dzimmerm
Member
Well
As goes the children of the nation, so goes the nation.
dzimmerm
As goes the children of the nation, so goes the nation.
dzimmerm
where do I belong???
- Thread starter crewsr
- Start date
- Status
cracked butt
Member
The only 3rd party candidate that even had a smidgen of a chance in recent history was Ross Perot, and we all know what that got us. :banghead:
Flyboy
Member
Meh. I took his class on the Constitution, attended a Libertarian Q&A he hosted, and had dinner and after-hours debate with him. To say that he's abrasive would be putting it mildly. He is a firm believer in his positions--which I can respect--but he could have exercised a little more tact, particularly when preaching to those whom he wished to convert. He also had (has) some errors in his arguments; read his book Good to be King and you'll learn a lot, but the interesting bits are, in some cases, ill-considered or downright wrong*.
As for the party, yeah, we're pretty incompetent. At the Q&A, Badnarik mentioned that, and said one of our big problems is that we argue internally about everything (to which a good friend replied "Not everything!," titillating the crowd). He's right--we do have a lot of inconsistencies, mostly because Libertarianism is more of a philosophy of thought than a platform. There's a lot of room for disagreement, and being the strong-willed critters that we are, we disagree a lot. In fact, I've seen cases where we disagree internally more than the Republicans and Democrats do with each other. That's probably our biggest problem--we can't run a competent campaign because we won't compromise on our positions. Such compromise would be fundamentally at odds with the basic philosophy.
Bottom line is that George Washington was right: political parties were a bad idea. Elect people, not parties.
* I have a couple of copies of the book. If your library doesn't have it, and you want to read it, send me a PM and I'll loan it to you. I'll even pay postage one-way.
Originally posted by Rebar:
So you sell out your ideals, and your morals, for the sake of power. Then, when you finally do have the power, you only think you do, because you now have to toady up to those bloodthirsty few who really are in control. Yay. Sounds kinda like being the hooker that has to service the sheriff...
+1... Spot on. But whaddya do when all choices are equally vile? Move to Canada? March in the streets? Case in point: Bush v. Kerry... To me, Bush is doing more to harm the nation that any other President ever. In my mind, even though Kerry was far from ideal, I felt he couldn't be any worse than Bush. As far as the Second Amendment goes, I knew that it was in no danger from a Democrat President, as long as a Republican Congress gave us a proper balance.
With no checks on power, though, there's nothing to stop the rogues from literally running away with the Treasury. Which we see happening right before our eyes.
So you sell out your ideals, and your morals, for the sake of power. Then, when you finally do have the power, you only think you do, because you now have to toady up to those bloodthirsty few who really are in control. Yay. Sounds kinda like being the hooker that has to service the sheriff...
+1... Spot on. But whaddya do when all choices are equally vile? Move to Canada? March in the streets? Case in point: Bush v. Kerry... To me, Bush is doing more to harm the nation that any other President ever. In my mind, even though Kerry was far from ideal, I felt he couldn't be any worse than Bush. As far as the Second Amendment goes, I knew that it was in no danger from a Democrat President, as long as a Republican Congress gave us a proper balance.
With no checks on power, though, there's nothing to stop the rogues from literally running away with the Treasury. Which we see happening right before our eyes.
Of course - ANY party in a 2-party-oligarchy system is going to be a coalition of incongruent philosophies - and thus have some 'evilness' to it, regardless of your views. The only way to go is to crush this 2-party stranglehold, and create a system that allows 3rd (& 4th & 5th) parties to survive and thrive. Then you'll have enough diversity of the parties to create one that truly makes sense all the way around, like the Constitution Party.
There's a big difference between compromising and selling out. Need I remind that when the republicans didn't compromise, they were the minority party for 38 years? And those years were very dark indeed for gun owners and the RKBA. Now that the "neocons" have managed to get the republicans into the majority, things are looking a whole lot better, especially on the state level. That's not selling out, that's smart politics.
I disagree, I find the Democrats much more vile then the republicans. Not that I wouldn't like if the GOP were more conservative/libertarian (a lot more actually), but let's face it - the Democrats have become hard-leftists, especially the leadership. And completely anti-RKBA. Hillary will be their nominee, need I say more?
I think it'd be a lot easier and effective to steer the republicans more towards conservative/libertarian, then to pin false hopes on 3rd parties who have a hard time getting a dog-catcher elected.
