What is a small government libertarian?

[Dad2three]

You're right, it was Siete who said it. You thanked him, I'm not sure why you did that if you understood it, but you are correct that I said you said it and it wasn't you who did.

I thanked him BECAUSE I understood his premise, GDP has BOOMED and the US military spending has also.

First, I said you did not say those things when I went back. Second, so your standard for me does not apply to yourself?

Lets see, you jumped in and DEFENDED a posit, meaning YOU own it AND you don't have ANYTHING with your false posit

"Second, so your standard for me does not apply to yourself?"

SURE. Let me know when I did that. A thanks isn't the same as TRYING to defend a posit, OVER AND OVER AND OVER

 

[JWBooth]

Glenn Beck.

Glenn Beck is not a libertarian. He's a conservative.

I don't think he is either. He is an opportunist who picks up just enough of the lingo for whatever he is going to blather about to fool those who aren't paying close attention.

 

[Dad2three]

You don't understand them. Got it

Oh I understand them for what they actually are, NOT what right wingers WANT them to mean!!

You understand them for what they are, you are apparently just incapable of saying what that is.

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

Glenn Beck.

Glenn Beck is not a libertarian. He's a conservative.

Like most conservatives, he's a moron

 

[kaz]

Oh I understand them for what they actually are, NOT what right wingers WANT them to mean!!

You understand them for what they are, you are apparently just incapable of saying what that is.

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I asked you what they mean, I did not ask you for a link to them. Clearly you do not know and being able to link to the text has nothing to do with that you do.

 

[kaz]

I thanked him BECAUSE I understood his premise, GDP has BOOMED and the US military spending has also.

First, I said you did not say those things when I went back. Second, so your standard for me does not apply to yourself?

Lets see, you jumped in and DEFENDED a posit, meaning YOU own it AND you don't have ANYTHING with your false posit

"Second, so your standard for me does not apply to yourself?"

SURE. Let me know when I did that. A thanks isn't the same as TRYING to defend a posit, OVER AND OVER AND OVER

No, thanks is saying they got it right and you don't have to, it's stronger than that.

I said you didn't say it, I was wrong to say you did. But you thanked hm for it, you can't walk away from that either. If you understood what he said, why did you not explain it to him?

 

[Dad2three]

You understand them for what they are, you are apparently just incapable of saying what that is.

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I asked you what they mean, I did not ask you for a link to them. Clearly you do not know and being able to link to the text has nothing to do with that you do.

Simple really. They are part of that STRONG FEDERALIZED CENTRAL GOV'T OUR US FOUNDERS WANTED....

They were part of the ANTI'S federalist of their times (MAINLY CONSERVATIVES,like today's TP/GOPers)


Yeah they got in to pass a STRONG FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

 

[Dad2three]

First, I said you did not say those things when I went back. Second, so your standard for me does not apply to yourself?

"Second, so your standard for me does not apply to yourself?"

SURE. Let me know when I did that. A thanks isn't the same as TRYING to defend a posit, OVER AND OVER AND OVER

No, thanks is saying they got it right and you don't have to, it's stronger than that.

I said you didn't say it, I was wrong to say you did. But you thanked hm for it, you can't walk away from that either. If you understood what he said, why did you not explain it to him?

Once more and LAST TIME ON THIS

I, unlike you and most of these right wing loons (libertarians are FARRRRRR right) understand context and am honest and understood the PREMISE of the argument. YOU should try that JUST ONCE!

 

[hipeter924]

Do you think the 10% of Americans who are libertarian should rule?

Rule?

You're such a moron, RWer.

Liberals simply can't imagine a society were someone isn't giving them orders.

Liberalism started out as opposition to the ruiling classes, religious authorities, nobles and feudal lords, and only later branched out into socialist and capitalist branches. Conservatism started out sucking up to religious and political authority, not to mention standing on the backs of the poor - it had its political beginnings in rotten boroughs in what would become Great Britain. If you are going to generalize, you might as well understand where your movement started from.

 

[bripat9643]

Rule?

You're such a moron, RWer.

Liberals simply can't imagine a society were someone isn't giving them orders.

Liberalism started out as opposition to the ruiling classes, religious authorities, nobles and feudal lords, and only later branched out into socialist and capitalist branches. Conservatism started out sucking up to religious and political authority, not to mention standing on the backs of the poor - it had its political beginnings in rotten boroughs in what would become Great Britain. If you are going to generalize, you might as well understand where your movement started from.

