Freeper_Madness: Hmmm... so the kids get coached by a liberal on 'what it means to be a Democrat or Republican' and the kids end up picking two liberals for their candidates.

McCain is a liberal?

Wow, pass me some of that kool-aid, must be really tasty.

methinks they're parroting their parents. i know i did when i was smaller.

In other words, it was a popularity contest in when the kids just clicked the name of whomever their parents support, knowing nothing of the issues or the candidates.

Wow, that IS like the real primaries!

Freeper_Madness: Yes. He's the 'maverick' that the MSM adored when they thought he was about to switch parties.

yeah, that whole voting record being solidly conservative makes him such a maverick.

And 9iu11ani sent them running, crying and screamin, under their bed covers...as Rudy grinned in satisfaction.

Freeper_Madness: McCain has been anti-gun, pro-illegal immigration, anti-free speech and a christian-basher. He straddles the fence on abortion and gay marraige. He's with the left on Global WarmingTM and Gitmo.

Oh, you mean he's not an "idiot conservative".

Trolling Freeper aside, I'm not too pleased either about kids being told "what it means to be a Democrat or a Republican"- considering the fact that exactly that is often a matter of heated debate. It's a complex question that most adults don't understand. I can't imagine any way it could be dumbed down to a level where kids could understand it and not end up being total bullshiat.

Freeper_Madness: He's with the left on Global Warming^TM and Gitmo.

Liberals are bad because they didn't see September 11th as an excuse to crap their pants and wipe with the Constitution.

Also, I don't think Global Warming is really the crisis that Al Gore says, however, it is making people rethink things like, making more efficient machines and maybe living with less energy so we don't have to fight more wars for oil.

If you're conservative and want a small government, why are you so
keen on letting the government set up secret offshore prisons and getting our hands dirty abroad with a superbloated military?

Etchy333: If you're conservative and want a small government, why are you so
keen on letting the government set up secret offshore prisons and getting our hands dirty abroad with a superbloated military?

Because neoconservatism has nothing to do with actual conservatism, it's little more than repackaged authoritarian corporatism with a veneer of social conservatism. Barry Goldwater was an actual conservative, and he stormed out of the GOP in disgust when the neocons & moral authoritarians took over.

Freeper_Madness: Etchy333: If you're conservative and want a small government...

Is that what you want?

It's all a matter of perspective I guess.

Do I want the freeways to collapse? No.
Do I want to have to show my passport to go from California to Oregon? Double no.

Etchy333: Do I want the freeways to collapse? No.

"Small government" means shrinking the scope of the government's authority, not having the government be incompetent at those things still within its scope.

/does want very, very small government
//also not a "conservative"
///but I do respect actual conservatives

Freeper_Madness: Blathering about 'neocons' (whatever that means) is irrelevant.

Ask this guy-



Freeper_Madness: There will never, ever again be a 'small' federal government

As much as you people slobber over Reagan's corpse, I'm surprised you don't get covered in your own spittle flying off of him while he spins from that sentiment.

Freeper_Madness: 'Secret offshore prisons' (if they exist) don't have anything to do with 'big government'

The government doing something that's not supposed to be within their purview is the very definition of "big government."

Freeper_Madness: As far as 'dirty hands' overseas go, or a 'super-bloated' military, you are simply going to have to face reality.

Reality #1) America has enemies and they are armed to the teeth.

Which is why the rest of the world combined doesn't spend as much on their collective militaries as we spend on ours, right? Nevermind the fact that most of these enemies have been created by the American government's policy of treating the rest of the world like serfs.

Freeper_Madness: Reality #2) America (and civilization, period) runs on oil

And our constant wars in the middle east, particularly in Iraq, have done absolutely nothing to secure "our" oil. If that was honestly the concern you should have just lifted the sanctions on Iraq. That would have put more oil on the market instantly than even the most wild-eyed optimists guess ANWR might in a decade.

Freeper_Madness: It's something to think about, isn't it?

Yes, as in "How the hell did people who think like this ever get in charge of our government?"

Freeper_Madness: Alright. Do you cut out SS, Medicade and Medicare? To get the very, very small government that you ('who is not a conservative') want, you'd have to start there.

Wrong, you don't start there. You start with massive (as in at least ~80%) cuts to the defense budget and other overseas spending, and use the breathing room that gives us to phase out SS. As for Medicaid/Medicare, those are easier since they aren't actual obligations. They can be passed off to the states. In the meantime we can also chop all the Cabinet departments save Defense, State, Interior, and Justice. Interior would be significantly shrunk, though, since we would also be selling off some of the vast amounts of land the Federal government owns to help pay down the debt and SS. Needless to say all the independent agencies like NASA, the CIA, etc. would go. What foreign intelligence gathering there was still a need for could be done under the DoD. The whole process, excluding the longer-term phase-out of Social Security, could be done in 5-8 years. Then you'd already have enough cut and then some to get rid of the individual income tax.

