Are Libertarians Going to Muck Things Up for the GOP?

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Or we could have Osama'd him. Illegal, but not so much collateral damage as the war.

Assassinating a criminal is one thing, assassinating a foreign head of state is quite another. If it didn't eventually lead to WWIII it'd cause all kinds of shit for US for decades to come, and set a dangerous precedent for future US presidents. Plus, it wouldn't topple the regime, I'm sure he has contingency plans for someone else to take control when he dies.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

First of all, the government is made up of three branches, but they are not exactly "co-equal" in the traditional sense. We often hear people SAY they are, but if you think of this logically, they can't be. Each of the three branches have differing responsibilities and control different aspects, they are not interchangeable or able to fill in for each other, so they are not exactly "co-equal." The Judiciary, specifically, the Supreme Court, is responsible for determining if something is or isn't in adherence to the Constitution. We can argue whether or not this SHOULD be their role, but the fact is, it HAS been their role since the late 1700s--early 1800s. If something is or isn't Constitutional, and the people wish to change that, the Congress has legislative authority to make the change, and the court is obligated to uphold the change.

Now, from a philosophical sense, how can the president be expected to "uphold the constitution" when the court has interpreted it incorrectly? Take for example, the institution of slavery, and every president before Lincoln, who condoned and allowed slavery to persist... were they violating their oath of office by allowing enforcement of an unconstitutional law? Clearly, it is not constitutional to enslave black people, but we did, the courts ruled it was constitutional, and the laws were all based on that precept. Slavery ended with passage of a Constitutional amendment introduced by Congress and passed into law. Once the Constitution was changed, the court could no longer find it constitutional to enslave black people and the presidents who followed Lincoln, couldn't advocate slavery.

Many people believe it is unconstitutional to allow abortion, because it is denying an individual the right to life, clearly outlined in the Constitution. Is the president violating his oath of office to allow abortion? The point I am making is, the Constitution and what IS or ISN'T Constitutional, is subject to individual interpretation of the Constitution. What YOU think is unconstitutional, I may NOT think it is... and visa versa, there is no cut and dried set standard or universal understanding, when it comes to the Constitution... it's why we have entire universities dedicated to teaching about it, it's why we have higher education degrees and diplomas for the understanding of Constitutional Law. It's why we have the Supreme Court! If the Constitution was straightforward and easy to understand, we would never need a SCOTUS to make a ruling on Constitutionality. If we all held the same interpretations and understandings of what is meant in the Constitution, we wouldn't even need to have ANY courts, or law enforcement for that matter... we could all just carry around a copy of the Constitution, and when some dispute arose, we could just whip it out and show the other party where it says what we both understand... no dispute! But that isn't reality, is it? We have case after case, being brought before the Supreme Court, to determine if something IS or ISN'T Constitutional. AND....IF what you are saying is true, the SCOTUS rulings would ALWAYS be unanimous! How can 9 Supreme Court Justices... the smartest people in all the land on matters of the Constitution.... ever find disagreement in something so easily understood and straightforward?

Dixie, are you honestly going to tell me that you write these weird, long rants without the aid of amphetamines?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Unlikely. First, he would have likely had to work w/ a GOP Congress most of his tenure. Nothing radical on the environmental front would have gotten through; if anything, we'd probably have seen more measures palatable to both parties, like tax incentives for r & d.

Second, Clinton/Gore were more committed to a balanced budget and "smaller, smarter gov't" than Bush/Cheney were. Gore spearheaded a whole project on reinventing gov't the past few years, that was making real headway on reducing bureaucracy, and was unfortunately abandoned after he left office.

The deficit might have been slightly smaller had Gore won, but the New Democrats were drinking the same neo-liberal kool-aid that everyone was around that time. The crisis would've still happened all the same, and his presidency wouldn't look dramatically different from Bush's. Really, the only thing that would've differed dramatically would be if he had decided not to go to Iraq.

I mean, imagine if the Conservatives had won in the UK instead of Blair's Labour. How different would the UK look today? Not much. Perhaps, in the last election, rather than kicking out Labour for causing the crisis and electing the Conservatives, they would have instead kicked out the Conservatives for causing the crisis and elected Labour.

And perhaps, had Gore won in the US, in 2008 the voters would've kicked out the Democrats for causing the crisis, and the Republicans would now be in charge. The Republicans would've done pretty much everything Obama's done up until now, the Democrats would have recovered the house in 2010, the economy would still be shit, and they would be telling us that it takes time to fix eight years of terrible policy.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I don't expect Utopia. I expect you to get out of my way rather than pass a bunch of stupid laws that keep gay people from "marrying".

