On January 26 2012 18:45 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: So, why do you support this warmongering president still?
Obama is absolutely a hawk, there's little denying that. The non-sequitur in this is that Ron Paul calls it, while his party and most of its supporters accuse Obama of being too weak. It puts him in a slightly awkward position, but I guess that's what people should've expected from a centrist. Too hawkish for the left, too doveish for the right.
As far as constitutionality, he surprisingly curbed some of his executive powers, Bush had taken, early on. At the very least, I don't think it's unfair to say that he's as constitution abiding as any other president in the last 150 years, even if you want to stick with an originalist interpretation.
As for Newt and Reagan, it's pretty much true. Reagan despised Gingrich, the only question is if people will remembEr/care.
On January 26 2012 18:45 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: So, why do you support this warmongering president still?
Obama is absolutely a hawk, there's little denying that. The non-sequitur in this is that Ron Paul calls it, while his party and most of its supporters accuse Obama of being too weak. It puts him in a slightly awkward position, but I guess that's what people should've expected from a centrist. Too hawkish for the left, too doveish for the right.
As far as constitutionality, he surprisingly curbed some of his executive powers, Bush had taken, early on. At the very least, I don't think it's unfair to say that he's as constitution abiding as any other president in the last 150 years, even if you want to stick with an originalist interpretation.
I am still waiting to see the percentage of Ron Paul supporters that are going to vote for the mainstream Republican that is going to be chosen.
On a more serious note, I don't think Ron Paul accuses Obama of being a hawk because of a dovish or pacifist position. In a way, Paul's isolationism is as far from a left-wing pacifism than from the Bush doctrine and the most aggressive Republican hawks.
You can't put together similar positions obtained through opposite reasoning. Obama is a dove for Republicans, a hawk for leftists, and a tyrannic leader that goes against people's right (to chose their regime but also to be slaughtered by a bloody tyran) for libertarians.
Speaker: Mr. Gingrich, how do you plan on reducing America's staggering deficit?
Newt: Well, obviously what we need is a moon base. Any economist will tell you that coutries without moonbases frequently go into debt. Look at Greece... they have no moon base.
Speaker: And what are your plans for creating new jobs for American citizens.
Newt: Well, the moon base is sure going to need a whole lot of space-technicians and astro-janitors and such. Sure, the commute will cost about 400 million dollars, but new jobs are a key American priority... that, and a moon base, obviously.
Speaker: And what about American policy on foreign...
In the increasingly rough Republican campaign, no candidate has wrapped himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan more often than Newt Gingrich. “I worked with President Reagan to change things in Washington,” “we helped defeat the Soviet empire,” and “I helped lead the effort to defeat Communism in the Congress” are typical claims by the former speaker of the House.
The claims are misleading at best. As a new member of Congress in the Reagan years — and I was an assistant secretary of state — Mr. Gingrich voted with the president regularly, but equally often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides, and his policies to defeat Communism. Gingrich was voluble and certain in predicting that Reagan’s policies would fail, and in all of this he was dead wrong. ....
But not Newt Gingrich. He voted with the caucus, but his words should be remembered, for at the height of the bitter struggle with the Democratic leadership Gingrich chose to attack . . . Reagan.
The best examples come from a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986. This was right in the middle of the fight over funding for the Nicaraguan contras; the money had been cut off by Congress in 1985, though Reagan got $100 million for this cause in 1986. Here is Gingrich: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.” Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which “have no strategies to defeat the empire.” But of course “the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan.” Our efforts against the Communists in the Third World were “pathetically incompetent,” so those anti-Communist members of Congress who questioned the $100 million Reagan sought for the Nicaraguan “contra” rebels “are fundamentally right.” Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”
On January 26 2012 23:36 bOneSeven wrote: that image is insulting to libertarians. and to human beings with iq higher than 1 anyways.
Oh yeah?
I think on the opposite that it shows very accurately the inconsistency of claiming being a libertarian and voting for a militarist, warmonger, socially ultra-conservative and authoritative party.
