Are you a libertarian?

[Pheonixops]

You both suck, why wouldn't we? And you do virtually the same things.

What is gained by supporting one of you when the other is virtually the same?

Is that right? The same?

Yes, there are virtually no differences between what Obama and Bush actually do. The only real difference is what they say.

5 ways Obama is just like George W. Bush - Salon.com

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yes, there are virtually no differences between what Obama and Bush actually do. The only real difference is what they say.

You are making a great case for empty platitudes.

You went to the empty line about platitudes...

Name one thing Obama has done that Bush would not have done, please.

Then....name another and another and another. Be honest and your list will be long.

 

[JWBooth]

Its how I feel.

How about instead of FEELING you start THINKING???

That would be waaaaay too much trouble for him/her.

 

[Contumacious]

In your piece, you say:

It is not a political philosophy that says limited government is the best kind of government.
yet further down say:
The best government is no government

The whole non-aggression principle is uncomprehensible as a keystone of a political position

In a nutshell, in spite of all the proclamations of what Libertarians are not, it comes down to leave me alone in a society. I want to belong to a society, I want to benefit from belonging to a society....Just don't expect me to contribute

Mr Dingle Berry, Sir:

The Founding Fathers were minarchists. They came to the conclusion that we could have a small government so long as we have a constitution specifically enumerating its powers. As you very well know that did not work. We now have a gargantuan welfare/warfare state in which they bureaucrats use the constitution to wipe their collective asses.

So minarchism is BULLSHIT. Anarcho-capitalism is in. I don't want you to pay for anything that I use. I do not want to pay for anything that benefits you.

I will be armed to my teeth no matter how SCOTUS rules 5 or 10 years from now. I don't trust you or your ilk.

You are free to pretend that you can not comprehend that simple concept.

.

 

[Dot Com]

Is that right? The same?

Yes, there are virtually no differences between what Obama and Bush actually do. The only real difference is what they say.

You are making a great case for empty platitudes.

kaz has a point in that both parties are bought-and-paid-for AKA- don't work for the average American anymore. They work for their campaign contributors who are increasingly made up of large corporate donors who offer them *cough* "jobs" (not in the sense that you or I would think of a job [basically affixing their name to a letterhead]) after they retire or get defeated as long as they do the monied-interests bidding while in office.

Is that what public service is supposed to be about? "cashing-in"?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Members from both parties do take the money. But that does not mean that they have the same agenda. They do not have the same agenda.

 

[gipper]

Members from both parties do take the money. But that does not mean that they have the same agenda. They do not have the same agenda.

You keep believing that and they will keep duping YOU.

Government whether lead by an R or D is ALWAYS lying, stealing, and are most tyrannical. And most in government, whether R, D, or bureaucrat are criminals...so why would we allow them to LEAD US?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Members from both parties do take the money. But that does not mean that they have the same agenda. They do not have the same agenda.

You keep believing that and they will keep duping YOU.

Government whether lead by an R or D is ALWAYS lying, stealing, and are most tyrannical. And most in government, whether R, D, or bureaucrat are criminals...so why would we allow them to LEAD US?

Nah. That's a little too easy and it allows you to absolve yourself of responsibility. You get to throw up your arms and ***** all day.....and declare that there is nothing that you can do about it.

Government is a thing.....not a person. So it cannot lie.

People like you don't believe anything you hear...and confuse campaign promises for lies. Those of us who are not dupes can differentiate between the two. We understand nuance and spin. We accept it as part of the political climate that WE have allowed to develop. We can still make a choice. They are not all the same.

 

[gipper]

Members from both parties do take the money. But that does not mean that they have the same agenda. They do not have the same agenda.

You keep believing that and they will keep duping YOU.

Government whether lead by an R or D is ALWAYS lying, stealing, and are most tyrannical. And most in government, whether R, D, or bureaucrat are criminals...so why would we allow them to LEAD US?

Nah. That's a little too easy and it allows you to absolve yourself of responsibility. You get to throw up your arms and ***** all day.....and declare that there is nothing that you can do about it.

Government is a thing.....not a person. So it cannot lie.

People like you don't believe anything you hear...and confuse campaign promises for lies. Those of us who are not dupes can differentiate between the two. We understand nuance and spin. We accept it as part of the political climate that WE have allowed to develop. We can still make a choice. They are not all the same.

Wrong on all counts.

1. I don't ***** all day and I do know what I can do about it, which is I will not vote for an R or a D. So, your first point is wrong.
2. Government is a thing...yes, but it is made up of people. Most of whom, are liars and cheats. So, second point is dumb.
3. I believe what I posted in the OP...so I believe in something, which makes your third point dumb too.