And that's not even touching the massive regulatory burden you'd also be lifting. Getting rid of OSHA alone would be the equivalent of pumping billions into the economy.

You might argue against the political feasibility (an argument that loses all merit beyond one or two election cycles into the future), but financially it's perfectly feasible.

Wait a second...

I recognize you! You're Hellbent_for_Leather/Afternoon_Delight/Mighty_Dog! I remember now when you started declaring yourself a "Libertarian" and I told you off for it because of your support of Bush and an interventionist foreign policy. You even used the exact same bit about loving Harry Browne.

Freeper_Madness: I understand everything that you say, and I can absolutely guarantee you that none (as in ZERO) of what you have suggested will happen in our lifetimes

I disagree. Even if it's true, that's no reason not to work towards it. The shape of the political landscape is really impossible to predict more than one or two election cycles in advance.

Freeper_Madness: and it 'won't' be because of people like me

Those who comprimise their principles and don't advocate it will be just as guilty if it doesn't happen. Though, now that I've finally identified you, I know that "principles" aren't high up on your list of priorities.

I suppose it was about time for you to grab a new login since there won't be any new Cox & Forkum cartoons to post.


/I've got you Farkied now

Subby needs to lay off the pistachio liqueur...

I guess he ran off to register a new login.

Recall all Repuglikkkans: Hmmm, I swear that if you ask the Republikkkans, it seems the same to them.

you're trying too hard

Recall all Repuglikkkans: Hmmm, I swear that if you ask the Republikkkans, it seems the same to them.

For the neocons, it is.

Harry Pooter: you're trying too hard

You would know.

Wow, this has really drawn out all of the trolls. I think we're just missing Hillary4real or whatever that genius goes by. Or had we decided that's the same person as Freeper and A_D? I'm losing track.

I blame this on B. Hussein Obama, Billary Clinton, John 'The Vietnamese Collaborator' McCain, Rudy the crossdressing cousin farker Giuliani, and all those other people who I can't come up with offensive names for.

Children shouldn't be allowed to even pretend to vote. It's not like they have to live in the world created by an election, after all.

Kids think that Hillary Clinton is the mean older cousin from Rugrats.

Hey, now. A couple of things I know we can all agree on:

McCain has a hot daughter.
Kucinich has a hot wife.

/Pervects Unite!

LonMead: Hey, now. A couple of things I know we can all agree on:

McCain has a hot daughter.
Kucinich has a hot wife.

/Pervects Unite!

McCain's wife is pretty bangin' too, at least for a 53-year-old.

So, Afternoon_Delight, I must question: If we're going to be voting for a 'liberal' no matter what this fall...why not vote for the liberal who isn't going to die or go alzheimers-crazy before the end of their first term?

/BHUSSEIN

Shaggy_C: So, Afternoon_Delight, I must question: If we're going to be voting for a 'liberal' no matter what this fall...why not vote for the liberal who isn't going to die or go alzheimers-crazy before the end of their first term?

/BHUSSEIN

I dunno about the Troller-In-Chief, but as for myself my disapproval of Obama stems from what I consider to be a healthy disdain for cults of personality, particularly concerning political leaders. That alone wouldn't be enough, but the fact that that seems to be what his campaign has been built on is.

I will admit that, though I'd vote Libertarian in that match-up, I'd prefer Obama over all the other Republicans.

I'm tempted to take a poll of my students, just for fun.

Of course, my students range in age from 2 years old to 11. And, they're Chinese kids in Beijing.

magores: I'm tempted to take a poll of my students, just for fun.

Of course, my students range in age from 2 years old to 11. And, they're Chinese kids in Beijing.

Hey, why not? It'd be at least as accurate as the polling in New Hampshire was.

anonymousgirl: methinks they're parroting their parents. i know i did when i was smaller.

This.

I for one think OSHA is a fantastic idea. As a person who worked at an incredibly unsafe bomb plant, i appreciated their efforts to keep my lungs free of nitration acids and various other chemicals.

LaoTsu128: I for one think OSHA is a fantastic idea. As a person who worked at an incredibly unsafe bomb plant, i appreciated their efforts to keep my lungs free of nitration acids and various other chemicals.

As a person who worked in an office, I don't appreciate their efforts to enforce inane minutiae on workplaces with a religious fervor that makes Biblical literalists look sane.

