Libertarian Endorses Bush

[RealGun]

We need somebody up there who is willing to say no to somebody else, and we get that only with gridlock.

Can we be clear that this is not a Libertarian argument? It is a desparate rationale why Kerry should win, i.e. a sad conclusion to yet another Bush bashing rant from a Democrat.

The reasons why Kerry should not be elected are so clear that there shouldn't need to be a debate on the details. I see nothing wrong with being critical after the election and setting ones goals for the 2008 election. Meanwhile, Bush is a good enough champion against John Kerry and all he stands for to be elected for four more years. There aren't any other realistic alternatives, if one wants to be relevant in this election.

I shouldn't pretend to affect what others do, but I can testify to my own reasoning and stand behind it.

 

[Igloodude]

Perfect, Zrex, thanks.

 

[buzz_knox]

Nor is anyone who believes either of those have any chance at ratification. Scare me with something real.

You do realize that in the modern agen, ratification is almost irrelevant. If sufficient countries adopt a treaty and a nonsignatory fails to specifically reserve itself from the treaty, then it can become customary international law. Over time, that can be effectively binding on even nonsignatories. We do the same ourselves, imposing customary limits on territorial waters even when a country claims more.

Further, a rather tragic trend in the American judiciary is to recognize international law (even if not specifically binding) as having value, and applying it to American law.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. RealGun, Thank you for your question.

Can we be clear that this is not a Libertarian argument?

Of course the answer is NO.

Almost all of us agree that Badnarik has no chance of becoming president. Duh.

Gridlock is our only hope.

Since it is obvious that gun control laws will NOT be repealed by a republican congress with a republican president, and since a republican congress will NOT permit Kerry to do any of the socialist stuff that you fearmongering Bush apologists scream and since Bush WILL sign anything that gets put in front of him and since his handlers want to further trash what's left of our bill of rights Gridlock is about all that remains.

Since I firmly believe that anybody who would vote for a Democrat let alone BE one has sold their soul, I am unable to vote for one. However, Gridlock is our only hope.

 

[buzz_knox]

I need you to explain again how you expect gridlock when you believe that both parties are essentially the same, with the same goals.

Forget it. I just found your explanation. You essentially think the parties appear to work against each other in a great conspiracy to deceive the American public into thinking they have a choice.

Nice thought, but the problem is that like most conspiracies, it's logically untenable. There are real differences at an individual level between the politicians that would make such a grand plan (that has to extend over decades) unfeasible.

 

[RealGun]

re gridlock,

I want to empower a Republican Congress to do more than hold a Democratic president at bay. Bush cannot be counted on to rubber stamp everything passed by Congress. In a second and final term with no concern for reelection, he will have less reason to pick his battles with Congress, should they present him with something he feels is bogus or ridden with non-germane amendments. In no case do I expect him to take great issue with something endorsed by the Republican leadership. Damning him for not getting a chance to sign an AWB renewal is kind of the ultimate irony. His lack of initiative is why it didn't get renewed.

I would be more concerned about what Congress is capable of passing and what Republican leadership will endorse. The "he'll sign anything" argument is old and tired in my opinion.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. RealGun your reply, I am afraid

is wishful thinking.

Bush cannot be counted on to rubber stamp everything passed by Congress.

Since it's that time of the year, I see in my mind, Lucy, holding the football and telling Linus, "No, I won't jerk it this time."

IIRC, W holds the record for fewest vetos. You could double his vetos and he's still the lowest. You could triple them....You keep doin' what you done and you'll keep gettin' what you got.

Mr. _knox,

Please look at my posting from a few days ago. Asked and answered.

 

[riverdog]

One of the reasons Bush has so few vetoes to his credit is that he's worked with the House so that legislation would never reach Bush's desk. He did the same thing to the AWB just to make sure he'd never be forced to keep his word and sign it. Tom DeLay and the President work quite well together.

 

[Zrex]

Can anyone explain Campaign Finance reform? What happened there?

 

[cropcirclewalker]

He did the same thing to the AWB just to make sure he'd never be forced to keep his word and sign it. Tom DeLay and the President work quite well together.

He'da signed it too. Fortunately, somebody found out about the (liability bill) shenanigans of the NRA and told us grass roots about it.

That's why the best we can hope for is Kerry in the white house and a congress full of "Dolittle and Delay"

I predict that if W gets reelected he WILL sign a new and improved AWB.

