Post by: MicroBalrog on June 19, 2008, 09:54:31 PM
Says His Candidacy Will Benefit From GOP Defectors
By Eric Pianin
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 18, 2008; 4:00 PM
Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee, offered a scathing critique of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) today and predicted he would garner substantial conservative Republican support in a handful of battleground states critical to McCain in his campaign against Democratic Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.).
Barr, a one-time conservative Republican House member from Georgia who broke with the Bush administration and many of his former congressional colleagues, blasted McCain for his support of the war in Iraq, his energy policies and his stand on reducing government spending.
"With regard to domestic policy, Sen. McCain really has put forward nothing that would indicate he believes in dramatically shrinking the size and cost of the government," Barr said during an interview on washingtonpost.com's "PostTalk" program. "He does talk a great game about doing away with earmarks, but that really does not get near to the heart of the matter of the massive federal spending, the massive federal debt and the deficits we're running."
Barr is hoping to become the beneficiary of much of the support and some of the campaign funds generated by Libertarian-leaning Rep. Ron Paul (Texas) during his surprisingly vigorous bid this year for the Republican presidential nomination. Barr said "we really do" see an opportunity to match or exceed Paul's performance in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana and West Virginia, where Paul picked up between eight percent and 15 percent of the Republican primary vote.
No Libertarian Party candidate has ever won more than a million votes nationwide in a presidential general election, but Barr believes he could improve on that with strong showings in the West, Southwest, and a handful of southern and Northeastern states.
"We see this (potential) not just in Ron Paul's very significant vote-getting capability in those states and those areas, but also in Sen. (Hillary) Clinton's ability to dramatically take votes against Senator Obama in the Democrat primaries," he said. "These are states with a lot of Second Amendment enthusiasts and blue-collar Democrats who are much more likely to adopt a Bob Barr message of strong support for civil liberties, smaller government and so forth."
Barr, 59, for years was a conservative Republican foot soldier in the House who strongly supported the war in Iraq, was a booster of the Patriot Act that strengthened the government's domestic surveillance powers, backed measures to ban gay marriage and voted to block the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
But since renouncing the GOP and embracing the anti-government tenets of the Libertarian party a couple years ago, Barr has flip-flopped repeatedly and now strongly opposes the war, condemns the Patriot Act as a violation of civil liberties, criticizes efforts to restrict gay rights, and even favors the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes.
Barr said that "the tremendous growth" of federal government powers since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks "has so dramatically shrunk the sphere of personal liberty in this country ... that it has really caused myself and many other Americans ... to take a much harder look at government power than we did in the past."
Post by: Finch on June 20, 2008, 01:36:30 AM
The founders would be sad.....
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 20, 2008, 01:56:36 AM
Post by: HankB on June 20, 2008, 03:31:35 AM
. . . embracing the anti-government tenets of the Libertarian party . . .
I never thought of the Libertarian party as "anti-government" . . . I thought of them as "anti-excessive-government" with a platform to sharply reduce - but not abolish - the Feds.The writer makes them sound like outright anarchists.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 20, 2008, 03:48:36 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on June 20, 2008, 04:24:15 AM
Finch, I don't think Barr wants to win. He wants to take 2-3% of the vote and be credited for McCain's loss.
So who's funding him, then? Soros?
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 20, 2008, 04:27:23 AM
Finch, I don't think Barr wants to win. He wants to take 2-3% of the vote and be credited for McCain's loss.
So who's funding him, then? Soros?
A Secret Coalition of Leftist Godless Social-Democrats, Elitistl Multimillionaires, and Radical Islamofascist Terrorist Fundamentalist Extremists Who Hate Us And Our Freedom And Democracy And Who Want To Take Away That Freedom And Democracy And Undermine Our Very Way Of Life And KILL US ALL!
Post by: Manedwolf on June 20, 2008, 04:30:54 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 20, 2008, 04:32:28 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on June 20, 2008, 04:33:40 AM
I wouldn't call causing McCain to lose 'irrelevant'.