Hasn't every aspiring politician in the last several decades made talk of great plans for space exploration and then never bothered to deliver on it?
Bush gave Mars mission talks, Obama made a fuss about moonbases or Mars missions or something, Clinton had talked about increasing the NASA budget, etc. They never actually do it, but it's a nice thing to bring up to remind us how cool and sciency America could be.
On January 26 2012 18:45 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: So, why do you support this warmongering president still?
Obama is absolutely a hawk, there's little denying that. The non-sequitur in this is that Ron Paul calls it, while his party and most of its supporters accuse Obama of being too weak. It puts him in a slightly awkward position, but I guess that's what people should've expected from a centrist. Too hawkish for the left, too doveish for the right.
As far as constitutionality, he surprisingly curbed some of his executive powers, Bush had taken, early on. At the very least, I don't think it's unfair to say that he's as constitution abiding as any other president in the last 150 years, even if you want to stick with an originalist interpretation.
I am still waiting to see the percentage of Ron Paul supporters that are going to vote for the mainstream Republican that is going to be chosen.
On a more serious note, I don't think Ron Paul accuses Obama of being a hawk because of a dovish or pacifist position. In a way, Paul's isolationism is as far from a left-wing pacifism than from the Bush doctrine and the most aggressive Republican hawks.
You can't put together similar positions obtained through opposite reasoning. Obama is a dove for Republicans, a hawk for leftists, and a tyrannic leader that goes against people's right (to chose their regime but also to be slaughtered by a bloody tyran) for libertarians.
Well. I guess when most libertarians vote they do it based on a cost-benefit system. And for most liberatarians economic freedom weights heigher than personal freedom.
On January 26 2012 23:36 bOneSeven wrote: that image is insulting to libertarians. and to human beings with iq higher than 1 anyways.
Well it's only insulting to libertarians that vote republican
But it's a shame that we don't seem have a small government party. And no the republicans don't seem to be small government at all. Seems unbalanced. Makes politics seem disingenuous.
On January 26 2012 22:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 26 2012 22:09 Jibba wrote:
On January 26 2012 18:45 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: So, why do you support this warmongering president still?
Obama is absolutely a hawk, there's little denying that. The non-sequitur in this is that Ron Paul calls it, while his party and most of its supporters accuse Obama of being too weak. It puts him in a slightly awkward position, but I guess that's what people should've expected from a centrist. Too hawkish for the left, too doveish for the right.
As far as constitutionality, he surprisingly curbed some of his executive powers, Bush had taken, early on. At the very least, I don't think it's unfair to say that he's as constitution abiding as any other president in the last 150 years, even if you want to stick with an originalist interpretation.
I am still waiting to see the percentage of Ron Paul supporters that are going to vote for the mainstream Republican that is going to be chosen.
On a more serious note, I don't think Ron Paul accuses Obama of being a hawk because of a dovish or pacifist position. In a way, Paul's isolationism is as far from a left-wing pacifism than from the Bush doctrine and the most aggressive Republican hawks.
You can't put together similar positions obtained through opposite reasoning. Obama is a dove for Republicans, a hawk for leftists, and a tyrannic leader that goes against people's right (to chose their regime but also to be slaughtered by a bloody tyran) for libertarians.
Well. I guess when most libertarians vote they do it based on a cost-benefit system. And for most liberatarians economic freedom weights heigher than personal freedom.
Free trade comes before free people. I'm fine with it. It just keeps convincing me that libertarians talking about liberty and such are hypocrites: It's fine, I am ready to compromise, to go invade Irak or make laws against abortion, as long as I have less taxes to pay and I can do whatever I want with my workers.
This way of conceiving humanity, its freedom, its interest, through the sole prism of private property is what I find so damn offensive with libertarians ideas.
On January 26 2012 22:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 26 2012 22:09 Jibba wrote:
On January 26 2012 18:45 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: So, why do you support this warmongering president still?
Obama is absolutely a hawk, there's little denying that. The non-sequitur in this is that Ron Paul calls it, while his party and most of its supporters accuse Obama of being too weak. It puts him in a slightly awkward position, but I guess that's what people should've expected from a centrist. Too hawkish for the left, too doveish for the right.
