Are Libertarians Going to Muck Things Up for the GOP?

cawaco said:
No disrespect but I have a hard time buying that. The democrats supported us going into Afghanistan so there was no problems there. And Iraq wasn't until 2003. What did they attempt to cut between then?
Click to expand...

That was the 107th Congress... It was a republican house and a democratic Senate...well technically it was dem- then briefly repub-then back to dem. I am not excusing republicans failing to fight for cuts. I am just illuminating the fact that there were going to be no cuts, if there was going to be support for a military budget. Which, if you recall, was regularly fought over during Bush's tenure- and those military budgets were minus spending cuts- but were loaded with pork. There is no way in hell Bush could have gotten spending cuts- or vetoed those pork laden bills AND gotten his military spending. Now, if he had had line item THAT would have been a different story.

I did find this
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
I didn't say "Yurt is trying to cram ideology down our throat" did I????? Nope... not what I said! LIBERTARIANS want to cram LIBERTARIAN ideology down our throat, much the same way LIBERALS want to, because you are ideologically-driven retards who can't see the Big Picture! You don't seem to understand that Libertarians make up about 25% of us, and the rest are something else and want something else! We don't agree with you on everything, we don't think your ideas will work in every case, and we're not willing to accept them as empirical truth and have faith it will all work out in the end.
Click to expand...

i didn't say you said "Yurt is trying to cram ideology down our throat" did i????????????????????????????????????????????????
 
Yurt said:
i didn't say you said "Yurt is trying to cram ideology down our throat" did i????????????????????????????????????????????????
Click to expand...

No, you asked me what ideology you were trying to cram down America's throat. I never said you were, and I was pointing that out, since obviously, you thought I had said otherwise. You want to keep playing the Obtuse Buttmunch Game? It's kinda fun on a boring night!
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the president can only choose not to enforce something if he feels it's unconstitutional, otherwise you're correct. congress and the courts also have their balances when it comes to constitutionality. he can help sway opinion in congress, much like happens today though.
Click to expand...

I would go even further than that. The president is REQUIRED to refuse to enforce an unconstitutional law. The president, and every office holder in these united states, takes an oath to uphold the constitution. In the case of the president, he must refuse to enforce an unconstitutional act passed by the legislature.
 
Centinel said:
I would go even further than that. The president is REQUIRED to refuse to enforce an unconstitutional law. The president, and every office holder in these united states, takes an oath to uphold the constitution. In the case of the president, he must refuse to enforce an unconstitutional act passed by the legislature.
Click to expand...

Constitutionality is determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, not the president's interpretation of what is constitutional, or your interpretation of what Congress says is constitutional. The president is obligated to uphold the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, period. He may not like it, he may not agree with it, and it may not even actually BE constitutional in a philosophical sense, but if the SCOTUS has ruled it IS Constitutional, and Congress has not amended the Constitution otherwise, the president MUST follow the law.
 
Dixie said:
But that's the rub... Libertarianism is almost as Utopian as Liberalism, in that, those who believe in it, believe it can work in American society. It is idealistic, and no more rational than Liberalism and Socialism. While Republicans and the GOP can indeed take a more libertarian approach, they are not going to abandon all principles to do so, and Libertarians shouldn't expect that to happen. America is not going to be transformed into a Libertarian Utopia any more than a Liberal Utopia, and Libertarians need to get this point through their dumb little pinheads. You're being just like the Liberals and trying to cram your ideology down the throat of America against its will... that will never work.
Click to expand...

Dixie, you sound just like the liberals in SF who always complain Republicans/conservatives are trying to cram their religion and morality and anti-government ideology down our throats. I guess it is only natural that we of course see as good what we like and support and what we don't like is being crammed down our throats.
 
cawacko said:
Dixie, you sound just like the liberals in SF who always complain Republicans/conservatives are trying to cram their religion and morality and anti-government ideology down our throats. I guess it is only natural that we of course see as good what we like and support and what we don't like is being crammed down our throats.
Click to expand...

Well, but the thing is, there is no example of anyone trying to cram religion and morality down anyone's throat. Social Conservatives and Christian Conservatives have fought to keep seculars from eroding values long instilled in our society, that is not cramming something down your throat, if anything, it is simply maintaining a status quot. So this is not simply a matter of perspective, there is indeed two groups or factions of people, who wish to invoke their ideology on society, whether the society as a whole agrees with it or not, and those are Liberals and Libertarians. Conservatives have a wide range of ideology, including some elements of Libertarianism, with regard to the size and scope of government, but they have historically understood we can't have a Utopian Dream World, no such thing exists in reality. Most conservatives are at least willing to compromise to some degree, in order to move toward a more conservative and constitutional government. I see no indication from Liberals or Libertarians, that either of them are willing to make any consolation in their views, it's either all or nothing, and that simply isn't going to ever work in a homogeneous society or reality of the world we live in.
 
Dixie said:
Constitutionality is determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, not the president's interpretation of what is constitutional, or your interpretation of what Congress says is constitutional. The president is obligated to uphold the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, period. He may not like it, he may not agree with it, and it may not even actually BE constitutional in a philosophical sense, but if the SCOTUS has ruled it IS Constitutional, and Congress has not amended the Constitution otherwise, the president MUST follow the law.
Click to expand...

Totally disagree. The federal government is made up of three co-equal branches. The judiciary is responsible for adjudicating disputes between parties, based on the law and the facts of the case. That's their job. Their job is not to be the boss of the president.