I meant that if he causes Obama to win, we'll have socialism, and he himself will still be completely irrelevant. His bombthrowing will just have destroyed the country.
Post by: MechAg94 on June 20, 2008, 05:58:29 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 20, 2008, 05:59:53 AM
I wouldn't call causing McCain to lose 'irrelevant'.
I meant that if he causes Obama to win, we'll have socialism, and he himself will still be completely irrelevant. His bombthrowing will just have destroyed the country.
I believe I have responded to these concerns in previous threads. You have read my comments regarding Scylla and Charybdis, yes?
Post by: Manedwolf on June 20, 2008, 06:02:39 AM
I wouldn't call causing McCain to lose 'irrelevant'.
I meant that if he causes Obama to win, we'll have socialism, and he himself will still be completely irrelevant. His bombthrowing will just have destroyed the country.
I believe I have responded to these concerns in previous threads. You have read my comments regarding Scylla and Charybdis, yes?
There is exactly one thing I care about, and that's keeping Obama the unashamed Marxist out of power with a Dem congress behind him. McCain is a mess we can clean up. Obama is not.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 20, 2008, 06:09:59 AM
I wouldn't call causing McCain to lose 'irrelevant'.
I meant that if he causes Obama to win, we'll have socialism, and he himself will still be completely irrelevant. His bombthrowing will just have destroyed the country.
I believe I have responded to these concerns in previous threads. You have read my comments regarding Scylla and Charybdis, yes?
There is exactly one thing I care about, and that's keeping Obama the unashamed Marxist out of power with a Dem congress behind him. McCain is a mess we can clean up. Obama is not.
Why exactly is Obama a "mess we cannot clean up"?
Yes, I get it, he's a left-winger. How is he worse than LBJ or FDR?
Post by: Manedwolf on June 20, 2008, 06:31:46 AM
I wouldn't call causing McCain to lose 'irrelevant'.
I meant that if he causes Obama to win, we'll have socialism, and he himself will still be completely irrelevant. His bombthrowing will just have destroyed the country.
I believe I have responded to these concerns in previous threads. You have read my comments regarding Scylla and Charybdis, yes?
There is exactly one thing I care about, and that's keeping Obama the unashamed Marxist out of power with a Dem congress behind him. McCain is a mess we can clean up. Obama is not.
Why exactly is Obama a "mess we cannot clean up"?
Yes, I get it, he's a left-winger. How is he worse than LBJ or FDR?
If you have to ask, you're not really paying attention.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 20, 2008, 06:35:08 AM
I wouldn't call causing McCain to lose 'irrelevant'.
I meant that if he causes Obama to win, we'll have socialism, and he himself will still be completely irrelevant. His bombthrowing will just have destroyed the country.
I believe I have responded to these concerns in previous threads. You have read my comments regarding Scylla and Charybdis, yes?
There is exactly one thing I care about, and that's keeping Obama the unashamed Marxist out of power with a Dem congress behind him. McCain is a mess we can clean up. Obama is not.
Why exactly is Obama a "mess we cannot clean up"?
Yes, I get it, he's a left-winger. How is he worse than LBJ or FDR?
If you have to ask, you're not really paying attention.
Does Obama support raising taxes to hte same levels they were at in LBJ's time?
Re-enacting the draft?
Will he confiscate privately-held gold?
Will he support drafting Americans into "labor armies"?
Will he introduce a de-facto ban on all handguns?
Will he support putting the entire population on welfare?
And finally: Why do you think his legislative legacy will be impossible to repeal?
Post by: alex_trebek on June 20, 2008, 08:43:25 AM
Quote
Does Obama support raising taxes to hte same levels they were at in LBJ's time?
Re-enacting the draft?
Will he confiscate privately-held gold?
Will he support drafting Americans into "labor armies"?
Will he introduce a de-facto ban on all handguns?
Will he support putting the entire population on welfare?
And finally: Why do you think his legislative legacy will be impossible to repeal?
Re-enacting the draft?
Will he confiscate privately-held gold?
Will he support drafting Americans into "labor armies"?