As far as constitutionality, he surprisingly curbed some of his executive powers, Bush had taken, early on. At the very least, I don't think it's unfair to say that he's as constitution abiding as any other president in the last 150 years, even if you want to stick with an originalist interpretation.
I am still waiting to see the percentage of Ron Paul supporters that are going to vote for the mainstream Republican that is going to be chosen.
On a more serious note, I don't think Ron Paul accuses Obama of being a hawk because of a dovish or pacifist position. In a way, Paul's isolationism is as far from a left-wing pacifism than from the Bush doctrine and the most aggressive Republican hawks.
You can't put together similar positions obtained through opposite reasoning. Obama is a dove for Republicans, a hawk for leftists, and a tyrannic leader that goes against people's right (to chose their regime but also to be slaughtered by a bloody tyran) for libertarians.
Well. I guess when most libertarians vote they do it based on a cost-benefit system. And for most liberatarians economic freedom weights heigher than personal freedom.
Free trade comes before free people. I'm fine with it. It just keeps convincing me that libertarians talking about liberty and such are hypocrites: It's fine, I am ready to compromise, to go invade Irak or make laws against abortion, as long as I have less taxes to pay and I can do whatever I want with my workers.
This way of conceiving humanity, its freedom, its interest, through the sole prism of private property is what I find so damn offensive with libertarians ideas.
Well a lot of liberatarians actually aren't voting. I my self wouldn't vote between between Obama and Gingrich/mitt Romney. Imo they both seem terrible. But if on party would say support lower taxes and decreases government spendings, while still being against drugs, gaymarriage, I would prob vote for him. Not because I dont think they should be legalized, but because I only have 2 option. And I take the lesser evil based on my subjective evils. This doesn't make me a hypocrite, as I can't avoid the "evil" no matter what. If in fact I would be able to have economic freedom and personal freedom at the same time, but only took the economic freedom, then that indeed make me a hyprocrite.
On January 26 2012 13:24 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: I can't believe the Federal Reserve is insistent on keeping interest rates so low until 2014. Seems remarkably short sighted for what really is a long term problem. I just feel sorry for the older generation that managed to be prudent with their savings and will now be living off their principal so that this immediate-gratification generation can artificially buy houses and cars they normally wouldn't be able to afford.
28:27 addresses your concern.
Another point to note is that inflation is currently very low, and well below the Fed's 2% target, partly offsetting the effect of lower interest rates.
The current economic situation is not a long term problem. It is a short term problem. There is a lack of demand right now. The deficit being high is a long term problem. It is responsible that the Fed is doing everything it can in the short term to stimulate the economy given the political paralysis preventing any fiscal policy response.
A bunch of ignorant, uneducated, stupid people spewing falsehoods about the inflation that will never come, and the evils of the Federal Reserve.
What makes a problem short-term and long term. Short-term = spending problem. But isn't everything solved by more spending? Or is long-term problem some kind of infastructural, technological problem?
On January 27 2012 00:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 27 2012 00:27 Hider wrote:
On January 26 2012 22:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 26 2012 22:09 Jibba wrote:
On January 26 2012 18:45 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: So, why do you support this warmongering president still?
Obama is absolutely a hawk, there's little denying that. The non-sequitur in this is that Ron Paul calls it, while his party and most of its supporters accuse Obama of being too weak. It puts him in a slightly awkward position, but I guess that's what people should've expected from a centrist. Too hawkish for the left, too doveish for the right.
As far as constitutionality, he surprisingly curbed some of his executive powers, Bush had taken, early on. At the very least, I don't think it's unfair to say that he's as constitution abiding as any other president in the last 150 years, even if you want to stick with an originalist interpretation.
I am still waiting to see the percentage of Ron Paul supporters that are going to vote for the mainstream Republican that is going to be chosen.
On a more serious note, I don't think Ron Paul accuses Obama of being a hawk because of a dovish or pacifist position. In a way, Paul's isolationism is as far from a left-wing pacifism than from the Bush doctrine and the most aggressive Republican hawks.
