The two "Republicans" I saw mentioned in that article were Colin Powell and Chuck Hagel. CP has been always moderate. Hagel is a liberal (RINO). Hardly people that wouldn't already vote Obama.

lol..they haven't seen the bill yet.

silentsid1: The two "Republicans" I saw mentioned in that article were Colin Powell and Chuck Hagel. CP has been always moderate. Hagel is a liberal (RINO). Hardly people that wouldn't already vote Obama.

And yet, look, they're Republicans nonetheless.

KEWL

GaryPDX: they haven't seen the bill yet.

Yes, let's get rid of government and be dominated by large corporations. That'll save us money.

whidbey: GaryPDX: they haven't seen the bill yet.

Yes, let's get rid of government and be dominated by large corporations. That'll save us money.

Welcome to CostCo- I love you.

whidbey: GaryPDX: they haven't seen the bill yet.

Yes, let's get rid of government and be dominated by large corporations. That'll save us money.

How about we do neither and just be Americans. It's not an either/or problem. Aren't you tired of only two choices? I know I am. I'm not waiting around for some evil corporation OR a fatty government to solve problems. This energy thing is dwarfs anything either of them can do anyway, even IF they worked together.

Liberty will Reign In America!!

Did the article mention Milton Friedman's son? He supports Obama.

Oh... I is a idiot. There it is right in the very first sentence.

GaryPDX: How about we do neither and just be Americans. It's not an either/or problem. Aren't you tired of only two choices? I know I am. I'm not waiting around for some evil corporation OR a fatty government to solve problems

I don't have a problem with the government. We ARE the government.

Anyway, your argument is disingenuous, seeing as how your boy Bush ran up a trillion-dollar bill in Eye-Rack.

And yeah he's your boy, because I've only seen you criticize Democrats.

silentsid1: Hagel is a liberal (RINO)

you have GOT to be kidding me.

Could this be IT? THE thread that finally convinces everyone to wake up and vote for the "right" party? I'm just sure a thread will eventually united us all, maybe it's this one!

Republicans for Kerry? (new window)

Imperfect (and renounced) past or not, I'll take Bob Barr over Obama's All Things Are Possible With The Presidency nonsense.

Nothing is going to get any better until we bring the power, importance, and hugely unrealistic expectations surrounding the White House down to size. And Obama's at the head of the back promising to do everything for everybody, including giving out "hope", from the Oval Office.

whidbey: And yeah he's your boy, because I've only seen you criticize Democrats.

Well, they have had the spotlight for about a year hoggin all the TV time with the pissy fight. You won't see me playing kissy face with McCain either, I assure you.

Churchill2004: And Obama's at the head of the back promising to do everything for everybody

I'll admit it's suspiciously Clinton-like. We'll see if he has convictions or if he caves. He's still worth a vote from me over someone like Barr who can't even raise enough money or awareness to get on the radar.

GaryPDX: Well, they have had the spotlight for about a year hoggin all the TV time with the pissy fight.

Pissy fight?

I thought the Democratic nomination contest was extraordinarily restrained. I didn't hear about any push polls alleging that Barack Obama has a secret black baby or anything.

The number of Democrats supporting McCain is still higher than the number of Republicans backing Obama.

McCainDemocrat: The number of Democrats supporting McCain is still higher than the number of Republicans backing Obama.

F*cking bullsh*t. What color is the sky in your world? Brown?

whidbey: McCainDemocrat: The number of Democrats supporting McCain is still higher than the number of Republicans backing Obama.

F*cking bullsh*t. What color is the sky in your world? Brown?

I think the ceiling of the basement is probably white. Or, if he truly lives under a bridge, grey.

"There is a good chunk of people, like myself, who believe the Republicans ought to go down in flames," [Brink Lindsey of the Cato Institute] said. "They have made a complete hash of things and they deserve to pay."

Pretty much sums up how the Republicans I know feel...destroy the current party and start from scratch.

silentsid1: Hagel is a liberal

ha ha ha ahhahahahaha HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

No, he's really not.

McCainDemocrat: The number of Democrats supporting McCain is still higher than the number of Republicans backing Obama.

I am a Republican supporter of Barack Obama.

Unlike you, I don't feel the need to make myself a new Fark ID and spam every political thread with bullshiat and lies.

I'm confident that McCain will reveal enough about himself for intelligent Americans to see for themselves that he is not the man to lead this country.

McCainDemocrat: The number of Democrats supporting McCain is still higher than the number of Republicans backing Obama.

You've been spending too much time at Hillaryis44 McCainD. Just because you wish something were true, doesn't make it so.

/I hope you've got your TF subscription on the month-to-month plan

Churchill2004: And Obama's at the head of the back promising to do everything for everybody, including giving out "hope", from the Oval Office.

You know, you really should listen to the man's speeches and platforms before opening your mouth. His consistent message has been "IF Americans pull together and IF Americans hold their elected officials accountable and IF government can get down to the business of rational proposals that actually solve problems THEN things have an awful good chance of improving.

Obama offers greater tax savings for far more Americans.

Obama's economic proposals are actually, largely, crafted by economists.

McCain supports more power for the government to watch you. Obama supports more power for you to watch the government and has proposed specific policies that accomplish such.

whidbey: Churchill2004: And Obama's at the head of the back promising to do everything for everybody

I'll admit it's suspiciously Clinton-like. We'll see if he has convictions or if he caves. He's still worth a vote from me over someone like Barr who can't even raise enough money or awareness to get on the radar.

He'll do more than any other LP nominee has ever done. He's pretty much assured Nader2000-level media coverage at a bare minimum, and will probably get more than that. He won't do as well as could be done if a competent political team tapped into Ron Paul's support for fundraising and the broader libertarian-leaning and anti-McCain conservative votes (he seems to have, rightly, picked a more libertarian message over a just anti-McCain one), but I think 3-4% is all but guaranteed. Not Perot 1992, granted, but a decent step for the LP from Badnarik 2004 and a good starting point for building the party in coalition with Ron Paul's new "Coalition for Liberty" thing.

Atillathepun: You know, you really should listen to the man's speeches and platforms before opening your mouth. His consistent message has been "IF Americans pull together and IF Americans hold their elected officials accountable and IF government can get down to the business of rational proposals that actually solve problems THEN things have an awful good chance of improving.

Obama offers greater tax savings for far more Americans

Obama buys hook, line, and sinker the widely accepted nonsense about the President as not just the Constitutional officer charged with faithful execution of the laws, but the Man In Charge of Everything, from spiritual malaise to cyclical bad weather. This obsession with the Presidency as the absolute center of the universe is a big part of the problem Obama's purporting to be the "Change"! solution to. Yet he continues to walk around talking as if the President was some perverse combination of shaman, genie, and supreme warlord of the earth- which leads me to think that's how he intends to use the Presidency.

Atillathepun: McCain supports more power for the government to watch you. Obama supports more power for you to watch the government and has proposed specific policies that accomplish such

Obama is a (very) moderate civil libertarian. Aside from that he has proposed growing government size, power, and spending on almost everything- with our Saviour President leading the charge as the simultaneous Voice of God, Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

Churchill2004: Atillathepun: You know, you really should listen to the man's speeches and platforms before opening your mouth. His consistent message has been "IF Americans pull together and IF Americans hold their elected officials accountable and IF government can get down to the business of rational proposals that actually solve problems THEN things have an awful good chance of improving.

Obama offers greater tax savings for far more Americans

Obama buys hook, line, and sinker the widely accepted nonsense about the President as not just the Constitutional officer charged with faithful execution of the laws, but the Man In Charge of Everything, from spiritual malaise to cyclical bad weather. This obsession with the Presidency as the absolute center of the universe is a big part of the problem Obama's purporting to be the "Change"! solution to. Yet he continues to walk around talking as if the President was some perverse combination of shaman, genie, and supreme warlord of the earth- which leads me to think that's how he intends to use the Presidency.

Again, you're making things up. Try listening to the man's actually speeches instead of someone else's feeble-minded interpretation.

Obama is a (very) moderate civil libertarian. Aside from that he has proposed growing government size, power, and spending on almost everything- with our Saviour President leading the charge as the simultaneous Voice of God, Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

And yet analysis of his proposed policies give more americans larger tax savings and results in less debt than McCain's proposals. Obama supports restoring rights that have eroded under the Bush regime, thereby lessening Government power.

Seriously, if you think the Republican way leads to less government power, you are stark raving mad.

Ron Paul Revere: My guess is that his net effect on the election will be zero, if not in favor of Obama

I'm not really concerned what his effect is on Obama vs. McCain. A pox on both their houses.

Ron Paul Revere: The thing the Libertarian party needs to realize is (a) presenting themselves as a bunch of pro-gun extremists who run "Guns for Tots" drives will not win elections, and (b) your presidential candidate cannot win an election if no one from your party holds a position in an elected national office.

I don't think anti-gun control is the real extremist position the LP needs to stop pushing (the whole anarchism thing might be more harmful, and I say that as some one who half agrees with them). But you've got the right idea- the LP needs to branch out from just being a radical anarcho-capitalist party. That's really the whole idea motivating Barr and the people in the LP who got him nominated.

Ron Paul Revere: A lesson that can be learned from Ron Paul's bid for the White House is thus:

There is a very strong and growing contingent of Americans who value personal and economic liberty

Very much so- and it's really broader than what Paul found. The Paul movement ended up not getting a lot of that broader support because of its extremist/crazy bent and the fact that Paul's campaign had no idea what "message control" or "good advertising" were.

Issue-position surveys place the libertarian-leaning vote at a 10% minimum. "Libertarian-leaning" in the broadest, reason magazine & CATO Institute sense, but what any liberty-oriented movement needs to build around.

Ron Paul Revere: I realize being a politician is anathema to Libertarians, but the truth is that this is the key to winning elections. They need charismatic candidates who connect with the people of the districts they're running in.

Again- I agree 100%. And again, Barr is part of that. Look at what he's replacing.

Ron Paul Revere: Congressional victories will lead to national press. National press leads to vindication of ideas. Vindication of ideas leads to the ability to run for and win Senate seats

I agree, and I think Barr half has in mind the idea of recruiting serious candidates for lower elections in 2010 and 2012. But it's too late for that this year, and a strong(er) Presidential showing can help that a lot.

Ron Paul Revere: The problem they face right now is tha the party is controlled by a bunch of self-serving rich douchebags who see our ideology as a means to their end of lowering taxes and don't give two shiats about the American people

I here this a lot- and I really get the impression that the people saying this have no idea what the Libertarian Party has actually been espousing all these years it's gotten .4% of the vote. It's not "pissed off Conservatives with a hard-on for the free market", it's raving loonie hippie-type anarchists who take all that and apply to a philosophy that includes private property. A sizable chunk of radical libertarians (obviously not LP members but fellow travelers) refuse to admit it's even morally acceptable to vote.

Barr is part of moving the LP out of that radical dogmatism and towards a broader libertarian coalition that can pulling in libertarian-leaning votes from the left, center, and right. Of course the focus is towards the right and center rather than the left this election cycle- but Barr is still touting a very libertarian message- and most importantly, is making a serious effort to present in a palatable way.

Atillathepun: Again, you're making things up. Try listening to the man's actually speeches instead of someone else's feeble-minded interpretation.

Do you actually understand what I'm saying? I'm not accusing him of being an empty suit with no policy proposals. I'm saying he plays just as much to the Savior President crap that's been at the heart of a lot of our political problems for the past several decades. The ideal President doesn't overhaul society and "inspire people" about the "audacity of hope". The ideal President simply presides over peace and prosperity ('normalcy' as one guy put it) that (ideally) can result from his faithful execution of the laws. Instead we get the Hero President who saves us all from everything anybody can think of and is worshiped as a demi-god rather than a mere Constitutional officer in a republic of equal citizens. This is the sort of thing the Founders were talking about when they warned about demagogues. And it's not just Obama, it's been most presidents since Teddy Roosevelt, but Obama is just as bad at is as any one else, if not somewhat worse with his talk about, essentially, giving people meaning in their lives from the Oval Office.


McCain has the same problem, don't get me wrong.

Atillathepun: And yet analysis of his proposed policies give more americans larger tax savings and results in less debt than McCain's proposals. Obama supports restoring rights that have eroded under the Bush regime, thereby lessening Government power.

Seriously, if you think the Republican way leads to less government power, you are stark raving mad

Honestly, do you read posts or do you just skim over them, detect criticism of Obama, and launch into "but the Republicans are worse!"?

I don't support McCain and the Republicans. I would no more vote for McCain than Obama. He does the same crap I'm talking about, he's just not as good at it.

Ron Paul Revere: I realize being a politician is anathema to Libertarians, but the truth is that this is the key to winning elections. They need charismatic candidates who connect with the people of the districts they're running in. Congressional victories will lead to national press. National press leads to vindication of ideas. Vindication of ideas leads to the ability to run for and win Senate seats.

I agree pretty much down the line here. Its the same problem with the Green Party. I've always liked the local LP and GP candidates that do run far more than the upper echelon types who run for the Presidency, and I've voted accordingly. Having said that, I think all the political debates should include both the LP and the GP, as well as the Constitution Party, who is running Alan Keyes this year.

/even thought the CP is certifiably batshiat crazy

I'm beginning to think that the conservative movement may be played out because it is just too old-fashioned. Old style conservatism relied on a very insular world view. The illusion that a man can be an island. A rugged individualist who need answer only to himself.

Nowadays everything is interconnected. You can't be an isolationist. Liberalism had to face a similar crises over the last decade and has evolved into progressivism. Conservatism is in the process of evolving into libertarianism on the one hand and idiocracy on the other.

Reagan style capitalism has no relevance in today's economy. It began to die the day paypal was born.

Churchill2004: The ideal President simply presides over peace and prosperity ('normalcy' as one guy put it) that (ideally) can result from his faithful execution of the laws. Instead we get the Hero President who saves us all from everything anybody can think of and is worshiped as a demi-god rather than a mere Constitutional officer in a republic of equal citizens.

I'll be voting for Sen. Obama, but I can understand your point, and there is something to be said for that here. Unfortunately, the internal nationalistic and jingoistic radicalization since 9/11 doesn't permit that cultural luxury at this time. The national discourse has shifted away from that type of distributive democracy. It will take a lot of time for it to shift back. I think Obama's approach is a good first step. But I respect your position. You are voting for Rep. Barr, I take it?

/good on you
//he's a lot better than he used to be

Somacandra: the Constitution Party, who is running Alan Keyes this year.

/even thought the CP is certifiably batshiat crazy

Not even the, admittedly batshiat theocracy-loving crazy CP was crazy enough to nominate Keyes. They might want moral authoritarianism at the state level, but they have a hard-on for Federalism (aside from stopping imports, they oppose Federal drug laws, for instance) and are strongly anti-war. Keyes struck out on both those points and the party refused to nominate him.

They're running some douchebag pastor instead who's trying to imititate Ron Paul while half-trying to cover up the fact that, among other things, the CP platforms calls for laws against gambling, obscenity, and "offensive sexual practices".

I don't think they should be included on the same level as the GP and LP. Not because they hold despicable positions, but becauseorganizationally they don't approach the permanent 50-state presence the LP and GP have. They have a spotty patchwork of state affiliates, and will only be one the ballot in something like half the states.

Churchill2004: I don't think they should be included on the same level as the GP and LP. Not because they hold despicable positions, but becauseorganizationally they don't approach the permanent 50-state presence the LP and GP have. They have a spotty patchwork of state affiliates, and will only be one the ballot in something like half the states.

Thanks for the correction on Keyes, I hadn't heard that. They may not have the organization, but they are the third-largest political party in the U.S., based on the number of registered voters in 2006. (new window). I think that should be enough to give them equal status to the LP and GP.

Somacandra: Unfortunately, the internal nationalistic and jingoistic radicalization since 9/11 doesn't permit that cultural luxury at this time. The national discourse has shifted away from that type of distributive democracy. It will take a lot of time for it to shift back. I think Obama's approach is a good first step. But I respect your position. You are voting for Rep. Barr, I take it?

Thanks for being reasonable, and yes, I'll be voting for the new and improved Bob Barr.

This isn't even remotely something that just started post-9/11 with Bush, though. The precedents go back to TR and in some cases Lincoln. Think about what Presidents we consider "great"- Lincoln, Wilson, TR, FDR, Truman- Presidents who radically expanded the power of the office, often during times of crisis partly or wholly of their own creation. What kind of incentive structure does that set up for current Presidents? Remember, there's a lot of truth to the charge that Nixon got caught doing what all Presidents since FDR, excluding possibly Eisenhower, did- sometimes openly. That's not so much a defense of Nixon as it is an indictment of the "Heroic" Presidents.

We have been moving in the right direction since Watergate, though. As horrible as they are, Bush's post-9/11 shenanigans pale in size and scope to some of the things that unchecked Presidents have urged, proposed, or done in the past.

quickdraw: Reagan style capitalism has no relevance in today's economy. It began to die the day paypal was born.

Why is that?

Ron Paul Revere: I think even you can admit the SCOTUS judges appointed by Obama would be highly preferable to what we'd get with McCain. I'm honestly convinced that, should McCain win, this country would be forever altered by those decisions, and it would lead me to move away

Better? On some civil liberties yes, though his justices will also have a hard-on for the Federal warfare-welfare state and a dim view of the 2nd Amendment (and parts of the 1st). I'm not going to get drawn into voting for the lesser of two evils by the siren songs of SCOTUS appointments. Too many people got fooled into voting for Republicans like that.

Ron Paul Revere: They relied on "any publicity is good publicity." While that's true to an extent, it only goes so far. When you have 9/11 truthers at the forefront of your candidacy, you're doomed from the start (regardless of the veracity of their claims

We're in 100% agreement here.

Ron Paul Revere: I might consider voting for him, but I'm still quite fond of the idea of writing in Ron Paul

You might as well cast a spoiled ballot. It will be counted the same.

Ron Paul Revere: As to the midterms and the next presidential cycle, I sincerely hope the LP gets its shiat together. It has a golden opportunity to step up to the plate and offer something more palatable than the Neo-Con agenda.

I've personally considered running for my Congressional seat. I'm not a perfect candidate, but I know my history, I know my law, and I know my beliefs. I could probably run circles around Jay Inslee in a debate

I'd write you a check.


Ron Paul Revere: If he pulls from dissatisfied Republicans, consider me happy

He will, but he's also conscious of not just being the "pissed of Republican" candidate, and that's not what he wants the LP to be. He couldn't be that even if he wanted to- he'd quickly lose the support of his LP base, including state affiliate parties who might take his ballot access.

Somacandra: Thanks for the correction on Keyes, I hadn't heard that. They may not have the organization, but they are the third-largest political party in the U.S., based on the number of registered voters in 2006. (new window). I think that should be enough to give them equal status to the LP and GP

That's just because they have a state affiliated in California and a few other states the "American Independent Party". A lot of people register as that without really knowing what its about or thinking that it's just "independent". Their network of state affiliates is spotty, with wide variation in strength and ideology from state to state, and with several states with disaffiliated state parties or not state party at all. It's a far cry from the organized, establish presence the LP and GP have in all fifty states and have had for a while. The LP has consistently been on 48-51 ballots since the early 80s, and the GP since the mid-late 90s. The CP is little more than the corpse of the Perot movement that's been taken over by hardcore theocrats.

Frank N Stein: quickdraw: Reagan style capitalism has no relevance in today's economy. It began to die the day paypal was born.

Why is that?

Any one who uses the phrase "Reagan style capitalism" as a stand-in for laissez-faire has little understanding of either economics or political science.

Lets do a tally.

McCain got some county registrars from where-ever to convert their support across party lines.
Obama got Hagel and Powell...

Ron Paul Revere: The Obama-appointed SCOTUS will have a hard time finding a way to overturn the upcoming Heller case that will undoubtedly find some degree of individual right to bear arms. That issue doesn't bother me. Even if it did, I'd have my ability to ward off the government.

I dunno. Heller will be established by then, but most of the work of following up on it and applying it won't have been. And while Obama and his justices would reject the most extreme power grabs of Bush, he doesn't really reject a lot of the precedents about the (Constitutionally questionable) accumulation of power in the Presidency that led to things like Bush's post-911 hijinks.

Ron Paul Revere: Even if it did, I'd have my ability to ward off the government

Well, if it ever gets to that point who's on the Supreme Court won't matter much.

Ron Paul Revere: With all due respect, the same could be said for casting a ballot for Barr. Please understand I haven't decided, and I've taken Paul's endorsement under serious consideration

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think you quite understand the difference. A vote for Barr will be reported. A vote for Paul, when he hasn't registered as a write-in candidate, won't even get counted. No one will ever no about it save the ballot counter who threw your vote away.

Ron Paul Revere: Expect me to hold you to that if I do run. Seriously. ;)

Sure thing. And if you do, poke around with Ron Paul's new CfL people. They might be willing to help, and would probably at least put you in touch with local grassroots supporters.

whidbey: McCainDemocrat: The number of Democrats supporting McCain is still higher than the number of Republicans backing Obama.

F*cking bullsh*t. What color is the sky in your world? Brown?

I live on a farking Army base in farking Kansas, and I've barely met any Republican McCain supporters, much less Democrat ones.

Sgt Otter: I live on a farking Army base in farking Kansas, and I've barely met any Republican McCain supporters, much less Democrat ones.

People seem to have the idea that the military remains all pro-war. From what I hear from some people I know in the military, the percentages are roughly skewed only a little towards Bush relative to the general population- with anti-war, anti-Bush being the majority now.

Most people joining the Army now aren't fervent Iraq War supporters, they're kids joining for the same reason people have always joined and hoping (with good odds) that they won't be sent to Iraq by the time it comes around for them to deploy.

Ron Paul Revere: Churchill2004:

It's been a pleasure having a discussion with you. I'm going to bed, so I haven't the energy or desire to debate anymore. Until we meet again.

/always fun debating someone who mostly agrees with me

Go to sleep and dream of us as the bookends of the political spectrum.

Churchill2004: Go to sleep and dream of us

gay

Frank N Stein: Churchill2004: Go to sleep and dream of us

gay

Fabulous!

Churchill2004: Fabulous!

To be fair, they think that laissez-faire is a type of French shoe.

Frank N Stein: Churchill2004: Fabulous!

To be fair, they think that laissez-faire is a type of French shoe.

Holden C: McCainDemocrat: The number of Democrats supporting McCain is still higher than the number of Republicans backing Obama.

You've been spending too much time at Hillaryis44 McCainD. Just because you wish something were true, doesn't make it so.

/I hope you've got your TF subscription on the month-to-month plan

Eh, he'll just waste another $5 on his new alt when enough people ignore him.

I can't understand someone paying $5 over and over for each alt they make just to troll a forum. Or maybe, its really Drew!

/Mindfark!