Will he introduce a de-facto ban on all handguns?
Will he support putting the entire population on welfare?
And finally: Why do you think his legislative legacy will be impossible to repeal?
Do you have any sources for this? I had never heard about LBJ trying to do any of this besides the draft reference. I don't mean to accuse you of lying or anything, I am interested to read about it.
Post by: HankB on June 20, 2008, 08:54:01 AM
Does Obama support raising taxes to hte same levels they were at in LBJ's time?
Maybe - hard to pin down an exact number, but he wants to expire the Bush cuts and has expressed support for the Warner-Lieberman global warming Re-enacting the draft?
Only Democrats have been introducing bills to re-introduce the draft. We don't know where Obama stands. Will he confiscate privately-held gold?
He probably won't pull an FDR, he'll just tax it away . . . and Democrats HAVE been making noises about restricting, regulating, and taxing the private sale and exchange of "non-numismatic" gold for a couple of years now.Will he support drafting Americans into "labor armies"?
Don't know where he stands on mandatory "national service."Will he introduce a de-facto ban on all handguns?
He wants to ban concealed carry - even within one's own state - and has expressed support for "reasonable" gun laws, specifically singling out DC's handgun ban as "reasonable."Will he support putting the entire population on welfare?
He supports the UN's initiative for civilized nations to contribute a portion of their GDP to "fighting global poverty" . . . the US's initial share would come to $845,000,000,000 in the first five years. Sounds a lot like welfare on a global scale.And finally: Why do you think his legislative legacy will be impossible to repeal?
Obama wants to expand and implement new government bureaucracies dealing with everything from global warming to health care . . . once created, how many government bureaucracies have ever been abolished?Post by: ilbob on June 20, 2008, 09:40:59 AM
. . . embracing the anti-government tenets of the Libertarian party . . .
I never thought of the Libertarian party as "anti-government" . . . I thought of them as "anti-excessive-government" with a platform to sharply reduce - but not abolish - the Feds.The writer makes them sound like outright anarchists.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 20, 2008, 10:10:44 AM
. . . embracing the anti-government tenets of the Libertarian party . . .
I never thought of the Libertarian party as "anti-government" . . . I thought of them as "anti-excessive-government" with a platform to sharply reduce - but not abolish - the Feds.The writer makes them sound like outright anarchists.
The ones in this area are. They even use the A symbol.
Post by: seeker_two on June 20, 2008, 11:17:04 AM
Finch, I don't think Barr wants to win. He wants to take 2-3% of the vote and be credited for McCain's loss.
So who's funding him, then? Soros?
A Secret Coalition of Leftist Godless Social-Democrats, Elitistl Multimillionaires, and Radical Islamofascist Terrorist Fundamentalist Extremists Who Hate Us And Our Freedom And Democracy And Who Want To Take Away That Freedom And Democracy And Undermine Our Very Way Of Life And KILL US ALL!
COBRA?.....
I look for the Libertarians to break the 10% mark in votes this election. It won't get Barr elected, but it'll get the GOP's attention.....
Post by: roo_ster on June 20, 2008, 12:01:58 PM
I look for the Libertarians to break the 10% mark in votes this election. It won't get Barr elected, but it'll get the GOP's attention.....
I'll bet you a case of your/my favorite beer the LP does not break 10% popular vote. You up for that wager?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 20, 2008, 12:49:00 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on June 20, 2008, 01:52:50 PM
i'll cover some of that action i think 10% is wishful thinking
I think it's akin to "RON PAUL WILL WIN!!!!111eleventy"
Post by: seeker_two on June 20, 2008, 03:05:54 PM
I look for the Libertarians to break the 10% mark in votes this election. It won't get Barr elected, but it'll get the GOP's attention.....
I'll bet you a case of your/my favorite beer the LP does not break 10% popular vote. You up for that wager?
Sure....as soon as I find what my favorite beer is. I'm still working my way through the suggestions on the other thread....
And I don't think 10% is that optimistic....McCain is that bad......and a lot of people want to stick it to the Repubs....this would do it without having to vote for a liberal....