You can't put together similar positions obtained through opposite reasoning. Obama is a dove for Republicans, a hawk for leftists, and a tyrannic leader that goes against people's right (to chose their regime but also to be slaughtered by a bloody tyran) for libertarians.
Well. I guess when most libertarians vote they do it based on a cost-benefit system. And for most liberatarians economic freedom weights heigher than personal freedom.
Free trade comes before free people. I'm fine with it. It just keeps convincing me that libertarians talking about liberty and such are hypocrites: It's fine, I am ready to compromise, to go invade Irak or make laws against abortion, as long as I have less taxes to pay and I can do whatever I want with my workers.
This way of conceiving humanity, its freedom, its interest, through the sole prism of private property is what I find so damn offensive with libertarians ideas.
Well a lot of liberatarians actually aren't voting. I my self wouldn't vote between between Obama and Gingrich/mitt Romney. Imo they both seem terrible. But if on party would say support lower taxes and decreases government spendings, while still being against drugs, gaymarriage, I would prob vote for him. Not because I dont think they should be legalized, but because I only have 2 option. And I take the lesser evil based on my subjective evils. This doesn't make me a hypocrite, as I can't avoid the "evil" no matter what. If in fact I would be able to have economic freedom and personal freedom at the same time, but only took the economic freedom, then that indeed make me a hyprocrite.
Not addressed to you personally, but most Americans claiming to be 'libertarians' are hypocrites. Demanding economic freedom at both a national and state level, yet unwilling to adress 'personal freedom' which for mysterious reasons becomes a 'state issue'. Libertarianism in the American sense isn't liberatarianism, it's strict conservative constitutionalism, and the two aren't the same.
One is a valid political ideology, the other is a ridiculous mystical belief in the, partially incoherent, principles of a document over 200 years old that by all accounts is unequipped to deal with the challenges of changing times. Which is why there has always been a need for amendments to it.
Also, for all our enjoyment, Romney's latest attack ad:
And Bob Dole's statement on Gingrich:
I have not been critical of Newt Gingrich, but it is now time to take a stand before it is too late. If Gingrich is the nominee it will have an adverse impact on Republican candidates running for county, state and federal offices. Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed him and that fact speaks for itself. He was a one-man-band who rarely took advice. It was his way or the highway.
Gingrich served as speaker from 1995 to 1999 and had trouble within his own party. Already in 1997 a number of House members wanted to throw him out as speaker. But he hung on until after the 1998 elections when the writing was on the wall. His mounting ethics problems caused him to resign in early 1999. I know whereof I speak as I helped establish a line of credit of $150,000 to help Newt pay off the fine for his ethics violations. In the end, he paid the fine with money from other sources.
Gingrich had a new idea every minute and most of them were off the wall. He loved picking a fight with Bill Clinton because he knew this would get the attention of the press. This and a myriad of other specifics helped to topple Gingrich in 1998.
In my run for the presidency in 1996 the Democrats greeted me with a number of negative TV ads, and in every one of them Newt was in the ad. He was very unpopular and I am not only certain that this did not help me, but that it also cost House seats that year. Newt would show up at the campaign headquarters with an empty ice-bucket in his hand — that was a symbol of some sort for him — and I never did know what he was doing or why he was doing it.
In my opinion if we want to avoid an Obama landslide in November, Republicans should nominate Governor Romney as our standard bearer. He has the requisite experience in the public and private sectors. He would be a president we could have confidence in.
I dont know if I agree. Most libertarians dont claim to be libertarians, unless they in fact are. Americans generally seem to like the word "conservative more", or conservative libertarian. Maybe a small part of the last group in fact isn't libertarian, and hence are hyprocrits when they claim to be.
On January 26 2012 23:44 Haemonculus wrote: Hasn't every aspiring politician in the last several decades made talk of great plans for space exploration and then never bothered to deliver on it?
