Are Libertarians Going to Muck Things Up for the GOP?

[Jarod]

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

America's biggest mistake, and most voters got it right!

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I am always amazed at how Libertarians assume their interpretation and understanding of the Constitution is empirical and unquestionable. There are dozens of various interpretations on just about every aspect of the Constitution, and what it means. There is not a single definitive understanding that people either abide by or ignore, as you wish to portray it. Most everyone in the TEA Party movement, wants a return to constitutional limited government. Most all agree the size and scope of government has gone way too far, and needs to be reigned back in, every single GOP candidate has expressed the desire to repeal Obamacare, and cut government spending.

What you are saying here is, Ron Paul is radically different because he wants to gut government even more, and dismantle even more than the GOP TEA Partiers, and that somehow makes him a better alternative, even though you KNOW FOR A FACT AND ADMIT he wouldn't get anything accomplished. This makes me wonder what you REALLY want, and if it's the same thing as you CLAIM to want?

the constitution is not that difficult to read and understand. from it's inception, the founders have repeatedly said that the written word is to be adhered and that any confusion or ambiguity is clearly defined in the papers and debate minutes. you can't get much clearer than that. anything else outside of that is pandering to the living constitution crowd, which is desperately trying to rewrite the constitution via the judiciary to bring about that socialist society. The fact that Ron Paul won't be able to get anything done is a negative mark for we the people, for becoming reliant on that big government.

Again, much of what the TEA Party faction of the GOP wants, is articulated routinely by Paul and other Libertarians, there is indeed common ground. You seem to expect a majority of mainstream America to just wake up one day and be a radical Libertarian, and that isn't likely to happen. You want it to happen so badly, that you are willing to allow Marxist Socialists to control America and rule with an iron fist for another four years, rather than find common ground for the better overall good. In short, you are a bunch of ideological fucktarded idiots.

better to bring the revolution quickly, than to let tyranny creep up on us

 

[cawacko]

Just dawned on me...Ralph Nader is responsible for Iraq and the worst president in our history.

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.

 

[cawacko]

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.

Well to me there have been so many examples as to not even question that what a politician says when they are running for office or are out of office vs. what they do when they are in power can be 180 degrees different.

 

[Onceler]

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.

A lot of those Nader voters wouldn't have voted Gore or Bush. But enough in FL would have gone gore to tip the balance; that margin was razor thin.

Still can't believe that election. That was crazy stuff.

 

[Onceler]

Well to me there have been so many examples as to not even question that what a politician says when they are running for office or are out of office vs. what they do when they are in power can be 180 degrees different.

It's not even what Gore said, really. It's just judging who he is compared to Bush (and I'm not saying he's great or anything). He would have treated 9/11 as a criminal matter, which would have infuriated some. He wouldn't have launched full-scale operations like Bush did.

And Gore wouldn't have been involved w/ PNAC. Without PNAC, there is no Iraq.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

ID, that's just absurd. The GOP Congress wrote most of the huge, pork-laden spending bills that Bush signed - like Energy & Transportation. What a sad rewriting of history.

Understatement

 

[Bfgrn]

Well to me there have been so many examples as to not even question that what a politician says when they are running for office or are out of office vs. what they do when they are in power can be 180 degrees different.

Read the speech...Gore would not have invaded Iraq...

 

[cawacko]

Read the speech...Gore would not have invaded Iraq...

He may not have but like I said because he claims it in a speech when he is not in office does not necessarily convince me unless you take all politicians at their word.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

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.

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

 

[Damocles]

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".

 

[zappasguitar]

ID, that's just absurd. The GOP Congress wrote most of the huge, pork-laden spending bills that Bush signed - like Energy & Transportation. What a sad rewriting of history.

Please don't tell me you expected a political hack like ID to do anything other than that?

 

[Bfgrn]

He may not have but like I said because he claims it in a speech when he is not in office does not necessarily convince me unless you take all politicians at their word.

If you read the speech, Gore lays out WHY he wouldn't invade Iraq. And it turns out every warning he gave came true.

THEN, if you listen to people who were in Bush's administration, you find out invading Iraq was a priority from day ONE.

 

[Onceler]

If you read the speech, Gore lays out WHY he wouldn't invade Iraq. And it turns out every warning he gave came true.

THEN, if you listen to people who were in Bush's administration, you find out invading Iraq was a priority from day ONE.

It's a no brainer for anyone who has studied the history of the Iraq War. That war was made possible by a perfect storm of events, one of which was Bush getting elected.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It's a no brainer for anyone who has studied the history of the Iraq War. That war was made possible by a perfect storm of events, one of which was Bush getting elected.

While I agree that Gore would not likely have gone into Iraq, sooner or later someone would have had to. The only other option was to continue the no-fly zone 'containment' for the next 2-3 decades until Saddam passed.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That said, Gore would also have been likely to cause far more economic damage. His idiocy regarding his global warming hysterics and fear mongering would have wrecked havoc upon the business community and economy.

 

[Onceler]

That said, Gore would also have been likely to cause far more economic damage. His idiocy regarding his global warming hysterics and fear mongering would have wrecked havoc upon the business community and economy.

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.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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.

........

...the constitution is not that difficult to read and understand. from it's inception, the founders have repeatedly said that the written word is to be adhered and that any confusion or ambiguity is clearly defined in the papers and debate minutes. you can't get much clearer than that. anything else outside of that is pandering to the living constitution crowd, which is desperately trying to rewrite the constitution via the judiciary to bring about that socialist society.

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?

 

[Phantasmal]

While I agree that Gore would not likely have gone into Iraq, sooner or later someone would have had to. The only other option was to continue the no-fly zone 'containment' for the next 2-3 decades until Saddam passed.

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

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

That said, Gore would also have been likely to cause far more economic damage. His idiocy regarding his global warming hysterics and fear mongering would have wrecked havoc upon the business community and economy.

The confidence fairies would simply run amuck.