If you think BO has governed much different than W, you are deceiving yourself.

If you think Rs govern much different than Ds, you are not paying attention.

I find it hard to believe that any American would disagree with the main tenets of Liibertarianism...excepting the following groups of Americans:
- welfare recipients
- government union 'workers'
- military contractors/mfgrs
- most wealthy elites
- illegal aliens
- green energy companies
- most of the Fortune 100
- big banks and much of Wall Street...

funny...that pretty much lists the D party's constituencies and the Rs work hard to get them captured too...and that includes MILLIONS of Americans...so big government is here to stay..well at least until it implodes from it's own weight.

 

[rightwinger]

In your piece, you say:

It is not a political philosophy that says limited government is the best kind of government.
yet further down say:
The best government is no government

The whole non-aggression principle is uncomprehensible as a keystone of a political position

In a nutshell, in spite of all the proclamations of what Libertarians are not, it comes down to leave me alone in a society. I want to belong to a society, I want to benefit from belonging to a society....Just don't expect me to contribute

Mr Dingle Berry, Sir:

The Founding Fathers were minarchists. They came to the conclusion that we could have a small government so long as we have a constitution specifically enumerating its powers. As you very well know that did not work. We now have a gargantuan welfare/warfare state in which they bureaucrats use the constitution to wipe their collective asses.

So minarchism is BULLSHIT. Anarcho-capitalism is in. I don't want you to pay for anything that I use. I do not want to pay for anything that benefits you.

I will be armed to my teeth no matter how SCOTUS rules 5 or 10 years from now. I don't trust you or your ilk.

You are free to pretend that you can not comprehend that simple concept.

.

Our founding fathers had no other options. They had no money and the country was deeply in debt. Small government was all they could afford. It was also the 18th century, the concepts of the role of government was just beginning and they were helping to lay the groundwork. There were no "big governments" like we know them today

Personally, I do not want some 18th century aristocrat with no concept of what it takes to run a 21st century society deciding what size my government can be. I will elect representtives to do that.

 

[kaz]

Is that right? The same?

Yes, there are virtually no differences between what Obama and Bush actually do. The only real difference is what they say.

5 ways Obama is just like George W. Bush - Salon.com

Their military policies which also included Obama completing W's Iraq strategy and timeline and expanding Afghanistan. They both like to fire missiles at various countries as well.

But it goes way beyond that. Their economic and spending is virtually the same too. The Republicans propose budgets that are fractions of a percent below the Democrats, which they call fiscal responsibility (it isn't) and the Democrats call starving the poor (it isn't). Neither gives a crap for the Constitution.

 

[kaz]

You are making a great case for empty platitudes.

You went to the empty line about platitudes...

Name one thing Obama has done that Bush would not have done, please.

Then....name another and another and another. Be honest and your list will be long.

I can give you a long list of things that Obama says differently than Bush, it's the doing things differently I'm not coming up with anything on. They are two peas in a pod. You like the one who lies to you, Republicans like the one who lies to them. But in the end, they are both neocons. Big government loving militaristic Presidents.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You went to the empty line about platitudes...

Name one thing Obama has done that Bush would not have done, please.

Then....name another and another and another. Be honest and your list will be long.

I can give you a long list of things that Obama says differently than Bush, it's the doing things differently I'm not coming up with anything on. They are two peas in a pod. You like the one who lies to you, Republicans like the one who lies to them. But in the end, they are both neocons. Big government loving militaristic Presidents.

You forgot the honesty part.

 

[kaz]

Name one thing Obama has done that Bush would not have done, please.

Then....name another and another and another. Be honest and your list will be long.

I can give you a long list of things that Obama says differently than Bush, it's the doing things differently I'm not coming up with anything on. They are two peas in a pod. You like the one who lies to you, Republicans like the one who lies to them. But in the end, they are both neocons. Big government loving militaristic Presidents.

You forgot the honesty part.

True, Obama's a bigger liar, but W wasn't honest about his big government agenda either. Anyway, I said what they say is different, their policies are the same, so that's not a contradiction.

 

[hipeter924]

Nope. Can agree with them on some things, but not all.

Okay...so rather than join the Libertarian movement, of which you 'agree on some things, but not all,' would you prefer to continue the current charade? I surely hope you DISAGREE with MOST of what is the US Gov.

As long as Americans continue to vote D or R, the terrible charade continues.