Bush gave Mars mission talks, Obama made a fuss about moonbases or Mars missions or something, Clinton had talked about increasing the NASA budget, etc. They never actually do it, but it's a nice thing to bring up to remind us how cool and sciency America could be.
When forced to cut spending (which is pretty much all the time), it's the easiest thing to cut. NASA doesn't feed, clothe, or heal the poor. It doesn't protect us from China or protect our allies from rogue nations. It's a long term investment in technology and innovation, which means cutting the funding is a short term gain.
My hope is that some of the savings that come from ending our ground engagements around the world will be reinvested into NASA. That's doubtful though.
On January 26 2012 22:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 26 2012 22:09 Jibba wrote:
On January 26 2012 18:45 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: So, why do you support this warmongering president still?
Obama is absolutely a hawk, there's little denying that. The non-sequitur in this is that Ron Paul calls it, while his party and most of its supporters accuse Obama of being too weak. It puts him in a slightly awkward position, but I guess that's what people should've expected from a centrist. Too hawkish for the left, too doveish for the right.
As far as constitutionality, he surprisingly curbed some of his executive powers, Bush had taken, early on. At the very least, I don't think it's unfair to say that he's as constitution abiding as any other president in the last 150 years, even if you want to stick with an originalist interpretation.
I am still waiting to see the percentage of Ron Paul supporters that are going to vote for the mainstream Republican that is going to be chosen.
On a more serious note, I don't think Ron Paul accuses Obama of being a hawk because of a dovish or pacifist position. In a way, Paul's isolationism is as far from a left-wing pacifism than from the Bush doctrine and the most aggressive Republican hawks.
You can't put together similar positions obtained through opposite reasoning. Obama is a dove for Republicans, a hawk for leftists, and a tyrannic leader that goes against people's right (to chose their regime but also to be slaughtered by a bloody tyran) for libertarians.
Well. I guess when most libertarians vote they do it based on a cost-benefit system. And for most liberatarians economic freedom weights heigher than personal freedom.
Free trade comes before free people. I'm fine with it. It just keeps convincing me that libertarians talking about liberty and such are hypocrites: It's fine, I am ready to compromise, to go invade Irak or make laws against abortion, as long as I have less taxes to pay and I can do whatever I want with my workers.
This way of conceiving humanity, its freedom, its interest, through the sole prism of private property is what I find so damn offensive with libertarians ideas.
Why do you keep assuming that all the libertarians are going to vote Republican? There IS a libertarian party, and they DO always run a candidate that many people vote for. So right off the bat, you know that many libertarians are voting for neither the republican nor the democrat candidate, but even if some don't vote libertarian, what makes you think that none of them are voting democrat?
But yes, it's true that most libertarians feel closer to the republican party than the democratic party. But you have to remember that Bush originally ran on a very DIFFERENT platform from what he ended up doing. Go watch his speeches back when he was first running against Al Gore; he constantly spoke about focusing on America, and there was a strong non-interventionist bent in his speeches. Obviously he didn't deliver on that. Many libertarians probably voted for Obama, who made a big deal about pulling out of Iraq and scaling down US military action. Then he sent troops into Libya, and now he's been dancing around the idea of threatening Iran with military action.
I remember Ron Paul mentioning that peace candidates do very well. They do. It's just unfortunate that they never make good on their promises.
Oh, and that comic references civil rights as well. The Civil Rights Act was signed by a Democratic president, but look at the votes in the Congress. Republicans voted in favor of it at over 80%, while democrats voted in favor of it at around just over 60%. Bush also ORIGINALLY ran on something he called "compassionate conservatism", and he seemed like a pretty reasonable guy when it came to civil rights. Once again though, that didn't turn out to be the case, with the Patriot Act, etc.
My point, though, is that there's a lot in Republican ideology that SHOULD attract libertarians, but the republicans have just failed to stick to what ACTUAL conservatism means.
So do I really need to keep hammering on how stupid and simplistic that comic is? Or how demeaning it is to conscientious libertarians? Or can we stop posting cute comics and have a real discussion?