There simply is no connection between modern conservatism and 18th Century conservatism, just as there is no connection between modern liberalism and 18th Century liberalism. The idea that modern liberalism is opposed to "the ruling class" couldn't be more absurd. Modern liberalism is the ruling class.

Liberals like to pretend modern political movements are descended from 18th Century movements because it masks some of the stink of their true Bolshevik origins.

 

[kaz]

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I asked you what they mean, I did not ask you for a link to them. Clearly you do not know and being able to link to the text has nothing to do with that you do.

Simple really. They are part of that STRONG FEDERALIZED CENTRAL GOV'T OUR US FOUNDERS WANTED....

They were part of the ANTI'S federalist of their times (MAINLY CONSERVATIVES,like today's TP/GOPers)


Yeah they got in to pass a STRONG FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

So you think the 9th and 10th amendments make the central government stronger? That's what the bill of rights was about? strong central government?

 

[Contumacious]

Like I said, THEY BENEFITED FROM GOV'T SUBSIDIES FROM THE RR'S THEY TOOK OVER. True or false?

WUT?

How much of the 5.5 million investment was a subsidy from

a) the State of Minnesota, __________________________%

b) from the federal government _____________________%


.

Got it, YOU can''t be honest

GOT IT, you lie like a rug.

Typical fascist/socialist , always trying to discredit PRIVATE ENTREPRENEURS.

.

 

[Dad2three]

I asked you what they mean, I did not ask you for a link to them. Clearly you do not know and being able to link to the text has nothing to do with that you do.

Simple really. They are part of that STRONG FEDERALIZED CENTRAL GOV'T OUR US FOUNDERS WANTED....

They were part of the ANTI'S federalist of their times (MAINLY CONSERVATIVES,like today's TP/GOPers)


Yeah they got in to pass a STRONG FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

So you think the 9th and 10th amendments make the central government stronger? That's what the bill of rights was about? strong central government?

Boy you and your reading comprehension:

"Simple really. They are part of that STRONG FEDERALIZED CENTRAL GOV'T OUR US FOUNDERS WANTED....

They were part of the ANTI'S federalist of their times (MAINLY CONSERVATIVES,like today's TP/GOPers)


Yeah they got in to pass a STRONG FEDERAL CONSTITUTION."

 

[Dad2three]

WUT?

How much of the 5.5 million investment was a subsidy from

a) the State of Minnesota, __________________________%

b) from the federal government _____________________%


.

Got it, YOU can''t be honest

GOT IT, you lie like a rug.

Typical fascist/socialist , always trying to discredit PRIVATE ENTREPRENEURS.

.

Yeah, those guys who bought the state Gov't and federal regulators lol

 

[asterism]

You just said Somalia's not anarchy, it's anarchy. Independent fiefdoms are not contradictory to anarchy, they are anarchy. Think about it.

Anarchy is the lack of government creating lawlessness. Instead of a central government, warlords have their own system in its place. It's not anarchy.

Obviously in anarchy people will join together in packs. Two people working together doesn't end anarchy. You thought people just run around in anarchy ignoring each other like zombies in the Walking Dead? You are not thinking this through. Anarchy leads to Somalia. There is no common defense, law enforcement, land recognition, prisons. Just fiefs that protect their own with their own weapons fighting other fiefs doing the same thing.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, so please don't take this the wrong way. I have thought this through more than you know, ever since I first got shot at merely trying to feed people in Somalia. I read a great deal before going and had been told that it was anarchy. I found something different there. It's not a centralized government, but there most certainly is a common defense (with an effective intelligence network). There is law enforcement, just not the types of laws we have here. Land recognition is the first priority, as my team learned one day when my information was incorrect as to who was in charge. They are a little short on prisons, but those are expensive. They have courts and sentences though.

The people running things there are not warlords that stood up and took authority, they are all connected to the previous political insiders of the failed Marxist state. None of them are independent and all are operating under a collective system. These are not ad-hoc alliances of convenience, they are the result of a coordinated campaign to maintain power granted to these groups by the previous political system.

 

[asterism]

Small government is what the US started with when the constitution was drafted and ratified.

It is the only option we had at the time. We had a marginal economy and massive debt

It looks like we've regressed back to that condition, only the debt is much higher and the economy is only a little more improved.

That's not what was promised in 2008.

 

[asterism]

Weird, you don't think an economy where ALL are improving is better than the past 33 years of Renominates where the VAST majority of benefits go to the 1%ers?

War on poverty and great society were GOOD PROGRAMS to assist the most needy, the opposite of Reaganomics!