The president's job is to execute the laws passed by congress. However, a law contrary to the constitution is no law, so the president is oath-bound to refuse to execute it. Remember, the president, like every office holders in these united states, is "bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." If the congress enacts an unconstitutional law and the court approves of the unconstitutional law, it is up to the president to support the constitution and to refuse to execute the law.

And if you don't like that answer, you're really going to hate it when I say that, per the constitution, ever office holder in the united states is oath-bound to uphold the constitution, so I support any office holder from refusing to act on an unconstitutional law, from state governors all the way down to the local dog catcher.
 
Dixie said:
Over the weekend, Ron Paul announced that he might run as a 'third party' candidate, if he doesn't win the GOP nomination. (He won't.) Given this revelation, I think it is a fitting topic of discussion, because I see a Paul thrid-party candidacy as a guarantee of Obama's second term. He has a core of voters who will follow him off a cliff before considering another candidate, and just as Ross Perot did, he would pull enough support from the GOP to give Democrats a certain win.

I have always been drawn to Ron Paul's message, although I have often felt he went over the edge and was a little too radical in his thinking. His fundamental viewpoint is so diametrically opposed to Liberalism, and what is represented by Obama and the Democrats, I can't understand why he would or how he could, in good conscience, run as a third party candidate. Certainly, Ron Paul is smart enough to know he can't be elected president, and he also knows his presence as a third party will mean Obama wins easily. So, is this political jockeying, just a bold move to try and get the libertarian agenda some clout on the national ticket for the GOP? Is there something Ron Paul is advocating which the GOP could adopt as part of the platform? I know he has called for an audit of the Fed, hell... I think he said he would abolish it! I'm not sure if there is a way for the mainstream GOP to accommodate Ron Paul, and we haven't even gotten to his vehement anti-militarism, anti-war, left-wing-sounding diatribe... Most patriotic right wingers just don't get jazzed about blaming Bush for Iraq anymore.... if they ever did. They also tend to not think we need to legalize all drugs including Heroin. But still... Ron Paul pulls 15-20% of the GOP vote away... Obama is our president for four more years. That's simple math.
Click to expand...

Reply.
 
Centinel said:
Totally disagree. The federal government is made up of three co-equal branches. The judiciary is responsible for adjudicating disputes between parties, based on the law and the facts of the case. That's their job. Their job is not to be the boss of the president.

The president's job is to execute the laws passed by congress. However, a law contrary to the constitution is no law, so the president is oath-bound to refuse to execute it. Remember, the president, like every office holders in these united states, is "bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." If the congress enacts an unconstitutional law and the court approves of the unconstitutional law, it is up to the president to support the constitution and to refuse to execute the law.

And if you don't like that answer, you're really going to hate it when I say that, per the constitution, ever office holder in the united states is oath-bound to uphold the constitution, so I support any office holder from refusing to act on an unconstitutional law, from state governors all the way down to the local dog catcher.
Click to expand...

The supreme court has the last word on constitutional issues. If everyone gets to interpret the constitution however they want and claim divine right in doing so, then there is no constitution, because they'll interpret it to their convenience.
 
I know that through some idiotic reading of the constitution you could get that the supreme court has no power of final arbitration over constitutional issues, and that other branches of the government can simply ignore arbitration from the supreme court on constitutional issues and proceed with tyranny all they want, but tradition is every bit as important to a nations constitutional framework as what's written down, no matter what libertarian idiots who are incapable of thought say. Without tradition, you get China, where they have freedom of speech, assembly, etc... explicitly written in their constitution and the government just does what it wants anyway.

The president can fail to enforce a law he finds unconstitutional, but the legislature has the right to sue the supreme court if they do so. If the supreme court rules that the president must enforce the law, failure to do so would be a coup d'etat.
 
Just dawned on me...Ralph Nader is responsible for Iraq and the worst president in our history.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the GOP can easily fix this by dropping their unconstitutional mainstream way or governing and adopt a more constitutional viewpoint of limited federal government and spending.
Click to expand...

You mean standing up for what they claim to belive in?
 
icedancer2theend said:
That was the 107th Congress... It was a republican house and a democratic Senate...well technically it was dem- then briefly repub-then back to dem. I am not excusing republicans failing to fight for cuts. I am just illuminating the fact that there were going to be no cuts, if there was going to be support for a military budget. Which, if you recall, was regularly fought over during Bush's tenure- and those military budgets were minus spending cuts- but were loaded with pork. There is no way in hell Bush could have gotten spending cuts- or vetoed those pork laden bills AND gotten his military spending. Now, if he had had line item THAT would have been a different story.

I did find this
Click to expand...

When will you realize Republicans are not for cutting government, they are only for cutting Democrats OUT of government...PERIOD.
 
Onceler said:
I wonder if Nader still thinks Bush & Gore were interchangeable...
Click to expand...

He knows better. He really fucked up the 2000 election. Al Gore would not have invaded Iraq. He made that clear 6 months before the invasion when the Bush war propaganda began. He even warned about everything that ended up going wrong...

Speech
Former Vice President Al Gore
Iraq and the War on Terrorism
Commonwealth Club of California
San Francisco, California
September 23, 2002

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html
 
Gore definitely wouldn't have invaded Iraq - imagine how different history would be at this point, based on that one fact alone.

Conservatives generally respond with "we don't know he wouldn't have invaded Iraq," but rational people know better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top