First of all, I don't see anyone in your way except Liberal Socialists who want to strip all your freedom and give it to the government. Laws protecting the sanctity of marriage are not stupid if the people vote for and approve such laws. It means there is a segment of society who doesn't hold as nonchalant a view of marriage as you do, people who consider marriage an important cornerstone and foundation to family and our entire societal culture. These people simply disagree with you because they value marriage in our society more than you, and they don't share your cavalier attitude about it. Not only that, but they greatly outnumber you, nearly two-to-one... so you can call what they believe "stupid" if you like, it's still what the vast majority believe, and you need to learn to accept that we live in a free 'democratic' society, not Dumo's Oligarchy! ...In the words of the great British philosopher, Michael Philip Jagger... You can't always get what you want!

 

[Phantasmal]

Assassinating a criminal is one thing, assassinating a foreign head of state is quite another. If it didn't eventually lead to WWIII it'd cause all kinds of shit for US for decades to come, and set a dangerous precedent for future US presidents. Plus, it wouldn't topple the regime, I'm sure he has contingency plans for someone else to take control when he dies.

They didn't do anything when we invaded a country. It might have caused some raucous, but in the end, the USA does as it damn well pleases.

 

[Jarod]

And if Perot didn't run Clinton never would have been President.

Of course you assume everyone who voted for Nader would have automatically voted for Gore just as Dixie assumes everyone who would vote for Ron Paul would automatically vote for the GOP candidate.

Difference is that Gore only needed a few hundred votes to go in his favor in one of a few states to have been president.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

kind of like you're trying to cram yours down ours?

What part of conservative ideology is being crammed down your throat? Lower taxation? Incentives for economic growth? Reduced federal spending? Less entitlement -- more personal choice? What exactly have conservatives tried to "cram down your throat?"

 

[Jarod]

First of all, I don't see anyone in your way except Liberal Socialists who want to strip all your freedom and give it to the government. Laws protecting the sanctity of marriage are not stupid if the people vote for and approve such laws. It means there is a segment of society who doesn't hold as nonchalant a view of marriage as you do, people who consider marriage an important cornerstone and foundation to family and our entire societal culture. These people simply disagree with you because they value marriage in our society more than you, and they don't share your cavalier attitude about it. Not only that, but they greatly outnumber you, nearly two-to-one... so you can call what they believe "stupid" if you like, it's still what the vast majority believe, and you need to learn to accept that we live in a free 'democratic' society, not Dumo's Oligarchy! ...In the words of the great British philosopher, Michael Philip Jagger... You can't always get what you want!

So its okay if a majority want to take freedom of choice as to who to marry and give it to the government to decide? Or is it better to let individuals have the freedom to define it there own way!

 

[SmarterthanYou]

What part of conservative ideology is being crammed down your throat? Lower taxation? Incentives for economic growth? Reduced federal spending? Less entitlement -- more personal choice? What exactly have conservatives tried to "cram down your throat?"

how about infringing on my rights for the war on drugs and terror?

 

[Liberty]

you make it sound like Libertarians want what the GOP wants. not much could be further from the truth. Republicans are just as adept at infringing on our freedoms and the democrats are, just in different ways. Libertarians right now look at both major parties as opposite sides of the same coin, so to us one is just as bad as the other.

I look at the repubs as the national socialist party, and the dems as the communist party.

The only choice is Ron Paul.

If repubs don't want the votes split, they need to choose Ron Paul.

I don't see that happening though as most republican voters are socialist, and hate liberty and freedom.

Obama, Cain, Romney, Perry, there's really no difference.

 

[Liberty]

how about infringing on my rights for the war on drugs and terror?

Dixie will never embrace liberty.

Hell, doesn't he support the unpatriotic act?

 

[Alias]

Libertarians can never been given any power. The left will crush them.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So its okay if a majority want to take freedom of choice as to who to marry and give it to the government to decide? Or is it better to let individuals have the freedom to define it there own way!

There is no freedom of choice issue with "marriage" presently, that is a misnomer. Marriage is the union of a man (male) and woman (female) and nothing more or less or different. That is what is meant by the word "marriage" in our usage and understanding of the word in English. To pretend that something which is NOT marriage, really IS marriage, and claim a right is being denied to express it, is a lie built on a misnomer. No one is denied the right to marry, or even, to have a ceremony and 'marry' someone of the same sex, those who do so can not get a license from government, but so what... they aren't denied anything except a licence which has specific requirements which must be met... it's the purpose of having to license it. If the issue is related to equality of benefits for those couples, there are numerous ways we can amend the laws to accommodate them, without having to redefine the meaning of traditional marriage. But we can't rationally discuss those, because you've chosen to embrace a crusade which is a lie based on a misnomer.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

how about infringing on my rights for the war on drugs and terror?

