What would you rather have?

[Lateralus]

If Bush could run again in 2008, who would you rather have as president?

[Krill]

Oh, poll wasn't up when I responded.

[rek]

The less government does the better; therefor, the second option sounds like the best president we've had in a long time.

[Lateralus]

The less government does the better; therefor, the second option sounds like the best president we've had in a long time.
If it's just sheep, that's good. Include dolphins and I might have to vote for Bush. :P

[ajblaise]

The less government does the better.

ehhh..there's no way you can know this, you don't have any great libertarian model to point to, just fluffy theory. kinda like communism...

but i can say that, in terms of quality-of-life, the more liberal the better.

[Lateralus]

ehhh..there's no way you can know this, you don't have any great libertarian model to point to, just fluffy theory. kinda like communism...

but i can say that, in terms of quality-of-life, the more liberal the better.
Uhh, yes we do. Thomas Jefferson.

[ajblaise]

Uhh, yes we do. Thomas Jefferson.

when i said "great libertarian model" i was talking about a society, a large libertarian society or state, not a person...

[rek]

ehhh..there's no way you can know this, you don't have any great libertarian model to point to, just fluffy theory. kinda like communism...


when i said "great libertarian model" i was talking about a society, a large libertarian society or state, not a person...

No offense but your statement is completely ignorant of world history. The United States became what it is through freedom and libertarian ideas. We didn't get great by growing our government; we were great despite it. Now our government has grown so big and costs so much that even all the money we make (through freedom) can't keep up with it, but that doesn't change the fact that our country became what it is based on those principles.

Freedom isn't a "fluffy theory" and there's certainly a whole lot more logic, evidence, and historical proof behind it than communism.

[MasterMerk]

No offense but your statement is completely ignorant of world history. The United States became what it is through freedom and libertarian ideas. We didn't get great by growing our government; we were great despite it.

Also: slavery, exploitation, corporate welfare and imperialismo.

[rek]

Also: slavery, exploitation, corporate welfare and imperialismo.

Wasn't saying we were perfect; no one ever has been and no one ever will be. Are you suggesting people came to america for those other reasons? I'm obviously very against all those things, but they are more results of a failed system (or in the case of slavery a sign of the times) than they are causes for why everyone wanted to (and a lot of people still want to) come to the United States.

Corporate welfare and imperialism are very opposite the ideas our country was founded on. We've been losing the good sides of things and gaining the bad sides for a long time, but I don't think that means we should throw away what good we have left and exchange it for something that logically and historically wont work.

[Architectonic]

So John Howard is going to be the next US president?

[slacker]

Are we predicting the sexual vices of our next president?

[LongSilence]

Ah, come on, Bush isn't really that bad is he?

[booyalab]

Ah, come on, Bush isn't really that bad is he?

no, most INTPc members are just idiots.

[libertarianjim]

So, basically, the choice is between someone whose toughest decision is

"Hmm, today should I appoint a mindless crony to an important position, mismanage a minor scandal so it looks like a major one, ignore by base on the immigration issue, have a masssive entitlement givaway, take inconsistent positions on Iran and North Korea, or throw away a bunch of money on No Child Left Behind?"

vs

"Hmmm, should I fuck Bessie or Flossie today?"

Increasingly, I'll take the latter. At least it's the sheep getting fucked.

[Ferrus]

Fucking sheep in the White House lawn? So in other words the first president of Welsh descent...

[Lateralus]

no, most INTPc members are just idiots.
Yes, he is that bad. He's the worst president in my lifetime, by far, and among the worst in US history. Any president who calls the Constitution a "just a goddamn piece of paper" has earned my contempt.

[AMDG]

Freedom isn't a "fluffy theory" and there's certainly a whole lot more logic, evidence, and historical proof behind it than communism.

Don't you mean FREEDOM (TM) ?

[Jennywocky]

Are they liberal sheep or conservative sheep?

[Lateralus]

Are they liberal sheep or conservative sheep?
The differences between Republicans and Democrats are only skin deep. They divide people on important issues such as abortion and gay marriage. You know, the real important stuff! :stupid:

[Zergling]

A president who just comes in and does some standard set of policies will do better than Bush. Almost All the major policies that Bush has done have been either failures, not more useful than what was occuring before, and/or illegal, or pretty close to illegal.

In the standard set of Rep or Dem policies, there are some things that work, and some that don't, which is a better record than currently.