You're also incorrect in identifying OSHA as the ones responsible for keeping your lungs free of harmful stuff. At most, the monitored your employer to make sure they were doing that.

Churchill2004: Freeper_Madness: I understand everything that you say, and I can absolutely guarantee you that none (as in ZERO) of what you have suggested will happen in our lifetimes

I disagree. Even if it's true, that's no reason not to work towards it.

Because it's a fool's errand. Eighty percent of the population likes to keep things as they are because the way things are familiar and comforting. Anything short of a complete socioeconomic meltdown (not gunna happen anytime soon) will leave us as we've been for the last seventy years. To enjoy your own personal freedom, you shouldn't have to change the rest of the world.

Fortunately, there are usually clever... umm... workarounds for lots of problems you might encounter which allow you a little pocket of "freedom" -- however you may define it.

Smellvin: Because it's a fool's errand.

It's preferable to trying to scrounge out what few crumbs of liberty you can under the current system- and those are basically our only choices.

I think you're too pessimistic. If you look at the demographics, there's ample evidence that libertarians and libertarian-leaning types constitute a significant chunk of the under-30 generation. At the same time authoritarian social conservatism and neoconservatism are both extremely unpopular amongst that generation- meaning that they're going to start declining as the Baby Boomers (finally) start dying off. Something's going to have to fill that void.

There's plenty of room for long-term optimism. Just looking at the "unsuccessful" Paul campaign (which is far from over, even if it's unlikely at this point to lead to the White House)- there are already a half dozen people around the country running for Congress as "Ron Paul Republicans", and the Free State Project will likely get a significant boost when all is said and done.

Smellvin: Fortunately, there are usually clever... umm... workarounds for lots of problems you might encounter which allow you a little pocket of "freedom" -- however you may define it

If you have to hide it, it's not freedom. I'd rather do what I can to change the system than spend my life trying to escape from it.

Etchy333: Also, I don't think Global Warming is really the crisis that Al Gore says, however, it is making people rethink things like, making more efficient machines and maybe living with less energy so we don't have to fight more wars for oil.

If you're conservative and want a small government, why are you so
keen on letting the government set up secret offshore prisons and getting our hands dirty abroad with a superbloated military?

I bring to you a very simple proposition: If you are so offended by these "wars for oil" that you so love to spout off about, then you should distance yourself from using any oil ever again. Never use plastic, never turn on a light, don't drive a car, etc.... but you won't.

I also have a very nice solution to people who scream about one thing and then reap the benefits of the payoffs: If you scream about "wars for oil", the evils of Jeebus-lovers, or the horrors of evolution but then you turn around and fill up your SUV, receive a handout at the Salvation Army, or go in for medicine for the flu... you have to forfeit a large sum of money for your hypocrisy, and if you can't afford it, you give up a body part.

Churchill2004: If you have to hide it, it's not freedom. I'd rather do what I can to change the system than spend my life trying to escape from it.

If you haven't, I'd recommend reading (since we've already mentioned Harry Browne) How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World. I think he has a few good ideas that might better explain my position.

Also, Massholes are flooding into NH at a high rate and turning it into North Massachusetts. There are a few states (one in particular) out there that are much, much better than NH if you're looking for minimal government.

Churchill2004: Smellvin: Because it's a fool's errand.

It's preferable to trying to scrounge out what few crumbs of liberty you can under the current system- and those are basically our only choices.

I think you're too pessimistic. If you look at the demographics, there's ample evidence that libertarians and libertarian-leaning types constitute a significant chunk of the under-30 generation. At the same time authoritarian social conservatism and neoconservatism are both extremely unpopular amongst that generation- meaning that they're going to start declining as the Baby Boomers (finally) start dying off. Something's going to have to fill that void.

There's plenty of room for long-term optimism. Just looking at the "unsuccessful" Paul campaign (which is far from over, even if it's unlikely at this point to lead to the White House)- there are already a half dozen people around the country running for Congress as "Ron Paul Republicans", and the Free State Project will likely get a significant boost when all is said and done.

Smellvin: Fortunately, there are usually clever... umm... workarounds for lots of problems you might encounter which allow you a little pocket of "freedom" -- however you may define it

If you have to hide it, it's not freedom. I'd rather do what I can to change the system than spend my life trying to escape from it.

I tend to get my optimism from what we've already accomplished and the people we've already voted in. We've done it before; we're capable of doing it again.

Case in point, I put together an All-Star Team of all the critically important Washington positions- President (George Washington) all the way down to UN Representative (Adlai Stevenson). Took me nine months to put it together; I feel with that much work put into it, I get to post it on Fark at least once.