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 20, 2008, 03:11:19 PM
Barr's defeat was applauded by many Democrats and Libertarians. Rob Kampia of the Marijuana Policy Project called it "glorious news".[25] Ron Crickenberger, producer of the TV ads, was quick to warn other drug warriors:
With this victory, we have fired a warning shot for every drug warrior in Congress to hear. And any member of Congress -- Democrat or Republican -- who introduces legislation to make federal drug laws even more oppressive could be next on our list.
Ron Crickenberger, Libertarian Party Political Director, August 2002[23]
However, some individuals within these groups lamented Barr's defeat as a setback for privacy rights,[26] and libertarian causes in general.[24] Libertarian J. Bradley Jansen put it bluntly:
The LP has a historic opportunity to present itself as a viable alternative to the big parties, instead of spending its money and energy trying to defeat one of libertarianism's few friends in Congress just because they disagree with him on one issue.
if you can't beat em join em
Post by: roo_ster on June 20, 2008, 03:41:20 PM
I look for the Libertarians to break the 10% mark in votes this election. It won't get Barr elected, but it'll get the GOP's attention.....
I'll bet you a case of your/my favorite beer the LP does not break 10% popular vote. You up for that wager?
Sure....as soon as I find what my favorite beer is. I'm still working my way through the suggestions on the other thread....
And I don't think 10% is that optimistic....McCain is that bad......and a lot of people want to stick it to the Repubs....this would do it without having to vote for a liberal....
I will gladly shoulder the burden of choosing your beer, in the event that you win the bet. I have a pretty good taste for brews and am not likely to lead you off the malt & hoppy path of righteousness.
Believe you me, I would not send a sub-standard brew your way, as I value my reputation both here and in beer-land.
Hmmm, I think I need to take a look-see at what I have in the fridge to satisfy a craving that just hit...
Post by: longeyes on June 20, 2008, 04:13:34 PM
Barr is a narcissistic gadfly. There is way too much riding on this Election for this kind of foolish posturing. If Barr had a better way he should have run for the GOP nomination.
Post by: seeker_two on June 20, 2008, 04:26:02 PM
Most of us are all too aware of McCain's deficiencies. But Obama's far outweigh McCain's on the critical stuff and there's at least some sliver of hope we might be able to push McCain rightward.
Barr is a narcissistic gadfly. There is way too much riding on this Election for this kind of foolish posturing. If Barr had a better way he should have run for the GOP nomination.
Barr is a narcissistic gadfly. There is way too much riding on this Election for this kind of foolish posturing. If Barr had a better way he should have run for the GOP nomination.
Like Hunter and Tancredo?....
Post by: LAK on June 20, 2008, 11:43:37 PM
------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 21, 2008, 04:58:55 AM
. . . embracing the anti-government tenets of the Libertarian party . . .
I never thought of the Libertarian party as "anti-government" . . . I thought of them as "anti-excessive-government" with a platform to sharply reduce - but not abolish - the Feds.The writer makes them sound like outright anarchists.
The ones in this area are. They even use the A symbol.
The horror!
I'm wagering for the LP to get 2, maybe 3 percent, and for McCain to lose due to that.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 21, 2008, 12:20:48 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 21, 2008, 12:51:30 PM
is that a two part bet? i'll cover both parts. what you wagering? i don't like cheetos.
Pity. I have a half-ton supply in my basement.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 21, 2008, 10:47:28 PM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on June 22, 2008, 04:44:37 AM
is that a two part bet? i'll cover both parts. what you wagering? i don't like cheetos.
Blasphemer! Cheetos are quite possibly, nature's most perfect food!
except maybe peanut butter
Post by: ilbob on June 22, 2008, 06:43:55 AM
i'll cover some of that action i think 10% is wishful thinking
Even 5% is wishful thinking.
Post by: seeker_two on June 22, 2008, 01:12:36 PM
i'll cover some of that action i think 10% is wishful thinking
Even 5% is wishful thinking.