[Hermione]

The differences between Republicans and Democrats are only skin deep. They divide people on important issues such as abortion and gay marriage. You know, the real important stuff! :stupid:

They can be very important issues, but it's just not anyone's business to be in those issues. Whenever the 2-party system has to have the divisive element --to put someone back in the lead, ever notice how they wander straight into the bedrooms and the physicians' office such as religions do?
my religious beliefs: People really need only to learn to stay out of other people's business and focus on taking care of theirs; gov't agencies and organizations that don't yet know what their business is are doomed to mediocrity in general, stupidity re. the particulars, and being the plague of the common man's existence.
As far as politics goes, if it's not your life, it's not an issue. Now if your grandmother died of a botched abortion mainly because it was illegal at the time, and because no one really cared anyway, it may become an issue for you.
:soap: :popcorn: Not disagreeing with your point Lateral, just trying to round it out a bit. and also have alot of gay friends and had dorm mates in college who went through abortions.]

[Lateralus]

I understand what you're saying Hermione. I know they can be very emotional issues, and they're used to distract people from issues that affect the public, at large. I've seen it with my parents who always vote for whoever is pro-life.

[C.J.Woolf]

So, basically, the choice is between someone whose toughest decision is

"Hmm, today should I appoint a mindless crony to an important position, mismanage a minor scandal so it looks like a major one, ignore by base on the immigration issue, have a masssive entitlement givaway, take inconsistent positions on Iran and North Korea, or throw away a bunch of money on No Child Left Behind?"

vs

"Hmmm, should I fuck Bessie or Flossie today?"

Increasingly, I'll take the latter. At least it's the sheep getting fucked.
As the joke goes, Democrats fuck only an individual or two while Republicans fuck the whole country. So the sheepfucker (who's got to be a Democrat) gets my vote.

[libertarianjim]

As the joke goes, Democrats fuck only an individual or two while Republicans fuck the whole country. So the sheepfucker (who's got to be a Democrat) gets my vote.

An oldie but a goodie, popular, if I remember correctly, during the Depression:

A young guy is driving in unfamiliar rural territory and his car breaks down. He decides to hitchhike back to the nearest town, which is some distance away.

A car pulls up, and the driver asks if the man is a Democrat or a Republican. "Democrat," the young man proudly answers -- and the car drives away without him.

A short while later, another car pulls up, and the driver again asks the young man's partisan affiliation. With some trepidation, he again answers "Democrat" and again the car drives off, leaving him behind.

At this point, the young man realizes that if he wants to get back to town, he's going to have to change his answer. The next car that pulls up is a convertible driven by a gorgeous blonde in a short skirt. She asks him "Are you a Democrat or a Republican?" The young man eagerly replies "Republican!" and she lets him into the car.

As they're driving down the road, the wind keeps pushing the woman's skirt higher and higher up her thigh, and the young man finds himself increasinly aroused. Finally, the young man can't take it anymore and yells "STOP THE CAR! I've only been a Republican for five minutes and I already feel like screwing somebody!"

[CTG]

I would rather have a shit sandwich on rye than hear the name Bush in reference to the president for the next four years.

[ajblaise]

No offense but your statement is completely ignorant of world history. The United States became what it is through freedom and libertarian ideas. We didn't get great by growing our government; we were great despite it. Now our government has grown so big and costs so much that even all the money we make (through freedom) can't keep up with it, but that doesn't change the fact that our country became what it is based on those principles.

Freedom isn't a "fluffy theory" and there's certainly a whole lot more logic, evidence, and historical proof behind it than communism.

America was never a libertarian society, you know that. America carried out slavery for 400 years, so wtf are you talking about when you say the US became what it is through freedom?? Can you get any more anti-freedom and slavery?

And I called libertarianism fluffy theory, not freedom lol.

[Lateralus]

America was never a libertarian society, you know that. America carried out slavery for 400 years, so wtf are you talking about when you say the US became what it is through freedom?? Can you get any more anti-freedom and slavery?

And I called libertarianism fluffy theory, not freedom lol.
So you're an authoritarian, then.

[ajblaise]

So you're an authoritarian, then.

are you being serious?

[Lateralus]

are you being serious?
Yes, I am.

[ajblaise]

Yes, I am.

what did i say that gave you that impression? please elaborate, because you're not making much sense to me.

[Lateralus]

what did i say that gave you that impression? please elaborate, because you're not making much sense to me.
You call libertarianism "fluffy theory". You seem to have a problem with the concept. The opposite of libertarianism is authoritarianism.

[ajblaise]

You call libertarianism "fluffy theory". You seem to have a problem with the concept. The opposite of libertarianism is authoritarianism.

so just because i don't like libertarianism means i must be an authoritarian? wah...

[ajblaise]

no, most INTPc members are just idiots.

don't you get sick of playing devils advocate?

i know you don't like bush admin policy at all, so why can't you call the admin bad?