Some investments listed in Mitt and Ann Romney’s 2010 tax returns – including a now-closed Swiss bank account and other funds located overseas – were not explicitly disclosed in the personal financial statement the GOP presidential hopeful filed in August as part of his White House bid.
The Romney campaign described the discrepancies as “trivial” but acknowledged Thursday afternoon that they are undergoing an internal review of how the investments were reported and will make “some minor technical amendments” to Romney’s financial disclosure that will not alter the overall picture of his finances.
A review by the Los Angeles Times/Tribune Washington Bureau found that at least 23 funds and partnerships listed in the couple’s 2010 tax returns did not show up or were not listed in the same fashion on Romney’s most recent financial disclosure, including 11 based in low-tax foreign countries such as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg.
On January 26 2012 23:44 Haemonculus wrote: Hasn't every aspiring politician in the last several decades made talk of great plans for space exploration and then never bothered to deliver on it?
Bush gave Mars mission talks, Obama made a fuss about moonbases or Mars missions or something, Clinton had talked about increasing the NASA budget, etc. They never actually do it, but it's a nice thing to bring up to remind us how cool and sciency America could be.
When forced to cut spending (which is pretty much all the time), it's the easiest thing to cut. NASA doesn't feed, clothe, or heal the poor. It doesn't protect us from China or protect our allies from rogue nations. It's a long term investment in technology and innovation, which means cutting the funding is a short term gain.
My hope is that some of the savings that come from ending our ground engagements around the world will be reinvested into NASA. That's doubtful though.
i'm always hoping someone will make a break-through in space science that will revitalize the economy. there's lots of minerals/gas out there that could be harvested and manufactured.
On January 27 2012 00:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 27 2012 00:27 Hider wrote:
On January 26 2012 22:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 26 2012 22:09 Jibba wrote:
On January 26 2012 18:45 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: So, why do you support this warmongering president still?
Obama is absolutely a hawk, there's little denying that. The non-sequitur in this is that Ron Paul calls it, while his party and most of its supporters accuse Obama of being too weak. It puts him in a slightly awkward position, but I guess that's what people should've expected from a centrist. Too hawkish for the left, too doveish for the right.
As far as constitutionality, he surprisingly curbed some of his executive powers, Bush had taken, early on. At the very least, I don't think it's unfair to say that he's as constitution abiding as any other president in the last 150 years, even if you want to stick with an originalist interpretation.
I am still waiting to see the percentage of Ron Paul supporters that are going to vote for the mainstream Republican that is going to be chosen.
On a more serious note, I don't think Ron Paul accuses Obama of being a hawk because of a dovish or pacifist position. In a way, Paul's isolationism is as far from a left-wing pacifism than from the Bush doctrine and the most aggressive Republican hawks.
You can't put together similar positions obtained through opposite reasoning. Obama is a dove for Republicans, a hawk for leftists, and a tyrannic leader that goes against people's right (to chose their regime but also to be slaughtered by a bloody tyran) for libertarians.
Well. I guess when most libertarians vote they do it based on a cost-benefit system. And for most liberatarians economic freedom weights heigher than personal freedom.
Free trade comes before free people. I'm fine with it. It just keeps convincing me that libertarians talking about liberty and such are hypocrites: It's fine, I am ready to compromise, to go invade Irak or make laws against abortion, as long as I have less taxes to pay and I can do whatever I want with my workers.
This way of conceiving humanity, its freedom, its interest, through the sole prism of private property is what I find so damn offensive with libertarians ideas.
Well a lot of liberatarians actually aren't voting. I my self wouldn't vote between between Obama and Gingrich/mitt Romney. Imo they both seem terrible. But if on party would say support lower taxes and decreases government spendings, while still being against drugs, gaymarriage, I would prob vote for him. Not because I dont think they should be legalized, but because I only have 2 option. And I take the lesser evil based on my subjective evils. This doesn't make me a hypocrite, as I can't avoid the "evil" no matter what. If in fact I would be able to have economic freedom and personal freedom at the same time, but only took the economic freedom, then that indeed make me a hyprocrite.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.leftycartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/how_libertarians_vote.png)