McCain winning is wishful thinking.....5% is a Libertarian mandate....
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 22, 2008, 01:35:15 PM
Post by: Scout26 on June 22, 2008, 02:17:31 PM
is that a two part bet? i'll cover both parts. what you wagering? i don't like cheetos.
Pity. I have a half-ton supply in my basement.
You too ?? I went long on Chee-to futures (thinking RP would stay in the race until the convention) and now have several railcars full of 'em I need to unload.
Post by: roo_ster on June 22, 2008, 05:13:18 PM
I still think it unlikely that the LP will break 1% of the vote. 10% is the stuff of fever dreams.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 22, 2008, 07:50:10 PM
the paulians are so bitter
And what's wrong with being 'bitter'?
Post by: seeker_two on June 23, 2008, 12:57:36 AM
the paulians are so bitter
And what's wrong with being 'bitter'?
Us "bitter people" have God and guns, remember?....
Post by: Manedwolf on June 23, 2008, 03:59:58 AM
the paulians are so bitter
And what's wrong with being 'bitter'?
Us "bitter people" have God and guns, remember?....
Well, actually, that's mostly Republicans. The big L libertarians keep getting busted by the feds and losing them all for pulling stupid and illegal stunts.
You know...
"We'll just mint our own coins with dollar denominations and tell people to pass them off as legal tender!" *raid*
"I won't pay any taxes ever! They won't take me alive!" *clank* "20 years."
"BATFE is stupid! I don't need to obey these...!" *clank* "10 years."
etc...
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 23, 2008, 04:51:55 AM
Quote
Well, actually, that's mostly Republicans. The big L libertarians keep getting busted by the feds and losing them all for pulling stupid and illegal stunts. cheesy
You know...
"We'll just mint our own coins with dollar denominations and tell people to pass them off as legal tender!" *raid*
"I won't pay any taxes ever! They won't take me alive!" *clank* "20 years."
"BATFE is stupid! I don't need to obey these...!" *clank* "10 years."
etc...
You know...
"We'll just mint our own coins with dollar denominations and tell people to pass them off as legal tender!" *raid*
"I won't pay any taxes ever! They won't take me alive!" *clank* "20 years."
"BATFE is stupid! I don't need to obey these...!" *clank* "10 years."
etc...
If enough people engage in civil disobedience, it becomes an effective tool. Of course, some people don't have the balls to disobey and will follow any law no matter how immoral it is.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 23, 2008, 04:53:14 AM
the paulians are so bitter
What do you base that statement on?
Post by: Manedwolf on June 23, 2008, 05:00:16 AM
Quote
Well, actually, that's mostly Republicans. The big L libertarians keep getting busted by the feds and losing them all for pulling stupid and illegal stunts. cheesy
You know...
"We'll just mint our own coins with dollar denominations and tell people to pass them off as legal tender!" *raid*
"I won't pay any taxes ever! They won't take me alive!" *clank* "20 years."
"BATFE is stupid! I don't need to obey these...!" *clank* "10 years."
etc...
You know...
"We'll just mint our own coins with dollar denominations and tell people to pass them off as legal tender!" *raid*
"I won't pay any taxes ever! They won't take me alive!" *clank* "20 years."
"BATFE is stupid! I don't need to obey these...!" *clank* "10 years."
etc...
If enough people engage in civil disobedience, it becomes an effective tool. Of course, some people don't have the balls to disobey and will follow any law no matter how immoral it is.
No, actually, putting on suits and getting things done in the courtroom is far more effective than middle-aged men putting on mismatched fatigues and stamping around with a rifle until the feds take them down.
Whenever the libertarian-loonies start their show, I just sit back with popcorn, and laugh. It always ends the same way, and they never learn. They just flail and cry about zionists and illuminati and all even after they're arrested. (That Brown guy was complaining they had a secret plot to "gas" him when they used cellblock disinfectant.)
Makes for good entertainment, though.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 23, 2008, 05:04:51 AM
Also, the NORFED people, whose MLM enterprise I never supported, have not passed off their pseudocoins as legal tender.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 23, 2008, 05:07:48 AM
So you argue civil disobedience is bad altogether, or just civil disobedience by people who don't wear suits?
