Deciding between Liberal and Conservative Politics

[Facial_King]

Most libertarians have good social policy. I agree with the majority of it. The bad thing about Ron Paul and libertarians is the fact most of them can't seem to get off cowboy capitalism. If libertarians could get off their idiotic economic policies I would highly consider voting for them. As far as economics go they seem to have an anything goes mentality on what people and businesses can do. I guess everybody could all go back to working in late 19th century coalmine conditions, with the very few ruling over everybody else like gods. That’s where unregulated capitalism leads. To many libertarians seem to have this ideology where the free market has magical powers to work itself out to the betterment of everybody, which history has proven to be laughably false. It's not taking anybody freedom away if laws are made to keep people or businesses from exploiting each other any more than in a social sense it's taking freedom away from not allowing somebody to murder another person. Yet too many people can't seem to grasp that concept.

Liberals would be better if they actually treated the constitution and the "self-evident" truths in it as inalienable, human rights instead of suggestions and fluff text that they feel the need to go willy nilly with as soon as they don't suit them anymore or society has changed where it makes it inconvenient for them. Of course to be fair today the Republicans are pretty much equally as bad when it comes to that. They just have different rights they want to take away from you. Likewise one of the Liberals major advantages before, the fact they had more sane economic policies when it came to the middle class and the poor, is almost gone. They pretty much have sold out almost as much as the Republicans. Look at how many free trade agreements they want along with, with Bill Clinton being one of the biggest examples.

Pretty well put - I think I agree with just about all of it!

 

[morethanthis]

Ron Paul's foreign policies are by far the best of any candidate. But some of his domestic ideas are dangerous to middle and lower class American's.

Dr. Paul's policies are not original. They are the policies of the law of the land....the Constitution. Members of Congress take one oath...to protect and defend the Constitution. Ron Paul is the only member that has done so.
So many Americans do not understand that the law of our land is about limited Government.......so that people can be free.

Again, the Constitution is not perfect....but the founders did one thing great...the limited the power of government....especially with regard to money. If only members of Congress would protect and defend the law of the land we would not be in the monetary mess we are in whereby the middle and lower class will suffer the most.

 

[morethanthis]

I think the opposite. I think his foreign policy is bad but like his domestic policies.

Again, the founders preached a noninterventionist foreign policy.
not original to Ron Paul.....just based on Constitution.....our supreme law.

 

[morethanthis]

And I believe I heard PB endorse Paul on CNN at one point a while back.

Yes Pat was friendly to Ron Paul.....but he did not endorse him....certainly not at www.ronpaul2008.com

A simple fact of politics is this:

If you endorse a loser....you become a loser. So if you want to win an election be careful about endorsing someone who is only getting 5% of the vote......voters will brand you a loser and vote for your opponents at least that's how it works in the primary election.

 

[morethanthis]

Most libertarians have good social policy. I agree with the majority of it. The bad thing about Ron Paul and libertarians is the fact most of them can't seem to get off cowboy capitalism. If libertarians could get off their idiotic economic policies I would highly consider voting for them. As far as economics go they seem to have an anything goes mentality on what people and businesses can do. I guess everybody could all go back to working in late 19th century coalmine conditions, with the very few ruling over everybody else like gods. That’s where unregulated capitalism leads. To many libertarians seem to have this ideology where the free market has magical powers to work itself out to the betterment of everybody, which history has proven to be laughably false. It's not taking anybody freedom away if laws are made to keep people or businesses from exploiting each other any more than in a social sense it's taking freedom away from not allowing somebody to murder another person. Yet too many people can't seem to grasp that concept.

Liberals would be better if they actually treated the constitution and the "self-evident" truths in it as inalienable, human rights instead of suggestions and fluff text that they feel the need to go willy nilly with as soon as they don't suit them anymore or society has changed where it makes it inconvenient for them. Of course to be fair today the Republicans are pretty much equally as bad when it comes to that. They just have different rights they want to take away from you. Likewise one of the Liberals major advantages before, the fact they had more sane economic policies when it came to the middle class and the poor, is almost gone. They pretty much have sold out almost as much as the Republicans. Look at how many free trade agreements they want along with, with Bill Clinton being one of the biggest examples.

You might as well call the Constitution "cowboy capitalism".