Flyboy
Member
And the Republicans currently wielding power (read: Bush and Co.) have definitely sold out.
The Republican Party is supposed to stand for limited government. Bush and Co. have presided over four of the five largest spending increases in the history of the country. Know why he's not five-for-five? He hasn't finished his fifth year yet. I promise you, he will. This year's $286.4 billion transportation bill contains 6,371 congressional "earmarks." That's a fifty-fold increase over the number President Reagan rejected. Don Young, the bill's champion, even managed to drop $231 million on a bridge to be named after himself, and even had the hubris to work his wife's name into the bill title. Guess his party affiliation.
In the past five years, how many times has President Bush used his veto power? Here's a hint: zero. President Bush has not vetoed a single bill: not a spending bill, not an expansion-of-powers bill, not even the bill he said upfront he thought was unconstitutional.
Less government intrusion, and citizens' rights? Let's talk about "administrative subpoenas," shall we? The FBI can issue itself a subpoena, and under the original rules, you can't even talk to your lawyer about it (the courts struck that provision--now you can talk to your lawyer but nobody else). Judges? Separation of powers? What are you, a terrorist? Guess who promulgated those rules.
That would be why my state (Oklahoma) now makes me sign for Sudafed, right? Not that it really matters, the Feds are exercising power in any realm it can, stripping to the bone any remaining trace of "the great experiment." Not too long ago, the DEA busted, and the Feds prosecuted, a doctor specializing in chronic pain medication for giving patients "too much medication." Never mind that the patients weren't responding to lesser doses--the great, glorious Administration, with its political hacks, knows more about medicine than, you know, a mere doctor. The Republicans' only saving grace as of late is that their stance on gun rights (well, privileges, in every state but Alaska) is better than the Democrats', but that only counts if you intend to use those rights to win back the others. I'm not there yet, and I don't think anybody here is either.
I still think the party's platform is superior to the Democrats, but face it--the current power structure doesn't recognize the platform any more than it recognizes the Constitution. You've been sold out, and they've conned you into thinking it's good for you.
North Texan
Member
Good points. I couldn't agree more.
Okay. How many Members of Congress "compromised" by signing The PATRIOT Act when they didn't even know what was in it? And how many "sold out"?
How many "compromised" by signing the recent Omnibus Appropriations Bill, and how many "sold out"?
Pick any contentious topic: Condy for Secretary of State, Roberts for SCOTUS, Bolton for UN, Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Saudi princes mass exodus after 9-11, whatever did become of Osama, anyway...
How many Members of Congress "compromised", and how many "sold out"?
You're assuming that a democratic president and/or democratic majority wouldn't have done the same, or more likely worse. As well as extend and make permanent the AWB, let gun manufacturers get sued into bankrupcy, the list goes on.
You sound like there was an actual choice to prevent your litany of woe. There wasn't, and won't be next election either. You might think Bush sucks, but he's in every way better than a Gore or Kerry.
Most of them stupided out by signing off on something they never read.
On the other hand, the Party of Halliburton scares me a bit more than the alternatives right now. It might be the amount of cyberpunk fiction I consume, but I am very leery of governmental ties to large corporations.
No, I'm not. I'm assuming that most of the men and women we pay to represent us are crookeder than a dog's hind leg. It's high time they get punished.
No matter whether your representatives are Republicans or Democrats, if they voted to give away cash, if they voted for torture, if they voted for the AWB... if they voted for anything at all that's un-Constitutional, or against the best interests of the country, VOTE 'EM OUT!
Replace all the smug self-assure thieves with spanky-new freshmen that have no ties (yet) to Industry or Big Business. Let them know we're watching, and we don't give a whoop if they are in our party, if they vote against us, they'll be gone!
Fletchette
Member
Congress hardly ever reads bills any more. I would support an Amendment limiting all bills to a letter-count equivalent to 5 pages, in conjunction with criminal charges for anyone who voted for a law ultimately decided by the Supreme Court to be unConstitutional. Then maybe Congress just might take a look at what they are ultimately passing on us 'little people'.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
A succinct statement of why the Libertarian party has gone nowhere for the past thirty years and has no prospects for going anywhere in the future.
Our political system is built on compromise. The more ideologically pure you demand your party be, the smaller the membership of that party is going to be. The more you are willing to compromise your goals, the more you can build up a large base of support.
DRZinn
Member
"Contentious topic," or Democratic talking point?
- Status