[Lateralus]

so just because i don't like libertarianism means i must be an authoritarian? wah...
Since they're opposing political concepts, yes.

[ajblaise]

Since they're opposing political concepts, yes.

you can't be serious. is anyone else seeing this?

i'm a liberal or social democrat, i don't like libertarianism, so why can't i be a liberal who is against libertarianism?

[omnirook]

No offense but your statement is completely ignorant of world history. The United States became what it is through freedom and libertarian ideas. We didn't get great by growing our government; we were great despite it. Now our government has grown so big and costs so much that even all the money we make (through freedom) can't keep up with it, but that doesn't change the fact that our country became what it is based on those principles.

Freedom isn't a "fluffy theory" and there's certainly a whole lot more logic, evidence, and historical proof behind it than communism.

I beg to differ. Surprised? Ahem - the Jeffersonians - they LOST and before Jefferson was ever in the Whitehouse. Had Jefferson had his way, we would have remained an isolated backwater comprised of gentleman farmers w/slaves to do the hard work. The Federalists, w/Hamilton in the lead, brought the foreign capital back into the United States. Hamilton was busy cutting deals w/the British before the 2 countries had even exchanged ambassadors. President Jackson represented a brief return to the ideals of which you speak - and he was hated and villified and accused of all sorts of corruption, pretty much as Clinton would be. After Jackson, the march toward a powerful federal government, a centralized economy w/a federally issued currency, and the furthering of the right wing's dearest (true) ideal - a tiny elite living like lords while the mass of nameless, faceless drudges pay for everything - was well underway. The Civil War ended forever the idea that the Federal Government was not supreme. The first President Roosevelt's push to do away w/monopolies and to set aside lands for preservation earned him the hatred of "free" marketers to this very day. The drive to centralize and amalgamate power has been present in this country since before the Constitution was signed and has relentlessly eaten away the precious few civil rights that Jefferson was able to strangle out of the Constitutional Convention. When will you realize that a free and open society w/oppurtunities for everybody who wants to work hard is LESS in the interests of the rich than anybody else? When will you realize what even Lincoln realized - that "of the people, by the people, and for the people" was a bold-faced lie? Go back - do a little research - realize that the standard of living for the poor in this country did not rise until the government got very involved in the economy. Until the first Roosevelt Administration, the standard of living for the poor in this country was HORRIFIC. The one, the only way to get ahead was through crime and corruption - hence organized crime as the defense of the poorest of the poor. The standard of living for the average American before Roosevelt was abysmal.

[Lateralus]

you can't be serious. is anyone else seeing this?

i'm a liberal or social democrat, i don't like libertarianism, so why can't i be a liberal who is against libertarianism?
Liberals can be libertarian. Liberals can also be authoritarian. Liberalism refers to social control in government. It says nothing about economic control. So by being a liberal who is anti-libertarian, you put yourself into the authoritarian camp. That is, assuming you have correctly identified yourself.

[ajblaise]

Liberals can be libertarian. Liberals can also be authoritarian. Liberalism refers to social control in government. It says nothing about economic control. So by being a liberal who is anti-libertarian, you put yourself into the authoritarian camp. That is, assuming you have correctly identified yourself.

that makes no sense, american liberals or social democrats oppose libertarianism, all of them do, or else they'd be libertarians.

Classic liberalism is kinda like libertarianism, but not present day american liberalism.

And liberals cannot be authoritarian, by every definition of the word "liberal".

Are you sure you really know about politics? it seems like you're making this up as you go along.

[Lateralus]

that makes no sense, american liberals or social democrats oppose libertarianism, all of them do, or else they'd be libertarians. Classic liberalism is kinda like libertarianism, but not present day american liberalism.
Yep, American liberals are essentially socialists, which is an authoritarian concept.


And liberals cannot be authoritarian, by every definition of the word "liberal".
Liberals can have a wide range of views on government control of the economy, except in the US, where those who identify themselves as liberals tend to be socialists.


Are you sure you really know about politics? it seems like you're making this up as you go along.
You can measure someone's political stance based on their opinion on government involvement in social and economic issues.

[ajblaise]

Yep, American liberals are essentially socialists, which is an authoritarian concept.


Liberals can have a wide range of views on government control of the economy, except in the US, where those who identify themselves as liberals tend to be socialists.


You can measure someone's political stance based on their opinion on government involvement in social and economic issues.

alright, we both know you're bullshitting, later.

virtually every political scientist would be laughing at what you just said.

[Lateralus]

alright, we both know you're bullshitting, later.

virtually every political scientist would be laughing at what you just said.
Laughing at which parts? Where I said liberals have a wide range of views on government economic control? The part where I said American liberals lean toward socialism?