Unless we come together rather than fight amongst ourselves, over nonsensical issues planted and fomented by the power elite so they can continue to fleece us of our wealth and liberty, the charade continues unabated...

Government is the PROBLEM...and Libertarianism is ALL about reducing and controlling government, while providing maximum individual LIBERTY FOR ALL.

My position is pretty clear apathy, as the world is already past the point of no return...for now.

A state-corporate society is the future for at least several centuries, till the economy either implodes or a fascist/communist state comes to power (and thus inspires people to revolution against the state). People don't see the hell they have created, until they are forced to live under it.

I don't believe in the libertarian movement as it doesn't go far enough. A part-way solution like removing government while keeping corporations in place, is no real solution at all.

 

[FA_Q2]

Nope. Can agree with them on some things, but not all.

Okay...so rather than join the Libertarian movement, of which you 'agree on some things, but not all,' would you prefer to continue the current charade? I surely hope you DISAGREE with MOST of what is the US Gov.

As long as Americans continue to vote D or R, the terrible charade continues.

Unless we come together rather than fight amongst ourselves, over nonsensical issues planted and fomented by the power elite so they can continue to fleece us of our wealth and liberty, the charade continues unabated...

Government is the PROBLEM...and Libertarianism is ALL about reducing and controlling government, while providing maximum individual LIBERTY FOR ALL.

My position is pretty clear apathy, as the world is already past the point of no return...for now.

A state-corporate society is the future for at least several centuries, till the economy either implodes or a fascist/communist state comes to power (and thus inspires people to revolution against the state). People don't see the hell they have created, until they are forced to live under it.

I don't believe in the libertarian movement as it doesn't go far enough. A part-way solution like removing government while keeping corporations in place, is no real solution at all.

The corporation is not the problem. It is the most effective productivity and wealth generator ever discovered on the entire planet. It would be asinine to try and eliminate it. The real problem is not corporations but the collusion between the corporate and the governmental. THAT is the problem.

That is the exact same problem that was faced 2000 years ago as well. Then it was a different story though. It was religion. Do you really think that religion was the problem then? That it was the reason we faced the dark ages, the crusades, the inquisition and a thousand other atrocities? Of course not – we have religion today and do not face nearly the same problems as we faced then. Why? Because the government has, for the most part, removed itself from religion. That power is corrupting and will corrupt whatever is allowed to wield it be that religion or economical in nature. We STILL see those same problems when religion is allowed to be a central tenant of government. Widespread human rights violations exist in such places and support the current crop of terrorists.

Get government power out of the hands of companies and you would find that the problems are not so insurmountable.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In this day and age, we will never elect a group of men who won't in some way or another allow the rich and the powerful to influence the direction of our government, FA. It is easier said than done.

 

[LoneLaugher]

In this day and age, we will never elect a group of men who won't in some way or another allow the rich and the powerful to influence the direction of our government, FA. It is easier said than done.

Which is an argument in favor of our making sure that we don't have too few rich and powerful people, is it not?

Don't react to that before thinking, please.


Also. In what day and age was this not the case?

I submit that we have, largely as a result of modern "conservative" activism, taken this problem.....which has existed for the entirety of this nations existence......and made it exponentially worse.

Given that you cannot argue that premise, you will, of course, argue that both "sides" are equally to blame. And then fail to provide evidence to support that argument. You just know it.

You may begin.

 

[FA_Q2]

In this day and age, we will never elect a group of men who won't in some way or another allow the rich and the powerful to influence the direction of our government, FA. It is easier said than done.

Which is an argument in favor of our making sure that we don't have too few rich and powerful people, is it not?

Don't react to that before thinking, please.


Also. In what day and age was this not the case?

I submit that we have, largely as a result of modern "conservative" activism, taken this problem.....which has existed for the entirety of this nations existence......and made it exponentially worse.

Given that you cannot argue that premise, you will, of course, argue that both "sides" are equally to blame. And then fail to provide evidence to support that argument. You just know it.

You may begin.

Its not 'conservative activism' that has increased the visibility and size of this issue - it is technology, wealth and size. there are more people with grater resources than ever before. That makes the top that much more wealthy and influential compared to the bottom.

 

[FA_Q2]

In this day and age, we will never elect a group of men who won't in some way or another allow the rich and the powerful to influence the direction of our government, FA. It is easier said than done.

Easier said than done does not mean impossible. It will be difficult and likely involve a revolution at some point in time but it will happen. There really is no way around it.

I would venture a guess that the exact same sentiment existed 2000 years ago in relation to government and religion. At that time they simply were integrated and there was no fixing it.