Also, the NORFED people, whose MLM enterprise I never supported, have not passed off their pseudocoins as legal tender.
Also, the NORFED people, whose MLM enterprise I never supported, have not passed off their pseudocoins as legal tender.
Yes, they did. They put both "$20" and "20 DOLLARS" on the coin in the same font as US currency, had "USA", and used common federal imagery. That's illegal. You cannot say "dollars" and use the $ without something saying "non-negotiable" or "not legal tender". Which it did not have.
They also published instructions on how to to try to use it to pay for goods and services, when silver was $15/ounce at the time. That was clearcut promotion of fraud. They got stomped for it.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 23, 2008, 05:08:19 AM
Quote
Well, actually, that's mostly Republicans. The big L libertarians keep getting busted by the feds and losing them all for pulling stupid and illegal stunts. cheesy
You know...
"We'll just mint our own coins with dollar denominations and tell people to pass them off as legal tender!" *raid*
"I won't pay any taxes ever! They won't take me alive!" *clank* "20 years."
"BATFE is stupid! I don't need to obey these...!" *clank* "10 years."
etc...
You know...
"We'll just mint our own coins with dollar denominations and tell people to pass them off as legal tender!" *raid*
"I won't pay any taxes ever! They won't take me alive!" *clank* "20 years."
"BATFE is stupid! I don't need to obey these...!" *clank* "10 years."
etc...
If enough people engage in civil disobedience, it becomes an effective tool. Of course, some people don't have the balls to disobey and will follow any law no matter how immoral it is.
No, actually, putting on suits and getting things done in the courtroom is far more effective than middle-aged men putting on mismatched fatigues and stamping around with a rifle until the feds take them down.
Whenever the libertarian-loonies start their show, I just sit back with popcorn, and laugh. It always ends the same way, and they never learn. They just flail and cry about zionists and illuminati and all even after they're arrested. (That Brown guy was complaining they had a secret plot to "gas" him when they used cellblock disinfectant.)
Makes for good entertainment, though. Civil disobedience clearly means different things to you than it does to me. I just ignore rules I disagree with whenever practical. I feel pretty free most of the time as a result. When ignoring dumb rules is impractical then other tactics should be considered. Running around in the woods in camouflage is generally not practical for much of anything.
Post by: xavier fremboe on June 23, 2008, 03:04:33 PM
Quote
Why exactly is Obama a "mess we cannot clean up"?
Yes, I get it, he's a left-winger. How is he worse than LBJ or FDR?
We are still hamstrung by the legacies of LBJ and FDR. He doesn't need to even be worse to implement policies even more detrimental to the country. Obama, with a democrat congress could do irreparable damage. Once something is in place that someone is 'entitled' to, it becomes virtually the equivalent of a right.
Yes, I get it, he's a left-winger. How is he worse than LBJ or FDR?
Post by: HK-91-762MM on June 23, 2008, 04:33:34 PM
Next time the RNC might think longer before they put RINOS up as my only choice to vote for >>
Besides next election after Yomomma Has had time to show his true colors --We might pull a 94 election again and take all 3 -house, senate and potus.
Lets see -We get a lib and our guns go--We get the party of jessssuuuss and we live under Talaban Sharrieea Christian law! Ones as bad as the other -We get libertarians and I have to work with a bunch Of toasted Druggies..Cant win!!!
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 23, 2008, 10:17:06 PM
Quote
Why exactly is Obama a "mess we cannot clean up"?
Yes, I get it, he's a left-winger. How is he worse than LBJ or FDR?
We are still hamstrung by the legacies of LBJ and FDR. He doesn't need to even be worse to implement policies even more detrimental to the country. Obama, with a democrat congress could do irreparable damage. Once something is in place that someone is 'entitled' to, it becomes virtually the equivalent of a right.Yes, I get it, he's a left-winger. How is he worse than LBJ or FDR?