What rights have they infringed? Has the SCOTUS ruled on this? What basis do you make this assertion, and why do you assume you are correct and others are wrong? Both the War on Drugs and Terror, have been conducted in accordance with the law, and held to Supreme Court review in several cases, and upheld. You literally don't have an argument for unconstitutionality, what you have is a emotive platitude being barked from an aged hippie who doesn't get it. Yeah.... it's The Man keeping you down! Go hit the bong again!

 

[Jarod]

There is no freedom of choice issue with "marriage" presently, that is a misnomer. Marriage is the union of a man (male) and woman (female) and nothing more or less or different. That is what is meant by the word "marriage" in our usage and understanding of the word in English. To pretend that something which is NOT marriage, really IS marriage, and claim a right is being denied to express it, is a lie built on a misnomer. No one is denied the right to marry, or even, to have a ceremony and 'marry' someone of the same sex, those who do so can not get a license from government, but so what... they aren't denied anything except a licence which has specific requirements which must be met... it's the purpose of having to license it. If the issue is related to equality of benefits for those couples, there are numerous ways we can amend the laws to accommodate them, without having to redefine the meaning of traditional marriage. But we can't rationally discuss those, because you've chosen to embrace a crusade which is a lie based on a misnomer.

Gay people of the same sex who belive that marriage includes the right for them to marry eachother are not afforded the legal rights and privledges given couples of opposit sex who choose to get married. Some people disagree with you about the defination of marriage. Those people should be free to do what they choose. It does not harm you in any way to allow them this freedom. It does not harm you in any to live and let live. Your rights and freedoms are not infringed in any material way. That is the essence of freedom, allowing others to structure there lives how they choose as long as them doing so does not negativly affect you in any material way.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

What rights have they infringed? Has the SCOTUS ruled on this? What basis do you make this assertion, and why do you assume you are correct and others are wrong? Both the War on Drugs and Terror, have been conducted in accordance with the law, and held to Supreme Court review in several cases, and upheld. You literally don't have an argument for unconstitutionality, what you have is a emotive platitude being barked from an aged hippie who doesn't get it. Yeah.... it's The Man keeping you down! Go hit the bong again!

fuck the supreme court. they've made mistakes and the patriot act is a big one. the fourth amendment requires a warrant signed by a judge. no mention of a secret court in the constitution, nor is there any exception carved out for sneak and peeks. there is no exception to the governments confinement and jurisdiction, like gitmo. I can assume i'm correct because I can read the constitution, federalist and anti-federalist papers, as well as the constitutional convention debates. your tired old schtick of safety over liberty would make franklin shoot you personally.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Now, from a philosophical sense, how can the president be expected to "uphold the constitution" when the court has interpreted it incorrectly? Take for example, the institution of slavery, and every president before Lincoln, who condoned and allowed slavery to persist... were they violating their oath of office by allowing enforcement of an unconstitutional law? Clearly, it is not constitutional to enslave black people, but we did, the courts ruled it was constitutional, and the laws were all based on that precept.

It was absolutely constitutional to enslave black people before the 14th amendment. There's not even an argument here, Dixie. And there was no law that said "slavery is now legal" to enforce. In the absence of a society actively preventing people from getting enslaved and punishing those who do enslave others, some people naturally get enslaved. Slavery is the essence of small government conservativism.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

There is no freedom of choice issue with "marriage" presently, that is a misnomer. Marriage is the union of a man (male) and woman (female) and nothing more or less or different.

Well, since you apparently have the power to unilaterally make definitions for words as you see fit, providing no justification, yeah, you'd be absolutely right.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

What part of conservative ideology is being crammed down your throat? Lower taxation? Incentives for economic growth? Reduced federal spending? Less entitlement -- more personal choice? What exactly have conservatives tried to "cram down your throat?"

Aristocracy, long disproven economic policies that will only lead to stagnation, and violating the natural right of the people to medicine and old-age stipend. You should have a hole blown in your head for violating the rights of the people.

 

[Airstrip One]

It was absolutely constitutional to enslave black people before the 14th amendment. There's not even an argument here, Dixie. And there was no law that said "slavery is now legal" to enforce. In the absence of a society actively preventing people from getting enslaved and punishing those who do enslave others, some people naturally get enslaved. Slavery is the essence of small government conservativism.

And servitude is the presence of large government liberalism. So, how do we operate to prevent both slavery and serfdom?