didn't, so I'll just keep my mouth shut about it.
<< And I had some more in my mind but I forgot what they were. Also during the Reagan administration didn't we take out several south american democratically-elected socialist rulers, and put in a few fascist dictators? >>
This is true.
<< Also, maybe you can fill me in with some info. Im not sure which country this was, but there was a country where the people were going to democratically elect a socialist leader. The US knew thats what the people wanted, so we went in there and stopped the elections and put in who we wanted to put in, a fascist dictator, who murdered about a 1/3 of his people. If you dont know the countries name, its alright, Ill find it for you on Monday. >>
I think you'll find more than one country which we did this. Republicans like to call them 'friendly dictatorship'. Don't you love intervention?
<< Don't ask me about the foreign "interference" stuff. I don't agree with it most of the time, but I don't exactly know what the ramifications would be if we didn't, so I'll just keep my mouth shut about it. >>
Neither do most Republicans. I don't think I've met a single Re[publican who agrees/understands this issue yet they keep on voting in pro-intervention leaders!
jaydee, if you took the test and answered the questions, you'll see in your presidential choice list, GOP candidates listed immediately after Brown with the Democrat candidates trailing far off at the end. That's the point. On the main issues, they are the same.
I know the Libertarians want like zero Federal government. I know Bush's proposals are short of what the Libertarians want. But they are headed in the same direction. Can you imagine if Bush had advocated doing away with SS altogether? Yeah, he'd have as much chance of getting into office as Harry brown! That goes for the balance of his positions too.
I know the Libertarians want like zero Federal government. I know Bush's proposals are short of what the Libertarians want. But they are headed in the same direction. Can you imagine if Bush had advocated doing away with SS altogether? Yeah, he'd have as much chance of getting into office as Harry brown! That goes for the balance of his positions too.
<< I know the Libertarians want like zero Federal government. I know Bush's proposals are short of what the Libertarians want. But they are headed in the same direction. >>
Ornery,
No, libbies want to reduce the size of Big Gubment and limit its authority not end it altogether. Republicans aren't really headed in that direction. All they manage to do is put limits on certain growth. They've proven to me they can't shrink the government regardless of which lies you choose to believe. In fact, in the Reagan and George Sherbet years the government continued to grow at an alarming rate. You'll see it happen again with Bush Jr.
Ornery,
No, libbies want to reduce the size of Big Gubment and limit its authority not end it altogether. Republicans aren't really headed in that direction. All they manage to do is put limits on certain growth. They've proven to me they can't shrink the government regardless of which lies you choose to believe. In fact, in the Reagan and George Sherbet years the government continued to grow at an alarming rate. You'll see it happen again with Bush Jr.
OK, I'll make this easy for you. Your choice in the last election was either Bush or Gore. If you're a Libertarian, you threw your vote away as sure as the Nader guys did, if you voted for anybody else, capish?
Ornery,
If you're selfish, uninterested in truly positive change, devoid of heartful spirit and have otherwise given up to the establishment then I can see how you'd take the easy way out and vote for Bush.
If you're selfish, uninterested in truly positive change, devoid of heartful spirit and have otherwise given up to the establishment then I can see how you'd take the easy way out and vote for Bush.
"I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."
-Walter Sobchak
-Walter Sobchak
I voted for Perot in 92. So what? What did that get me? Eight years of Clinton. Could have been worse, I guess. He got slapped so hard in 94 his left wing policies flew right out of sight. The only harm he could do from then on was with his veto pen.
You can bet I didn't vote for Perot in 96, and I can't imagine ever voting for a third party again. Now, you get a Libertarian to cross over to the GOP and you might have a chance. I'll throw my vote that way in the primary for sure!
You can bet I didn't vote for Perot in 96, and I can't imagine ever voting for a third party again. Now, you get a Libertarian to cross over to the GOP and you might have a chance. I'll throw my vote that way in the primary for sure!
Ornery,
The Crazed One Called Perot didn't seem so loony in '92 and '96. Gigantic sucking sounds and cries to save the country for our children actually made sense. And the charts, the bloody charts... Then in 2001 he appears on Larry King proclaiming, "All I have done was suck. Vote for Bush it's your only option fools". Anyway, he managed to get my vote twice and I share your pain.
But you know sometimes we flush the toilet and the toilet backs up. But we were right to pull that handle. (RE-READ: oh god I hope the analogy police aren't here, I'd be in for life)
<< and I can't imagine ever voting for a third party again >>
Even given your pragmatic stance it's still perfectly reasonable to do so at the local and state levels. That's the way to eventually get one in as president anyway. Then, and this is the last time I will say this, ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
The Crazed One Called Perot didn't seem so loony in '92 and '96. Gigantic sucking sounds and cries to save the country for our children actually made sense. And the charts, the bloody charts... Then in 2001 he appears on Larry King proclaiming, "All I have done was suck. Vote for Bush it's your only option fools". Anyway, he managed to get my vote twice and I share your pain.
But you know sometimes we flush the toilet and the toilet backs up. But we were right to pull that handle. (RE-READ: oh god I hope the analogy police aren't here, I'd be in for life)
<< and I can't imagine ever voting for a third party again >>
Even given your pragmatic stance it's still perfectly reasonable to do so at the local and state levels. That's the way to eventually get one in as president anyway. Then, and this is the last time I will say this, ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
Tell it JB! My point was simply, that Reps have the talk but when it comes down to it, they just do what they can to get the most votes, and I am dumbfounded how they continually do it time and time again, and get away with it. The only reason the Dems don't key off on this, is because they are just as bad, and when a 3rd party speaks the truth nobody listens!
jaydee,
Yeah it's almost as if people want to live in a fantasy land of Empty Promises and Crooked Smiles.
Yeah it's almost as if people want to live in a fantasy land of Empty Promises and Crooked Smiles.
The most unfortuanate thing is, that when the people are informed about Libertarians, they will follow. If they had as much recognition, or publicity everywhere as they do on the forums, they would much, much better as shown by polls that are posted here. Every single poll Libertarians have had approximatly a 1/3 split with conservatives and liberals, and in this one we've surpassed them both! If only the rest of the populations were as informed...
jaydee,
To be honest I never knew about libbies until I joined AT. And even after I read some posts about them and followed some links I didn't like the party. "Scarey" is the word that best describes that initial experience. It didn't make sense to free imprisioned drug offenders, to give up many federal "benefits", etc. etc. Luckily my mind is fairly open to new ideas. So after a lot of research I found a nice match for me. But it took effort on my part -- that's something most americans won't make time for. Oh well, over time third-parties are bound to become more popular.
To be honest I never knew about libbies until I joined AT. And even after I read some posts about them and followed some links I didn't like the party. "Scarey" is the word that best describes that initial experience. It didn't make sense to free imprisioned drug offenders, to give up many federal "benefits", etc. etc. Luckily my mind is fairly open to new ideas. So after a lot of research I found a nice match for me. But it took effort on my part -- that's something most americans won't make time for. Oh well, over time third-parties are bound to become more popular.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter