To the libertarians out there...

[DainBramaged]

Without considering the Iraq war, would you say that your political goals lined up more with Kerry or Bush? Kerry is all about huge government, i.e. national healthcare while Bush is all about social liberalism, controlling what people can and can't do, i.e. Gay Marriage Amendment.

I'm not taking this to P&N because I don't want to hear people immediatly start bashing Bush's vacation time. Sorry.

 

[So]

Bush, but only because Kerry proposed creating even MORE crap, and promised to roll back NONE of the crap that Bush did, whereas Bush wasn't really threatening to create any new beauracracy (the damage was already done),

 

[Yossarian]

wrong forum. it doesn't matter that you don't like the responses there.

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: Yossarian
wrong forum. it doesn't matter that you don't like the responses there.

Well, as long as you posted, what is your opinion?

 

[TBone48]

Darn it I was going to say wrong forum but you beat me to it!

 

[Taggart]

Kerry would raise taxes and take us back to 1950's and 1960's style social programs.

Bush isn't perfect, but a lot better than JFK II.

 

[TBone48]

And for the record I'm more for Bush than Kerry, although I think Bush goes a bit far sometimes.

 

[cjgallen]

Closer to Bush. Even though I don't like Bush entirely, Kerry sucks.

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: cjgallen
Closer to Bush. Even though I don't like Bush entirely, Kerry sucks.

And how would you respond to the libertarians who claim that Bush is doing more harm thorough his oppressive social constraints? Not that I disagree, just asking.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: cjgallen
Closer to Bush. Even though I don't like Bush entirely, Kerry sucks.

And how would you respond to the libertarians who claim that Bush is doing more harm thorough his oppressive social constraints? Not that I disagree, just asking.

What oppressive social constraints? Other than the GMA, which you listed above.

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: cjgallen
Closer to Bush. Even though I don't like Bush entirely, Kerry sucks.

And how would you respond to the libertarians who claim that Bush is doing more harm thorough his oppressive social constraints? Not that I disagree, just asking.

What oppressive social constraints? Other than the GMA, which you listed above.

That should have been in quotes. I was the one defending GWB, if I were to guess, I would say such things as faith based initiatives, and general desire to place moral, Biblical constraints on the people were the issue to arise.

 

[MartyMcFly3]

I didn't really want either of them in office.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Neither. They both suck.

I also don't see why you can just simply 'not count' a major component of one person's career. Whether you count it or not, that doesn't change the fact that it did happen and that it will influence a person's choice.

 

[OdiN]

Counting the Iraqi war....Bush way over Kerry.

 

[frodrick]

i'd say that my political goals lined up more with badnarik. oh, that wasn't the question? gwb sucks and kerry looked like he would be worse. it's like choosing between day old sh!t and two day old sh!t. they're both sh!t.

 

[Amused]

Closer to Bush, but only slightly. Bush is nearly as "big government" as Kerry.

Also, as a vet, Kerry actions when he came back from Vietnam disgusted me.

 

[Tylanner]

episcopalian

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: cjgallen
Closer to Bush. Even though I don't like Bush entirely, Kerry sucks.

And how would you respond to the libertarians who claim that Bush is doing more harm thorough his oppressive social constraints? Not that I disagree, just asking.

What oppressive social constraints? Other than the GMA, which you listed above.

That should have been in quotes. I was the one defending GWB, if I were to guess, I would say such things as faith based initiatives, and general desire to place moral, Biblical constraints on the people were the issue to arise.

GWB is a social conservative - not a social liberal. Kerry would allow everyone to do anything they want, except spend their own money - he wants the government to do that for you. Bush wants you to have your money and do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home - as long as it doesn't impose on society as a whole.

I wish Bush were more fiscally conservative, however, allowances must be made for the 9/11 aftermath. The security of our nation at this critical time is more important than limiting government. I don't believe Kerry would have balanced those principles as well as Bush has, although I wish Bush were doing a better job of it.

 

[Rainsford]

Kerry, but only because I feel a lot more strongly about social freedoms than economic ones. Most libertarians seem to lean the other way (including Badnarik, if I remember correctly).

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Kerry, but only because I feel a lot more strongly about social freedoms than economic ones. Most libertarians seem to lean the other way (including Badnarik, if I remember correctly).

Yeah, why do you want more social freedom? Can't trust those evil multinational conglomerates? :roll:

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Kerry, but only because I feel a lot more strongly about social freedoms than economic ones. Most libertarians seem to lean the other way (including Badnarik, if I remember correctly).

I care as much about social freedoms as the next guy.

The thing is, we just haven't lost many of those in the past 30 years. The RR makes a lot of noise, but gets VERY LITTLE done on the national level. Almost all their successes have been on the local level, and torn down by court orders.

Socialism, on the other hand, is growing. So are nanny-state laws. And don't even get me started on gun control...

 

[So]

Look, bush has not been able to get any substansive 'social' reforms through (he didn't see the patriot act as a 'social' thing AFAICT, so that's a non issue, he can hiss and posture all he wants, but as long as he can't actually CHANGE anything I'm not worried, but Kerry threatened to take away ECONOMIC freedom, and remember, Economic Freedom IS social freedom, since economic freedom is the right to associate with whom you want, when you want, how you want.

Freedom is freedom, and pretending we can take away some of it ('economic') to GAIN more of it ('social') is a delusion.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Kerry, but only because I feel a lot more strongly about social freedoms than economic ones. Most libertarians seem to lean the other way (including Badnarik, if I remember correctly).

I care as much about social freedoms as the next guy.

The thing is, we just haven't lost many of those in the past 30 years. The RR makes a lot of noise, but gets VERY LITTLE done on the national level. Almost all their successes have been on the local level, and torn down by court orders.

Socialism, on the other hand, is growing. So are nanny-state laws. And don't even get me started on gun control...

agreed. This is why I'm not that concerned by the RR.

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: cjgallen
Closer to Bush. Even though I don't like Bush entirely, Kerry sucks.

And how would you respond to the libertarians who claim that Bush is doing more harm thorough his oppressive social constraints? Not that I disagree, just asking.

What oppressive social constraints? Other than the GMA, which you listed above.

That should have been in quotes. I was the one defending GWB, if I were to guess, I would say such things as faith based initiatives, and general desire to place moral, Biblical constraints on the people were the issue to arise.

GWB is a social conservative - not a social liberal. Kerry would allow everyone to do anything they want, except spend their own money - he wants the government to do that for you. Bush wants you to have your money and do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home - as long as it doesn't impose on society as a whole.

I wish Bush were more fiscally conservative, however, allowances must be made for the 9/11 aftermath. The security of our nation at this critical time is more important than limiting government. I don't believe Kerry would have balanced those principles as well as Bush has, although I wish Bush were doing a better job of it.

I use the term conservative and liberal in their original meaning. GWB is a social liberal in that he wants to use the government liberally to control social issues. However, I do agree with your post. Concerning 9/11, this brings up an entirely new set of issues. The idea that there could be fifty small countries to attack vs. one consolidated country is an interesting issue.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I voted for Kerry, but only to create gridlock like in the Clinton years:

Republican house & senate + Democrat president = neither side gets anything extremist done.

Bush does more damage because he rubberstamps Republican pork / waste, and deficit spending from congress while congress returns the favor by rubberstamping almost any half-baked idea Bush has or frat buddy he wants to slide into a cushy job.

Luckily public opinion was so strongly against 2+ trillion in deficit spending for Social Security privatization that congress was too scared to rubberstamp that disaster in the making.