Mark the record.

 

[publius]

Can we be clear that this is not a Libertarian argument? It is a desparate rationale why Kerry should win, i.e. a sad conclusion to yet another Bush bashing rant from a Democrat.

Sorry, I didn't know one was called for in this thread. I mean, I'm basically responding to posts which say that Libertarians should vote Bush because he's the best imperialist warmonger and nation-builder. Are those Libertarian arguments?

I'm also responding to arguments that say pay attention to reality, your man can't get elected. Well, I posted the reality. One party rule results in twice the govt growth rate. The desperate argument is the one with no proof offered.

Your mind reading skills could use even more sharpening than your debating skills. I'm no Democrat, have voted for every Libertarian since I voted for Ron Paul in 1988.

 

[publius]

I need you to explain again how you expect gridlock when you believe that both parties are essentially the same, with the same goals.

Two reasons: I've seen it before, and it just makes sense. While they are essentially the same, they also don't trust each other. The reason the GOP Congress says yes to anything W asks for (and the reason he signs anything they send his way, no matter how dripping with pork) is because they trust each other. I think we'd be better off with a Congress and Executive branch which didn't trust each other.

I've posted the results seen in recent history with that arrangement and with the current one. Oddly no one has disputed those numbers, but maybe they didn't tell enough of the story.

What were we talking about? Dripping with pork? Well the obvious place to go next is transportation spending. Flipping the Economic Report of the Prez open again...

I can't believe these last couple of bills haven't gotten more attacks from conservatives. They were so bad, I think they put an actual picture of a pork barrel on the front cover of the bill.

Back in 2000: 46.8 billion

Last year: 67.1 billion, and projected to keep right on skyrocketing.

In the next installment, we'll start talking about the really big numbers. The ones that WILL break the bank if not controlled, and the evidence that neither half of the duopoly has any intention of controlling them.

Bet ya can't wait!

 

[publius]

Damning him for not getting a chance to sign an AWB renewal is kind of the ultimate irony.

Who did that? I damned him for making the mean looking weapons ban something about which there is bipartisan agreement. It used to be the Clinton gun ban, a clear political dividing line. Yet another line smeared. Now it's the bipartisan mean looking weapons ban, because every time we try to make it a partisan Democrat issue, we're going to hear But even George W. Bush supports it! You fringe guys are just unreasonable.

The thing is, opposition to the mean looking weapons ban runs wide and deep. W had no reason to mainstream that stupid law, he should have derided it until everyone thought it was a big joke. He had virtually nothing to lose by doing that, but he didn't because by leaving it alone, he could get a few more lefty votes, and he seems to know what I'm seeing here: that R's will give him a pass for absolutely anything if you just tell them Kerry is worse.

Do I go too far? Maybe I missed where someone answered my question:

At what point is enough enough?

 

[publius]

And now, as promised, we'll start looking at the really big numbers, the ones that are going to break the bank if they are not controlled.

Let's start with income security.

Back in 2000: 253.6 billion. That's billions and billions of boondogglin' bucks.

But it wasn't enough.

2003: 334.4 billion

2005 projection: 348.1 billion, and I'll bet anyone here any amount of money it will be more.

This is what they're planning. This is what you're voting for if you're voting for them.

Now, some of you may be wondering just what "income security" is, and where the authority comes from for the feds to spend so friggin' much money on it.

Well, it's welfare. Taking money from some individuals, and giving it to others who are poor. Poor people, as we all know, can't engage in all that much interstate commerce, hence it's a federal job to try to buy all the poor people out of poverty.

Speaking of bad ideas that cost a lot of money, the next spending category in today's lesson is Health. As we all know, people who are not healthy can't engage in very much interstate commerce, so this is another federal job.

In 2000, we spent 154.5 billion dollars protecting interstate commerce in this way.

By 2003, that number was 219.6 billion, and it is projected to go back down to under 100 billion by early 2006.

HAH! Just kidding. Had you going for a second, didn't I. Of course, what it is really projected to do is continue skyrocketing, up to 252.6 billion by 2005. But we all know that won't really happen. The real number will be much, much larger.

 

[publius]

And then there's Medicare. Bet you thought that was covered under Health, didn't you? Nope. A whole different boondoggle.

2000: 197.1 Billion

2003: 249.4 Billion

(Those are with capital B's)

2005 projection: 294.3 Billion

Do I dare bet that it will really be over 600 billion when the real number is released?

