To the libertarians out there...

[So]

Originally posted by: 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.

If you use the terms in their 'original' meaning, then GWB was a conservative, and Kerry was a HARD LINE conservative.

 

[Salvador]

Kerry wanted bigger government? What do you think that we have with Bush? All this isn't going to matter anyway because Bush is either going to bankrupt the country or we'll all be wiped out by the enemies that we're making every day with our foreign policy.

It still blows my mind how the Bush camp was able to make Kerry's military record look bad considering his own military record.

 

[yllus]

I'd say Bush over Kerry solely because even if Bush wanted to implement a bunch of nonsense, he'd never pull it off. Unlike Kerry who probably would go unopposed in helping suck your country even deeper into the muck that is socialism.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: yllus
I'd say Bush over Kerry solely because even if Bush wanted to implement a bunch of nonsense, he'd never pull it off. Unlike Kerry who probably would go unopposed in helping suck your country even deeper into the muck that is socialism.

not with Republicans controlling the house and senate.

I'd pick Bush over Kerry if the Dems had congress though -- Dems controlling all 3 sounds even more appalling than the current situation.

 

[jadinolf]

Originally posted by: 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),

Yes but Kerry had a plan. :laugh:

 

[So]

Originally posted by: jadinolf

Originally posted by: 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),

Yes but Kerry had a plan. :laugh:

Cliton's only plans revolved around getting poon, and that specifically is what made him such a great president.

 

[Vic]

Bush is the biggest big government president who has ever sat in the White House. Record increases in the size of federal government, the size of the budget, and the size of the budget deficit. Massive expansion of the powers of the federal government, the biggest re-organization of the civil service bureacracy in the last 100 years, and the passage of the biggest socialized medicine bill in the history of the US. The current Republican administration is more socialist than the Democrats... I'm serious. Right down to the war (war is a required propaganda instrument in any socialism, plus the military is socialist, is it not?).

And ahem... the original meaning of the world "liberal" does not mean to use the government liberally, i.e. the typical modern usage of the word being synonymous with generous. In political history (back in the early 1700's, shortly after John Locke spurred in the Age of Enligtenment in political understanding), the word was derived from the Latin "liber" when means "free," and the original liberal parties called themselves the "Friends of Liberty" or the "Sons of Liberty." Hence, liberals. And as the liberals of today have disgraced the tradition of the classical liberals of the past, the inheritors of that ideology today call themselves Libertarians.

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: 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.

:thumbsup:

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Vic
Bush is the biggest big government president who has ever sat in the White House. Record increases in the size of federal government, the size of the budget, and the size of the budget deficit. Massive expansion of the powers of the federal government, the biggest re-organization of the civil service bureacracy in the last 100 years, and the passage of the biggest socialized medicine bill in the history of the US. The current Republican administration is more socialist than the Democrats... I'm serious. Right down to the war (war is a required propaganda instrument in any socialism, plus the military is socialist, is it not?).

And ahem... the original meaning of the world "liberal" does not mean to use the government liberally, i.e. the typical modern usage of the word being synonymous with generous. In political history (back in the early 1700's, shortly after John Locke spurred in the Age of Enligtenment in political understanding), the word was derived from the Latin "liber" when means "free," and the original liberal parties called themselves the "Friends of Liberty" or the "Sons of Liberty." Hence, liberals. And as the liberals of today have disgraced the tradition of the classical liberals of the past, the inheritors of that ideology today call themselves Libertarians.

My problem with Kerry was precisely that he didn't propose to roll back ANYTHING that bush had done. He was fine with everything, all he did was promise MORE expansion. Bush, OTOH, had already done all his fvcktard programs, and as a result the damage that nobody seemed interested in undoing seemed (and still seems) less likely to get worse.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yeah, I pretty much went the same way. I didn't really support Kerry, but I figured he wouldn't get much through, nor would Congress.

Being able to pass legislation is one thing, but if it all sucks, I'd rather it never get passed.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: So
My problem with Kerry was precisely that he didn't propose to roll back ANYTHING that bush had done. He was fine with everything, all he did was promise MORE expansion. Bush, OTOH, had already done all his fvcktard programs, and as a result the damage that nobody seemed interested in undoing seemed (and still seems) less likely to get worse.

Yep. It's why Kerry lost too. He wasn't gonna pull out of the war, he was gonna escalate it. He was in favor of the Patriot Act, etc. That's why the Dems had to run on the gay marriage issue, because other than that and the promise of increasing taxes, they had nothing else. It was quite possibly the saddest campaign ever. The only reason it was close is because most of the country hates Bush so much, so the Libertarians (Classical Liberals) and the Traditional Conservatives rolled out the "Anybody But Bush" campaign that heralded back to the conservative revolt of Perot that unseated Bush the First. Might have worked if the Dems had picked a better candidate on a better platform, but oh no, they had to run the Hermann Munster with a checkered past and no cause.
Personally, I just wanted Kerry to win so that it would be a house divided. Having one party in control of all 3 branches of government makes the 800 pound gorilla too effective and efficient. Not a good thing, as we are seeing right now.