The rules for inclusion are included in the Excel file. Clicky for my All-Star Team: (new window) scroll down, fill in the security code, hit download, boom.

Smellvin: If you haven't, I'd recommend reading (since we've already mentioned Harry Browne) How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World. I think he has a few good ideas that might better explain my position.

I've been wanting to start on Harry Browne, but I haven't been able to fit in yet. I have a pretty tightly packed reading schedule. ;^)

Smellvin: Also, Massholes are flooding into NH at a high rate and turning it into North Massachusetts.

I think that's really being exaggerated. There's certainly a flow of people from Massachusetts to NH, but I don't think it's anywhere close to having a serious effect on the political climate there. The 2006 disaster (the NHGOP ain't perfect, but it's easily one of the most libertarian in the country) was part of the national backlash against Republicans, not the Massholes tilting the polls. At most they've had a few of them whining about a lack of local government "services".

Besides, the idea of the FSP has never been to win at the ballot box simply though our numbers, it's been about having a concentrated activist/outreach/education network in one state. They're already well on their way to having that, and the FSP is already one of the premier pro-liberty organizations in the country. Particularly now that "paleolibertarians" and "comsopolitian" CATO-type "libertarians" are getting into a pissing match, it's nice to have a wing of the movement that's uninvolved in that spat and is generally free of the personal animosities that stretch back several decades within it.

Smellvin: There are a few states (one in particular)

What state is that? Looking at the stats, it's hard to find one that's dramatically better than NH. If there was, it would have won the vote the FSP held to determine their target state.

Gosling: Clicky for my All-Star Team: (new window) scroll down, fill in the security code, hit download, boom.

I'm getting a "file could not be found" when I download. Might want to check that out.

I'd quibble about Washington (Jefferson!), but I'll wait until I see your whole list to pick it apart. I'm rather interested to see what you've come up with.

Huh; I'm able to download it jsut fine. Maybe try another mirror site?

Hmm. Worked on second try, but all I got was a weird webpage-in-excel thing for whatever file-sharing site you uploaded it to.

Can you send it to my gmail?

Ah, there we go. Finally worked on the third mirror I tried. Give me a minute to scan through it.

Churchill2004: What state is that? Looking at the stats, it's hard to find one that's dramatically better than NH. If there was, it would have won the vote the FSP held to determine their target state.

I've sent you a PM to your account on RPForums.com so that we may continue this discussion. So if you're interested, head over there.

Was bugs bunny on the write in ballot?

Oh, and Jefferson actually didn't make the team in any capacity whatsoever. Here's how that happened:

*Far as I'm concerned, President is just Washington, Lincoln, and everyone else. You know all the arguments already; I come down in the Washington camp.
*Vice President was his next opportunity, and he would have breezed in if not for a Constitutional technicality saying that the President and VP can't be from the same state. Washington and Jefferson are both Virginians. President gets priority, so Jefferson's out in favor of New Yorker Teddy Roosevelt.
*Jefferson's last shot was Secretary of State, which I just sort of assumed he'd get. Louisiana Purchase and such.

Then Elihu Farking Root comes along, I conclude him to be actually a better diplomat than Jefferson (though Jefferson blows his head off everywhere else, diplomacy is what matters in that position). Root is seated on the strength of his Spanish-American War efforts, the Hague Peace Conference, a border dispute between the US and Canada, and his diplomacy-related Nobel Peace Prize, among other things. Jefferson is out in the cold. Root may not have gone as big as Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase, but he just kept scoring and scoring and scoring. Jefferson was a big part in the creation of the American party system, which isn't very diplomatic of him and ultimately cost him the seat.

Churchill2004:
Because neoconservatism has nothing to do with actual conservatism, it's little more than repackaged authoritarian corporatism with a veneer of social conservatism. Barry Goldwater was an actual conservative, and he stormed out of the GOP in disgust when the neocons & moral authoritarians took over.

THIS.

Really, subby? Fairy tale zing on Paul?

+1

Like George Carlin said (paraphrase): we shouldn't lock up all of the crazy people. We need to keep some around for the entertainment.

I must say I preferred the Cox & Forkum cartoons you used to post.

Churchill2004: I can't imagine any way it could be dumbed down to a level where kids could understand it and not end up being total bullshiat.

Republicans are the elephants, Democrats are the donkeys?

/and everyone else is screwed

I don't think the Nickelodeon Kids' Election aims quite that young, subby.

I had an election in my kindergarden room, in 1976. It was a peanut farmer(mmm, peanuts) vs. some other guy. I had no idea it was Ford, or who Ford was. Carter won by a pretty big margin.