Then there's the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American people, Social Security. The head of the Concord Coalition said it best: The Social Security Trust Fund is the ultimate government oxymoron, because it should not be trusted and it is not funded.

Instead of investing the money we pay in, they loan it to themselves and spend it on the things I've outlined above. Instead of letting that money grow over time, we're all paying interest on it over time. And when the time comes to pay it back, there will be nothing there to sell or redeem. Just taxes to be raised.

Back in 2000: 409.4 billion, though receipts were 652.9 billion, so that's how much actually went out the door.

In 2003: 474.7 billion on receipts of 713 billion, with the remainder again being borrowed and spent immediately.

It's a staggering drain on the economy, and will be until there are structural changes to the system.

Ignoring runaway trains does not make them go away.

 

[publius]

Competition is, of course, the only change that will help. That means that fixing Socialist Security will mean making participation in the system voluntary. That one step would pull the rug from under the whole scam, and force honest behavior on the megascam which funds all the other, lesser scams.

 

[davec]

Can anyone explain Campaign Finance reform? What happened there?

Bush gave a nice long talk about how the bill wasn't really all that good, and that he hoped the courts would overturn it.

Then he signed it into law.

The President swears and oath to abide by the CONSTITUTION.

So, color me a little skeptical when a president says how UN-constitutional a piece of legislation is, then SIGNS IT ANYWAYS.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020327.html

However, the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections.

I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment.

I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law.

As a policy matter, I would have preferred a bill that included a provision to protect union members and shareholders from involuntary political activities undertaken by their leadership.


George Bush: Bold leadership to say something is wrong, then to do it anyways and hope the courts fix it later.

 

[RealGun]

Your mind reading skills could use even more sharpening than your debating skills. - publius

As far as debating skills, there are better examples to follow than yours. I would suggest easing up on the pejorative, if your arguments are to be taken seriously. I woud also not post a bunch of statistics with no references and base arguments on them. Beyond that, we should try to stick to the facts and stay on the High Road.

 

[publius]

As I said on four occasions in this thread, all those numbers came from the Economic Report of the President. If you've never heard of that, go search for it on the net.


You'll probably find it about where I did.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/

The section I wrote on the Iraqi interim Constitution had a link at the top.

Now that there's a basis, would you care to discuss those stats and the arguments based upon them?

 

[publius]

While we're busy asking for references and a basis for argument, what exactly was the basis for saying I'm just a desperate Bush bashing Democrat?

 

[RealGun]

While we're busy asking for references and a basis for argument, what exactly was the basis for saying I'm just a desperate Bush bashing Democrat?

My impression was that any rationale for voting for John Kerry could only come from a Democrat, especially among gun owners. The exception would be a Libertarian who wanted to create so much chaos that his party could appear more attractive in the future.

 

[RealGun]

Now that there's a basis, would you care to discuss those stats and the arguments based upon them?

No!

Rather than analyze ain't-it-awful statistics, it's easier to make a grander assessment that George Bush would make a better and more effective President than either John Kerry or Michael Badnarik. For me it's a done deal. Others are welcome to be lead into the woods and get lost in the trees.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

The exception would be a Libertarian who wanted to create so much chaos that his party could appear more attractive in the future.

Somebody who might have been famous may have said something like this. "The chaos, dear RealGun, lies not in our libertarian stars, but in ourselves that you we an underlings."

What you described above in less acrid terms could probably be referred to as "Advocacy" duh.

Sometimes the truth hurts. That's when one tends to lean on the pejorative.

Publus, you da man!

 

[publius]

My impression was that any rationale for voting for John Kerry could only come from a Democrat, especially among gun owners. The exception would be a Libertarian who wanted to create so much chaos that his party could appear more attractive in the future.

Fair enough. I hope you can appreciate that I took being called a desperate Democrat to be character assassination substituted for argument, and didn't particularly feel that it belonged on The High Road.

If my posting of the facts creates chaos, blame those who created the facts.

I'd never invest in a company just because I like the guy running it without first taking a look at the actual numbers. Any voters who have not spent at least a half hour or so going over the official budget of the US government are negligent, IMNSHO.

 

[Ieyasu]

Don't forget the SUPREME COURT

One reason I'm voting for Bush -- the Supreme Court. With Kerry we have Z-E-R-O chance of getting pro-2A justices appointed. With Bush there is a chance.