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: Vic
Bush is the biggest big government president who has ever sat in the White House.

To be a 'big government' politician, you have to be for lavish social programs and stealing your money in the form of higher taxes. Hence the concept of a 'tax and spend' liberal. Bush has CUT taxes, not increased them.

You really need to take off your tin-foil hat...saying that the current administration is more socialist than Democrats is laughable. Again, Dems would RAISE taxes, pissing your hard-earned dollars away on wasteful social programs like universal healthcare. Bush CUT taxes.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: So
My problem with Kerry was precisely that he didn't propose to roll back ANYTHING that bush had done. He was fine with everything, all he did was promise MORE expansion. Bush, OTOH, had already done all his fvcktard programs, and as a result the damage that nobody seemed interested in undoing seemed (and still seems) less likely to get worse.

Yep. It's why Kerry lost too. He wasn't gonna pull out of the war, he was gonna escalate it. He was in favor of the Patriot Act, etc. That's why the Dems had to run on the gay marriage issue, because other than that and the promise of increasing taxes, they had nothing else. It was quite possibly the saddest campaign ever. The only reason it was close is because most of the country hates Bush so much, so the Libertarians (Classical Liberals) and the Traditional Conservatives rolled out the "Anybody But Bush" campaign that heralded back to the conservative revolt of Perot that unseated Bush the First. Might have worked if the Dems had picked a better candidate on a better platform, but oh no, they had to run the Hermann Munster with a checkered past and no cause.
Personally, I just wanted Kerry to win so that it would be a house divided. Having one party in control of all 3 branches of government makes the 800 pound gorilla too effective and efficient. Not a good thing, as we are seeing right now.

I see this argument (it ALMOST swayed my vote), but I stand by my opinion that bush isn't pushing more programs through. Unless i'm forgetting something, I can't think of a major program since the election that got through.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: yllus
I'd say Bush over Kerry solely because even if Bush wanted to implement a bunch of nonsense, he'd never pull it off. Unlike Kerry who probably would go unopposed in helping suck your country even deeper into the muck that is socialism.

not with Republicans controlling the house and senate.

I'd pick Bush over Kerry if the Dems had congress though -- Dems controlling all 3 sounds even more appalling than the current situation.

Ah, a fellow believer in trying to ensure government does as little as possible.

I tend to think that if Kerry had been capable of winning, it would have been a big win for the Democrats in general. Or at least the kind of win that at least gives them even numbers with the Repubs. Alas, the worst candidate possible emerged from the Democrat primaries and it was all for naught.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: Vic
Bush is the biggest big government president who has ever sat in the White House.

To be a 'big government' politician, you have to be for lavish social programs and stealing your money in the form of higher taxes. Hence the concept of a 'tax and spend' liberal. Bush has CUT taxes, not increased them.

You really need to take off your tin-foil hat...saying that the current administration is more socialist than Democrats is laughable. Again, Dems would RAISE taxes, pissing your hard-earned dollars away on wasteful social programs like universal healthcare. Bush CUT taxes.

Bush did nothing to see spending cut to pay for those tax cuts, he was apparently happy to keep bloated government running on a deficit basis.

He's done nothing to prevent "business as usual" in congress with billions in pork attached to every spending bill even while we're running a huge deficit.

He tried very hard to get SS reform with a $2 trillion deficit spending price tag pushed through, but even his rubberstamp congress wouldn't go along with that lavish program.

He's not as bad as Kerry would be with Dems running congress, but he doesn't seem to care about reducing spending.

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: Vic
Bush is the biggest big government president who has ever sat in the White House.

To be a 'big government' politician, you have to be for lavish social programs and stealing your money in the form of higher taxes. Hence the concept of a 'tax and spend' liberal. Bush has CUT taxes, not increased them.

You really need to take off your tin-foil hat...saying that the current administration is more socialist than Democrats is laughable. Again, Dems would RAISE taxes, pissing your hard-earned dollars away on wasteful social programs like universal healthcare. Bush CUT taxes.

I agree. How would national health care been a small government thing or even anything larger than what GWB would have enacted?

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: yllus
I'd say Bush over Kerry solely because even if Bush wanted to implement a bunch of nonsense, he'd never pull it off. Unlike Kerry who probably would go unopposed in helping suck your country even deeper into the muck that is socialism.

not with Republicans controlling the house and senate.

I'd pick Bush over Kerry if the Dems had congress though -- Dems controlling all 3 sounds even more appalling than the current situation.

Ah, a fellow believer in trying to ensure government does as little as possible.

I tend to think that if Kerry had been capable of winning, it would have been a big win for the Democrats in general. Or at least the kind of win that at least gives them even numbers with the Repubs. Alas, the worst candidate possible emerged from the Democrat primaries and it was all for naught.

Wow, this is really faulty logic. Getting Kerry in there would be a disaster for limited government interference in your life. Right now he would be able to pick 2 SCOTUS justices! This country would go straight to hell from all the legislating from the bench. Scalia and Thomas would be the only conservatives left.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: yllus
Ah, a fellow believer in trying to ensure government does as little as possible.

I tend to think that if Kerry had been capable of winning, it would have been a big win for the Democrats in general. Or at least the kind of win that at least gives them even numbers with the Repubs. Alas, the worst candidate possible emerged from the Democrat primaries and it was all for naught.

Wow, this is really faulty logic. Getting Kerry in there would be a disaster for limited government interference in your life. Right now he would be able to pick 2 SCOTUS justices! This country would go straight to hell from all the legislating from the bench. Scalia and Thomas would be the only conservatives left.

No, just faulty reading. I said I preferred Bush to Kerry, and merely said that if Kerry had been capable of pulling off a win, he likely would have taken office with a Democrat-dominated Congress behind him.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: Vic
Bush is the biggest big government president who has ever sat in the White House.

To be a 'big government' politician, you have to be for lavish social programs and stealing your money in the form of higher taxes. Hence the concept of a 'tax and spend' liberal. Bush has CUT taxes, not increased them.

You really need to take off your tin-foil hat...saying that the current administration is more socialist than Democrats is laughable. Again, Dems would RAISE taxes, pissing your hard-earned dollars away on wasteful social programs like universal healthcare. Bush CUT taxes.

Huh? Take a course in economics. Bush has increased our taxes. While he has "cut" taxes now, that is just a temporary situation. Or more properly a shell game. The massive increase in the budget and the budget deficit mean that taxes have actually increased. Our future taxes. And more than just taxes. When the government borrows money in this fashion, it becomes the biggest borrower there is. It floods the markets with debt. The result is currency devaluation and inflation, which has already occurred. This is a hidden tax on everything you buy and own (especially the price of oil and gasoline at this time). And while interest rates appear to be at all-lows, Bush's deficit spending puts major pressure on interest rates to go up, and eventually they will. I can't believe there are clueless people out there who don't understand this. Economics is not a mystery, nor is it gambling (that's Wall Street). It is a science.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: yllus
I'd say Bush over Kerry solely because even if Bush wanted to implement a bunch of nonsense, he'd never pull it off. Unlike Kerry who probably would go unopposed in helping suck your country even deeper into the muck that is socialism.

not with Republicans controlling the house and senate.

I'd pick Bush over Kerry if the Dems had congress though -- Dems controlling all 3 sounds even more appalling than the current situation.

Ah, a fellow believer in trying to ensure government does as little as possible.

I tend to think that if Kerry had been capable of winning, it would have been a big win for the Democrats in general. Or at least the kind of win that at least gives them even numbers with the Repubs. Alas, the worst candidate possible emerged from the Democrat primaries and it was all for naught.

Wow, this is really faulty logic. Getting Kerry in there would be a disaster for limited government interference in your life. Right now he would be able to pick 2 SCOTUS justices! This country would go straight to hell from all the legislating from the bench. Scalia and Thomas would be the only conservatives left.

We were talking more about legislation and fiscal policy, but you do have a good point.

Except that with Republicans controlling the senate, Kerry would have to pick two moderates.

Again, if Dems controlled congress I wouldn't want Kerry getting his first choices of a couple of extremist liberals.

 

[NiKeFiDO]

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

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: Vic
Bush has increased our taxes.

Wow.

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: yllus
I'd say Bush over Kerry solely because even if Bush wanted to implement a bunch of nonsense, he'd never pull it off. Unlike Kerry who probably would go unopposed in helping suck your country even deeper into the muck that is socialism.

not with Republicans controlling the house and senate.

I'd pick Bush over Kerry if the Dems had congress though -- Dems controlling all 3 sounds even more appalling than the current situation.

Ah, a fellow believer in trying to ensure government does as little as possible.

I tend to think that if Kerry had been capable of winning, it would have been a big win for the Democrats in general. Or at least the kind of win that at least gives them even numbers with the Repubs. Alas, the worst candidate possible emerged from the Democrat primaries and it was all for naught.

Wow, this is really faulty logic. Getting Kerry in there would be a disaster for limited government interference in your life. Right now he would be able to pick 2 SCOTUS justices! This country would go straight to hell from all the legislating from the bench. Scalia and Thomas would be the only conservatives left.

We were talking more about legislation and fiscal policy, but you do have a good point.

Except that with Republicans controlling the senate, Kerry would have to pick two moderates.

Again, if Dems controlled congress I wouldn't want Kerry getting his first choices of a couple of extremist liberals.

I don't know Dave. I'm sure Clinton claimed that Ginsburg and Breyer were moderates too, and look how they turned out.

 

[Proletariat]

I've said this many times before, but Libertarians almost always vote Republican.

They will try to deny it though.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: Vic
Bush has increased our taxes. (cut by you): While he has "cut" taxes now, that is just a temporary situation. Or more properly a shell game

Wow.

Don't you have to pay off your credit cards eventually? They aren't a magic money source.

Increased interest payments from our bloated national debt means more of our collected taxes are wasted on interest. So given a fixed set of expenses, more taxes need to be collected to maintain that level of spending without going even deeper into debt, which increases interest payments even more.

Cutting taxes without cutting spending is increasing the future tax burden to look good today.