All those things you list? BENEFITED a LARGE proportion of US society. Reaganomics? Not so much

LBJ had a demand side tax cut. Carter had 9+ million private sector jobs in 4 years to Reagan's 14 million in 8 and yes, Nixon/Fords wage and price controls harmed him, as did OPEC...

ALL you have are false premises, distortions and lies. I'm shocked

If things were so great we would not have needed those massive government programs. That things are worse today means those government programs haven't worked, unless you define success of a government program by the number of people on it.

But since you think Carter was a success and blame Nixon and Ford just shows your partisan bias.

No, actually we NEEDED those things BECAUSE it's called PROGRESS. The exact opposite of what Reaganomics brought US!

So if we needed those programs then things were not all that great in the time you cited as a a good time.

Who said Carter was a success?

You did. You cherry picked a statistic to contrast a Democrat success then blamed Republicans for failures on his watch. You do the same now. You give Obama credit for all the good and blame Republicans for all the bad.

That's like saying Reagan was a success., Yes under Carter there were 9+ million private sector jobs in 4 years to 14 million Reagan had under him in 8. My logic says Reagan cutting taxes for the rich did ZERO for jobs. But boy have the 'job creators' benefited from 30+ years of Reaganomics. The middle class? Not so much...

Both parties terribly corrupted a system that was working fine until the early 1900s. The entire point of Keynesian economics was supposed to prevent massive collapses and all these measures have done is stifle innovation and creation of wealth while making sure the insiders get the jump on the public.

We can compare and contrast Democrats and Republicans all day long but both parties are equally wrong. You're trying to sell a partisan ideology and in the absence of a success story you're trying to blame the other side for the failure of your group's ability to deliver the results they predicted and promised.

 

[asterism]

Small government is what the US started with when the constitution was drafted and ratified.

You mean when they got rid of that 'states rights' Articles of Confederation for the STRONG FEDERAL CONSTITUTION?

Exactly. They agreed that we needed a strong federal government, but wrote a Constitution to explicitly enumerate its powers. Again, the history on this is illuminating. They were fucking paranoid about strong central government, and conceded to having one only with assurances that it would be kept on a short leash. You're kidding yourself, or maybe just bullshitting everyone else, if you claim otherwise.

Yes.

There is a difference between a strong central government and a massively intrusive central government bureaucracy that micromanages our economy.

I want a strong central government. I don't want a Marxist set of crony capitalists setting arbitrary policies.

 

[asterism]

Yeah, that's why the REAL critics of his admin are left leaning, instead of made up crap like birth certs, Ben-Gazzzzi, E/O's, IRS, etc... lol

So a "real critic" is someone who believes he wasn't left-wing enough?

Actually, since Obama has cut the deficit Dubya left him by 60%+, stopped the jobs losses he inherited that was losing 700,000+ jobs a month, got US out of Iraq (combat forces), GOT BIN LADEN, Gave millions more access to H/C via Obamacares, Yeah, I'd say MOST right wing criticism of him and his admin is BULLSHIT!

I will always give credit to President Obama for getting Bin Laden. Unequivocally.

What did he do different than Bush though? Did he continue to previous plan or did he make some significant changes? I'd like to read the documents that form your opinion. It's not like our President has some special training in SpecOps, so he didn't bring something unique to the table when he green-lighted a Seal mission.

So what did Obama do differently that makes this such a big deal to you?

 

[asterism]

Actually, since Obama has cut the deficit Dubya left him by 60%+, stopped the jobs losses he inherited that was losing 700,000+ jobs a month, got US out of Iraq (combat forces), GOT BIN LADEN, Gave millions more access to H/C via Obamacares, Yeah, I'd say MOST right wing criticism of him and his admin is BULLSHIT!

W's last deficit was $458 Billion. Last year was $564, how is that a cut in deficit? What you can say is it's the smallest deficit Obama has ever run, it's almost as small as W's largest!

Oh right, I forgot, in right wing world Obama was responsible since BEFORE he even won the election

January 08, 2009

The federal budget deficit will nearly triple to an unprecedented $1.2 trillion for the 2009 budget year, according to grim new Congressional Budget Office figures.

Dubya, like ALL Prez have a F/Y budget starting Oct 1. His last F/Y budget was Oct 1, 2008 FORWARD

Pres. Obama certainly shares responsibility. He voted for Bush's last budget, plus he and the Democrats in the House and Senate controlled the entire spending starting on March 7, 2009.

Maybe you didn't know that Bush's last budget was only approved for half of FY2009. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr2638/text

Obama voted for TARP too, and that was the major source of the deficit.