So you're arguing it's completely impossible to undo the legacies of LBJ and FDR? Ever?
Post by: xavier fremboe on June 24, 2008, 03:56:48 AM
Quote
Why exactly is Obama a "mess we cannot clean up"?
Yes, I get it, he's a left-winger. How is he worse than LBJ or FDR?
We are still hamstrung by the legacies of LBJ and FDR. He doesn't need to even be worse to implement policies even more detrimental to the country. Obama, with a democrat congress could do irreparable damage. Once something is in place that someone is 'entitled' to, it becomes virtually the equivalent of a right.Yes, I get it, he's a left-winger. How is he worse than LBJ or FDR?
So you're arguing it's completely impossible to undo the legacies of LBJ and FDR? Ever?
Obama has already said he wants to lift the cap, so do you really don't think he's going to do anything about it?
The genie never goes back into the bottle, and I see an Obama rubbing lamps left and right.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 24, 2008, 04:08:56 AM
Divorce a thing from its purpose and you kill the thing.
The purpose of the GOP is to repeal the Great Society, or at least some of it.
By making McCain a Republican President, you will divorce the GOP forever from this purpose. It'll just be another European 'soft-right' party. And that means you'll never get out of the mess. Eventually a Democrat will get elected and institute more socialism. It's inevitable if you don't try and push them back.
But if Obama gets elected - which he likely will - and later we get a real Republican candidate, we can at least start slowly hacking away at the FDR-LBJ-BHO legacy.
If it is potentially possible to undo FDR and LBJ, then we can also undo BHO [which is NOT like LBJ and FDR].
If it is NOT possible to undo them, then it doesn't matter who you vote for, we are screwed anyhow.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 24, 2008, 04:14:03 AM
It hasn't been possible to undo 1934, 1968 or 1986.
And once all-gun registration is law, the data can't be erased. It will BE.
This is why Obama cannot be elected. He must be defeated, the people must be informed as to what ruin he would bring and vote against him. The cost is too great otherwise.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 24, 2008, 04:15:14 AM
Post by: xavier fremboe on June 24, 2008, 04:20:12 AM
Post by: Balog on June 24, 2008, 04:27:10 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on June 24, 2008, 04:27:50 AM
I heard someone being interviewed on a BBC Radio report this weekend. His statement was something to the effect of, "McCain wasn't my first choice. He wasn't my second choice. He wasn't even really my third choice. But I'd rather have a third rate fireman on the job than a first class arsonist."
That's a good summary of the situation.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 24, 2008, 04:35:37 AM
Now, while I agree with Balog's point - parts of 1968 were repealed - the key question remains:
If the only thing you can do is fight a delaying action, why bother?
Post by: roo_ster on June 24, 2008, 06:03:18 AM
McCain isn't a fireman. He's just a guy who stands and watches the house burn - and the State expand.
Now, while I agree with Balog's point - parts of 1968 were repealed - the key question remains:
If the only thing you can do is fight a delaying action, why bother?
Now, while I agree with Balog's point - parts of 1968 were repealed - the key question remains:
If the only thing you can do is fight a delaying action, why bother?
Because:
1. Fighting for what is right and for the COTUS is honorable, whatever the odds
2. More time spent with more liberty is better than more time spent with less liberty
3. Delaying actions are a sign of hope & optimism. The delaying action is implemented so as to allow time for the forces of liberty to rally and convince others to join the cause.
4. The more Really Bad Ideas and unconstitutional, liberty-destroying initiatives we prevent from happening will make the return of liberty that much easier.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 24, 2008, 06:07:39 AM
I heard someone being interviewed on a BBC Radio report this weekend. His statement was something to the effect of, "McCain wasn't my first choice. He wasn't my second choice. He wasn't even really my third choice. But I'd rather have a third rate fireman on the job than a first class arsonist."