Capitalism isn't perfect.....but it's better than taking the fruits of my labor and giving it to someone else. A major goal of the Constitution is to prevent the government from doing just that. With the unconstitutional creation of a central bank.....the government is.......taking the fruit of the middle class.....eating the fruit.....and giving the excrement remains back to us......as federal reserve notes. The greenback is terminal thanks to the infamous "caretaker of government regulation".....the fed

"It's not taking anybody freedom away if laws are made to keep people or businesses from exploiting each other any more than in a social sense it's taking freedom away from not allowing somebody to murder another person."

any more??????? murder vs. business exploitation.........not the same

throughout history government becomes the big exploiter.....not good sound businesses. Bad businesses fail. But bad governments can succeed by force....unless the people revolt.....like our great patriots of the usa did.

Give me liberty or give me death-Harriet Tubman

 

[bodie54]

Give me liberty or give me death-Harriet Tubman

Harriet never flew American Airlines

 

[pathfinder]

Neither side is without it's flaws. At the end of the day they're all self-serving, over-paid politicians.
The majority of them are likely to walk the path of Strom Thurman and ride it out right until they die... which says a lot about how ridiculous our electoral system is.
Fresh blood? Fresh perspective? A more modern school of thought? Why would we ever need any of those ridiculous things when it comes to the people that control almost every aspect of our lives.
The only politicians who seem to have rational thought are the independents, and the likelihood of one every becoming president aren't likely to happen in our lifetime.
I'm not knocking the country... I'm knocking the "system" we've all allowed to grow far beyond our control... and the odds of the people ever taking back what the government regularly takes away are slim to none.
If you demand change you're a radical. If you make any move toward trying to bring change you're an extremist. If you have enough influence to get others to stand behind you you're a militant...
Enjoy this brave new world... it's getting better every day.

 

[bombardier52]

Again, the founders preached a noninterventionist foreign policy.
not original to Ron Paul.....just based on Constitution.....our supreme law.

Interesting. But I would say Jefferson wacking the Barbary Pirates pretty much invalidates that thought. Also, they did not put non intervention in the Constitution so there must have been disagreement.

America gets screwed on the whole intervention thing. The right side of the aisle wants to intervene when national interest (funny how that is always oil) are at stake and the left side when there are no national interests at stake like in Sudan or Darfur. No matter who the president is he is strung up by the opposition for intervention.

 

[Facetious]

The Dept of Homeland Security is a colossal bureaucratic nightmare. It must be "broken up" back to the pre-existing Gov't Orgs--Fema--Coast Guard--whatever other orgs which were "folded into" it.

Agree

TSA might need to remain but it needs to be funded better.

With respect to our airport screening, a pragmatic and sensible profiling process must be implemented. "Every third person" for screening passengers is innane on its face, IMO.


Also, I'd like to see the use of
RICO Statutes more effectively to counter outrageous and egregious lawsuits from the likes of CAIR, Southern Poverty Law, ACLU etc. IMO

The Patriot Act is a mess. It needs to "go away."

Agree - There's too much yet to be defined. Open ended, loosely defined laws are tyrannies. This is no exception. It should have been coined "The Federal Universal Observation Act". lol !
T

Bush's tax cuts worked for about 2 years...but the economy has evaporated, we're bleeding jobs and our currency is worth about as much as the peso was a decade ago. Bush is too "out of touch" to do anything and McCain has already admitted he's "not very strong on economics." That is a recipe for disaster

. He's betrayed the conservative base in all of his wanton stubbornness. I wholeheartedly agree that 43 is "out of touch". He's on another plank all together. I'm at a loss as to figure him out. I wouldn't be surprised to later find out that the man's been coerced. *Hypothetical Conspiracies* Include - Chicom missiles "over the fence", if you will, in Mexico. 'magine that !!

The price of oil/barrel will drop by 45% once we leave Iraq. It is not economically feasible to believe anymore that the economies of China and India are "raging" and keeping the price skyrocketing while the greatest consumer nation of Oil (the U.S.) is in deep recession....the basic economics don't "add up" anymore. There is a 45% "fear quotient" built into the price/barrel which will "go away" once we leave.

45 ! ? $2.25 per gallon ? I applaud your optimism, but :dunno:
I think that oil is up for keeps as "I" believe that the globalist policy makers sort of want to allow for a somewhat universal / uniform price world wide. After all, America has had it made with relatively cheap oil prices all these years. Who knows ~

Obama will begin to focus on McCain and we'll all start seeing how poor a choice McCain really is.

Who actually choose McCain ? It wasn't the electorate. Doesn't anybody remember that Mccain was on the bottom of the barrel when the primaries began ? (IIRC) His campaign mgr. split :wave2: presumeably due to the lacking funds within the McCampaign itself.