The only consistency in liberalism is social freedom, and many American liberals betray that with concepts like political correctness.

[ajblaise]

When will you realize that a free and open society w/oppurtunities for everybody who wants to work hard is LESS in the interests of the rich than anybody else?

he knows this, and from reading libertarians defending the rich on this board, it seems like they think that one day they will be rich, so they want a government that favors the rich.

[ajblaise]

Laughing at which parts?

i'm mostly laughing at when you said liberals could be authoritarian.

hey, tell ya what, name me a few, and i'll take you seriously. otherwise, we're done.


au?thor?i?tar?i?an
1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.

[meshou]

The only consistency in liberalism is social freedom, and many American liberals betray that with concepts like political correctness.I am so sorry your freedom to call your coworkers cocksucking fags has been so brutally trundicated. Truly, in a free society, everyone'd put up with you saying whatever stupid thing pops into your head without concequence.

I'd be a socialist if I trusted the government, and I'd be a lib if I didn't think people sucked. Honestly, I'd vote for either a real socialist or a real lib, 'cause I think either of them would fix shit instead of doing half assed nothing measures, and neither would have party or coporate bacing they owed their soul to at this point.

[Lateralus]

he knows this, and from reading libertarians defending the rich on this board, it seems like they think that one day they will be rich, so they want a government that favors the rich.
You obviously haven't read my previous posts and are making assumptions based on stereotypes. Defending the rich...there's only one person I recall defending the rich on this board, and thats D_S. Just because someone isn't a socialist doesn't make them an apologist for corrupt CEOs. Corporate control is just as dangerous as government control.

[Lateralus]

I am so sorry your freedom to call your coworkers cocksucking fags has been so brutally trundicated. Truly, in a free society, everyone'd put up with you saying whatever stupid thing pops into your head without concequence.

I'd be a socialist if I trusted the government, and I'd be a lib if I didn't think people sucked. Honestly, I'd vote for either a real socialist or a real lib, 'cause I think either of them would fix shit instead of doing half assed nothing measures, and neither would have party or coporate bacing they owed their soul to at this point.
I don't need the government to tell me what is and what isn't socially acceptable. I play well with others just fine without having Big Brother tell me which words are acceptable. Perhaps you're projecting?

[meshou]

I don't need the government to tell me what is and what isn't socially acceptable. I play well with others just fine without having Big Brother tell me which words are acceptable. Perhaps you're projecting?Most political correctness comes from (GASP!) individuals and private corporations. What PCness there is in government press releases comes from them being government press releases.

The government issues marching permits to KKK rallies. Your freedom of speech has not been infringed by the government, it's a societal phenomenon.

[Wiki]

To be honest Im surprised Bush hasnt attempted to change the two term limit rule.

It's difficult to choose when given a pool of fleecers and fuckers.

[Ferrus]

We didn't get great by growing our government; we were great despite it.
You do realise American hegemony is largely a result of its military - a government institution.

[booyalab]

Yes, he is that bad. He's the worst president in my lifetime, by far, and among the worst in US history. Any president who calls the Constitution a "just a goddamn piece of paper" has earned my contempt.

so a president who called the constitution "just a goddamn piece of paper" is definitively worse than a president that EXCLUSIVELY fucks sheep on the white house lawn? (I'm going to regret posting this...i just know it)

I have to clarify, I don't agree that the constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper, but if he did say that....the only difference i see between that attitude and the attitude most DFL politicians have is that he was honest about it. Also, I think I'd even rather have John Edwards as president than a guy that just fucks sheep on the lawn...and I hate John Edwards with all of my being.

[Zergling]

so a president who calls the constitution "just a goddamn piece of paper" is definitively worse than a president that EXCLUSIVELY fucks sheep on the white house lawn? (I'm going to regret posting this...i just know it)

The "exclusively fucks sheep on the lawn" is an exaggeration, and people are treating it as such. (Yes, when following the words exactly, the "president who only fucks sheep on the lawn" would be a horrible president, however, a presodent who did little out of the ordinary would work out better than Bush in a lot of people's view.)

[rek]

The "exclusively fucks sheep on the lawn" is an exaggeration, and people are treating it as such. (Yes, when following the words exactly, the "president who only fucks sheep on the lawn" would be a horrible president, however, a presodent who did little out of the ordinary would work out better than Bush in a lot of people's view.)

I didn't bother considering it as literal or an exaggeration because my vote would have been the same either way; but I don't think fucking sheep on the lawn is an exaggeration of doing "little out of the ordinary"... at least not where I come from ;)

[Lateralus]

Well, if a president only fucked sheep, he'd be doing the country less harm than our current president, who's going out of his way to erode our civil liberties and alienating the entire planet.