That's true up to a point. When the roof is leaking and the foundation is rotted then sometimes, I'd just rather see the house burn down. Not saying this house at this time, but you get my point.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 24, 2008, 06:15:02 AM
Because:
1. Fighting for what is right and for the COTUS is honorable, whatever the odds
2. More time spent with more liberty is better than more time spent with less liberty
3. Delaying actions are a sign of hope & optimism. The delaying action is implemented so as to allow time for the forces of liberty to rally and convince others to join the cause.
4. The more Really Bad Ideas and unconstitutional, liberty-destroying initiatives we prevent from happening will make the return of liberty that much easier.
Yes, but Manedwolf claims that liberty will NEVER return. That the Bad Ideas that already were accepted are here to stay.
If that is the case, the odds are basically zero.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 24, 2008, 06:16:32 AM
I heard someone being interviewed on a BBC Radio report this weekend. His statement was something to the effect of, "McCain wasn't my first choice. He wasn't my second choice. He wasn't even really my third choice. But I'd rather have a third rate fireman on the job than a first class arsonist."
That's true up to a point. When the roof is leaking and the foundation is rotted then sometimes, I'd just rather see the house burn down. Not saying this house at this time, but you get my point.
Uh.
I'd rather the lights stay on and the gas stations have gas, and my guns are able to stay in the safe, thanks.
An absolute breakdown would very much suck, and I would rather not see one.
Post by: longeyes on June 24, 2008, 06:26:07 AM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 24, 2008, 06:27:45 AM
I heard someone being interviewed on a BBC Radio report this weekend. His statement was something to the effect of, "McCain wasn't my first choice. He wasn't my second choice. He wasn't even really my third choice. But I'd rather have a third rate fireman on the job than a first class arsonist."
That's true up to a point. When the roof is leaking and the foundation is rotted then sometimes, I'd just rather see the house burn down. Not saying this house at this time, but you get my point.
Uh.
I'd rather the lights stay on and the gas stations have gas, and my guns are able to stay in the safe, thanks.
An absolute breakdown would very much suck, and I would rather not see one.
I'd rather that society's fabric hold together too, but historically, no great empire lasts. Not saying the cycle will end in flames in our lifetimes but it is one of the possibilities. Our system works only because people have faith in it. When that faith is shaken enough to break the system will crumble.
We can argue till we're blue in the face about McCain and Obama. The truth is they are both terrible choices if you love freedom.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 24, 2008, 06:28:44 AM
Anyone who wants to see it all burn down is guilty of terminal romanticism. We do have workable options, even now. They may be dramatic, they may be draconian, but they do exist.
My "desire" to see a fire was conditionally based and pretty nebulous. What are our workable options?
Post by: roo_ster on June 24, 2008, 06:58:04 AM
Because:
1. Fighting for what is right and for the COTUS is honorable, whatever the odds
2. More time spent with more liberty is better than more time spent with less liberty
3. Delaying actions are a sign of hope & optimism. The delaying action is implemented so as to allow time for the forces of liberty to rally and convince others to join the cause.
4. The more Really Bad Ideas and unconstitutional, liberty-destroying initiatives we prevent from happening will make the return of liberty that much easier.
Yes, but Manedwolf claims that liberty will NEVER return. That the Bad Ideas that already were accepted are here to stay.
If that is the case, the odds are basically zero.
Points 1 & 2 still apply, even if thre is zero chance for a revival of liberty.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 24, 2008, 10:07:43 AM
There was a time before the Great Society. Society existed without these institutions. As such, it is possible that it may exist in this fashion again. I just want it to happen before I'm too fragging old to realize that I'm free.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 24, 2008, 10:10:25 AM
So why, precisely, do you bother with politics if you don't think anything can be done but a long delaying action?
If liberties lost are gone for good, then isn't it obviously a good thing to postpone the losses for as long as possible?Maybe we can regain lost liberties, maybe we can't. Seems smarter to not lose them in the first place. That means delaying action. Delay as long as possible, indefinitely if possible, any additional loss of liberty.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 24, 2008, 05:53:46 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 24, 2008, 09:30:09 PM
If we keep blowing our chances to go on the offensive, we're going to be stuck in a fighting retreat our whole lives.
Thank you.