Then, out of nowhere, McCain becomes the nominee for the pub party.
Imagine that ! the co author of McCain • Feingold Campaign Finance Reform and nobody thought to ask where the monies originated !

McCain was funded to become the likely loser in November. Get it ?
It's easy - simply fund up 'ol Johnny boy for the initial cockus

 

[scubamike]

Ok here is post #28.Is the question of the soldier interview what you are refering to? If it is,my answer is tough he didn't like it being included.Did Moore distort it or anything is the only legitamate question.But people have no right to say I don't want to be mentioned in a documentary.

Apologies but I've been out and busy lately and am now catching up!
So you think that Big Fat Rich White Man (BFRWM) Michael Moore's distortion of the military during his film was legitimate and fair? Are all soldiers blood hungry? He was priming by only including a few soldier's viewpoints on the war...all immature and negative to the left and right of course.
What I also like is how BFRWM appears to get a rifle from that bank in Bowling for Columbine. I wonder how much he's enjoying it right now?

 

[Facetious]

Cont'd. ^ ^

Spread the word (Iowa caucus) that McCain is the man.

√ McCain wins

√ Everybody likes "A winner"

√ the rest is hist - wa ~

√ Just beat up Romney in delegates -

and they did

 

[scubamike]

:Flame:
hahaha
great posts bro! I'm trying to catch up but I admire your responses. go ahead Tits-mcgee and call me a kiss-ass if it would make you feel better.

Nothing? No response? How come?

 

[morethanthis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWr5Wl-mev0&feature=email

More wisdom from the Gold Standard in Leadership.

Leadership Law #7....the Law of EF Hutton......When the real leader speaks...people listen(at least the smart people).

 

[morethanthis]

Neither side is without it's flaws. At the end of the day they're all self-serving, over-paid politicians.
The majority of them are likely to walk the path of Strom Thurman and ride it out right until they die... which says a lot about how ridiculous our electoral system is.
Fresh blood? Fresh perspective? A more modern school of thought? Why would we ever need any of those ridiculous things when it comes to the people that control almost every aspect of our lives.
The only politicians who seem to have rational thought are the independents, and the likelihood of one every becoming president aren't likely to happen in our lifetime.
I'm not knocking the country... I'm knocking the "system" we've all allowed to grow far beyond our control... and the odds of the people ever taking back what the government regularly takes away are slim to none.
If you demand change you're a radical. If you make any move toward trying to bring change you're an extremist. If you have enough influence to get others to stand behind you you're a militant...
Enjoy this brave new world... it's getting better every day.

Perhaps you could participate and influence others......
Gop state convention is where I'm headed.....come join the party....:glugglug:

 

[Friday on my mind]

Who actually choose McCain ? It wasn't the electorate. Doesn't anybody remember that Mccain was on the bottom of the barrel when the primaries began ? (IIRC) His campaign mgr. split :wave2: presumeably due to the lacking funds within the McCampaign itself.

Then, out of nowhere, McCain becomes the nominee for the pub party.
Imagine that ! the co author of McCain • Feingold Campaign Finance Reform and nobody thought to ask where the monies originated !

McCain was funded to become the likely loser in November. Get it ?
It's easy - simply fund up 'ol Johnny boy for the initial cockus

I thought the republicans selected him in their primary's.And that was in spite of being up against people like Romney who had more money to spend.Yeah he was down at the beginning but once the process started and people had to make a choice between him and the other republicans running they choose McCain.Really not that shocking IMO given the choices they had.

Apologies but I've been out and busy lately and am now catching up!
So you think that Big Fat Rich White Man (BFRWM) Michael Moore's distortion of the military during his film was legitimate and fair? Are all soldiers blood hungry? He was priming by only including a few soldier's viewpoints on the war...all immature and negative to the left and right of course.
What I also like is how BFRWM appears to get a rifle from that bank in Bowling for Columbine. I wonder how much he's enjoying it right now?

As I said if you can point out distortions/falsehoods that would be wrong.I saw that movie and don't remember the troops portrayed as blood hungry but as people who were lied to and sent to war based on lies.

And is it only conservatives who are allowed to have money or be fat?LMAO :rofl:

Hey Rush! Loose some weight and give away your millions!But don't get caught doctor shopping again trying to get weight lose pills!:tongue:

On the gun thing never saw that one,know nothing about the gun.So don't have any idea what you are talking about.What are you claiming he is a closet gun collector or something?:dunno:

And you never answered my question about your saying that being a "secular progressive" was negative.I know Bill O'Reilly denounces them all the time but coming from him thats a badge of honor.:thumbsup:
Secular progressives believe in the notion that the govt should stay out of religion which by the way is in the constitution. And that govt policys should be geared towards progress being made that benefits the majority of citizens as opposed to policies that benefit a small minority at the expense of the majority.What could be wrong with that?

 

[negator]

Most libertarians have good social policy. I agree with the majority of it. The bad thing about Ron Paul and libertarians is the fact most of them can't seem to get off cowboy capitalism. If libertarians could get off their idiotic economic policies I would highly consider voting for them. As far as economics go they seem to have an anything goes mentality on what people and businesses can do. I guess everybody could all go back to working in late 19th century coalmine conditions, with the very few ruling over everybody else like gods. That’s where unregulated capitalism leads. To many libertarians seem to have this ideology where the free market has magical powers to work itself out to the betterment of everybody, which history has proven to be laughably false. It's not taking anybody freedom away if laws are made to keep people or businesses from exploiting each other any more than in a social sense it's taking freedom away from not allowing somebody to murder another person. Yet too many people can't seem to grasp that concept.

cthulhu?

the 19th century is over, and the superorganism has evolved past this. if the libertarian ideal of a free market were to suddenly be realized, it would be nothing like the 19th century, with kids working 14 hours in sweat-shops and coal mines.
ideas come, and ideas go.
would you believe me if i told you that as recently as the '50s eugenics was a flourishing movement? yet today, the very idea behind it is both absurd and obsolete.
(kind of like the concept of a central bank)
slavery was also once the status quo.
as it stands right now, we have corporate fascism, with permanent loopholes in just the right places for you and me to never be "free" again, while carpet-baggers and robber-barons remain.

 

[scubamike]

And you never answered my question about your saying that being a "secular progressive" was negative.I know Bill O'Reilly denounces them all the time but coming from him thats a badge of honor.:thumbsup:
Secular progressives believe in the notion that the govt should stay out of religion which by the way is in the constitution. And that govt policys should be geared towards progress being made that benefits the majority of citizens as opposed to policies that benefit a small minority at the expense of the majority.What could be wrong with that?

What I don't like about the secular progressive attitude is that they do not believe there is any evil in the world, at least the way they act. If someone's a killer or rapist, put them away or kill them. Don't let them go because they have "mental problems". Letting them go free lets them use their "mental illness" on others once again. I believe proper punishment needs to be given to individuals who perform a certain crime, not a slap on the hand.

 

[Friday on my mind]

What I don't like about the secular progressive attitude is that they do not believe there is any evil in the world, at least the way they act. If someone's a killer or rapist, put them away or kill them. Don't let them go because they have "mental problems". Letting them go free lets them use their "mental illness" on others once again. I believe proper punishment needs to be given to individuals who perform a certain crime, not a slap on the hand.

I am against the death penalty because of how flawed our justice system is and the very many innocents who have been sentenced to death.But that does not mean let them go.Even if they are determined insane that means they still get put away.As to people in the world that do bad things and deserve punishment I am all for it,when do we put Bush/Cheney away?:1orglaugh
Lets stop messing with these small timers and get some big time criminals who have lied us into wars,violated the constitution in many ways and so on.The way the well to do have been screwing american workers as well as many other people in the world is a crime also.So obviously I do see lots of I guess what you would call "evil" in the world,just probably not the same things that you do.:dunno:

 

[Evil Hobo]

Firstly, I respect your views, this awsome thread and extreme tolerance to free speach - but you don't at all have to, nor should respect any fag who calls you an idiot or anything else derogitory. But respecting an opposition's views is a virtue.

As for me, I'm definately Liberal. There is a good quiz you should take to see where you stand on the Two-dimensional socio-economic compass.

I'm Centre-Left, Centre-Libertarian. :thefinger

 

[titsrock]

What I don't like about the secular progressive attitude is that they do not believe there is any evil in the world, at least the way they act. If someone's a killer or rapist, put them away or kill them. Don't let them go because they have "mental problems". Letting them go free lets them use their "mental illness" on others once again. I believe proper punishment needs to be given to individuals who perform a certain crime, not a slap on the hand.

Scuba--what the hell are you talking about? Do you believe Liberals let "killers" and "rapists" "go free" simply if that criminal has a mental problem or pretends to have one for legal reasons?

I think Liberals do know there is evil in the world. We just want to get to the root of the evil, fix it, and see if we can rid it. Conservatives want to bomb that evil away or lock it up--out of sight/out of mind?:dunno: