5 ms·

Bachmann is straight up fucking crazy Justify it. And don't use Media Matters as a source. They recently accused Huckabee of endorsing "ethnic cleansing" becau

by webXL 16y ago

Bachmann is straight up fucking crazy Justify it. And don't use Media Matters as a source. They recently accused Huckabee of endorsing "ethnic cleansing" because he suggested that Arab states should offer land for a Palestinian state, and Jews have a right to settle the West Bank. Using "ethnic cleansing" in that way is crazy. Own what? Which sane candidate were the Kochs supposed to support? I assume you voted for Obama. Was that vote in favor of his open opposition to same-sex marriage? If you didn't vote for Obama, did 60 million other Americans cast an anti-same-sex ballot? No. They took the bad with the good. In that same vein, why can't a libertarian vote for a candidate that shares 51% of his views versus one that supports 15% of his views????????

jbooth 16y ago
What I'm saying is that the Republicans do very little for you. Especially if you believe in things like science. They'll occasionally make noises about cutting the smallest pieces of the budget, and do nothing else whatsoever for the libertarian cause. Especially when it comes to the whole idea of state authoritarianism. You just asked me to justify calling Bachmann crazy? Can I get you on the record first as saying "she's not that crazy"? I'd like to see how strongly you endorse her before I waste 90 seconds googling. Are you claiming to be a small-l libertarian, as opposed to a doctrinaire republican who supports Michelle Bachmann?
- webXL 16y ago
  Do you believe in the separation of church and state? What about the separation of your bedroom and state? Or the separation of our government and forcing our ideals on other countries? Why is it OK to advocate that the government not be involved in those things, but when it comes to advocating that the government not be involved in advancing science and simple economic transactions between two adults, we're labeled as crazy? I'm not lumping Bachmann in with me, but plenty of comments here think libertarian positions are crazy. Republicans advocate a smaller, less intrusive government. They suck royally at implementing it. Democrats, on the other hand, advocate a larger government and you can do about 10 seconds of googling to see how successful they've been. Given that reality, please tell me why a libertarian should for 1 second consider voting for a Democrat. Republicans tend to work against the people who want to limit my economic freedom. That does a lot more for the the libertarian cause than Democrats could ever do. An overwhelming number of Democrats have voted for the Patriot Act, so you can't make the argument that they both want to expand the government in different ways. Dems want more control over our lives, period. Advocating smaller government while passing the Patriot Act, starting wars and expanding Medicare might be considered Orwellian, but I don't remember Dems working against Republicans for libertarian values like Republicans are working against Dems now.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Republicans don't advocate a smaller, less intrusive government. They advocate spending cuts in things that help poor people and HUGE SPENDING INCREASES in the military, the war on drugs, and anything authoritarian or anything that puts money into a large corporation's pocket. The end result? Clinton balances budget. Bush blows it up. Repeat. So, if you want to know why you should for 1 second consider voting for a democrat, I'd point to the results. Fast forward 6 years and we'll be able to point to a successful Obama presidency as well.
    - webXL 16y ago
      Oh, I see, Republicans work for corporations and Democrats don't. Have you been following campaign financing the last few election cycles? Democrats received more from corporations. They both have been bought off. Goldman Sachs gave more to Obama than anyone else. Whoever is in power acts authoritarian. Obama could have repealed the Patriot Act. He could have expelled lobbyists out of Washington. But he didn't. Fast forward 6 years and we'll be able to point to a successful Obama presidency as well I suggest you taper your expectations back a little. The only way Obama can be successful is if he solves the debt crisis. Clinton did a great job starting in 95 when Republicans took congress. I believe in checks and balances. 93-95, 01-07, 09-11. What do those years have in common? Single party rule. No checks on power. Huge deficits (except for TARP in '08), huge problems. Why are you so gung-ho on Democrats? Social Security, Medicare can't be solved with what they advocate. We'll end up like Greece if they don't move to the center on government spending. Republicans too!
      - jbooth 16y ago
        Clinton cut the budget by more in 1994 than any year with Republicans in congress. I'll copy paste that for you, maybe it will stick: Clinton cut the budget by more in 1994 than any year with Republicans in congress. Here's the deal.. the deficit is bigger than the entire domestic discretionary budget. A political party that's only interested in cutting the domestic budget and has no desire to close tax loopholes or anything like that physically can't balance the budget. This is basic arithmetic.

by webXL 16y ago

jbooth 16y ago

What I'm saying is that the Republicans do very little for you. Especially if you believe in things like science. They'll occasionally make noises about cutting the smallest pieces of the budget, and do nothing else whatsoever for the libertarian cause. Especially when it comes to the whole idea of state authoritarianism. You just asked me to justify calling Bachmann crazy? Can I get you on the record first as saying "she's not that crazy"? I'd like to see how strongly you endorse her before I waste 90 seconds googling. Are you claiming to be a small-l libertarian, as opposed to a doctrinaire republican who supports Michelle Bachmann?

webXL 16y ago
Do you believe in the separation of church and state? What about the separation of your bedroom and state? Or the separation of our government and forcing our ideals on other countries? Why is it OK to advocate that the government not be involved in those things, but when it comes to advocating that the government not be involved in advancing science and simple economic transactions between two adults, we're labeled as crazy? I'm not lumping Bachmann in with me, but plenty of comments here think libertarian positions are crazy. Republicans advocate a smaller, less intrusive government. They suck royally at implementing it. Democrats, on the other hand, advocate a larger government and you can do about 10 seconds of googling to see how successful they've been. Given that reality, please tell me why a libertarian should for 1 second consider voting for a Democrat. Republicans tend to work against the people who want to limit my economic freedom. That does a lot more for the the libertarian cause than Democrats could ever do. An overwhelming number of Democrats have voted for the Patriot Act, so you can't make the argument that they both want to expand the government in different ways. Dems want more control over our lives, period. Advocating smaller government while passing the Patriot Act, starting wars and expanding Medicare might be considered Orwellian, but I don't remember Dems working against Republicans for libertarian values like Republicans are working against Dems now.
- jbooth 16y ago
  Republicans don't advocate a smaller, less intrusive government. They advocate spending cuts in things that help poor people and HUGE SPENDING INCREASES in the military, the war on drugs, and anything authoritarian or anything that puts money into a large corporation's pocket. The end result? Clinton balances budget. Bush blows it up. Repeat. So, if you want to know why you should for 1 second consider voting for a democrat, I'd point to the results. Fast forward 6 years and we'll be able to point to a successful Obama presidency as well.
  - webXL 16y ago
    Oh, I see, Republicans work for corporations and Democrats don't. Have you been following campaign financing the last few election cycles? Democrats received more from corporations. They both have been bought off. Goldman Sachs gave more to Obama than anyone else. Whoever is in power acts authoritarian. Obama could have repealed the Patriot Act. He could have expelled lobbyists out of Washington. But he didn't. Fast forward 6 years and we'll be able to point to a successful Obama presidency as well I suggest you taper your expectations back a little. The only way Obama can be successful is if he solves the debt crisis. Clinton did a great job starting in 95 when Republicans took congress. I believe in checks and balances. 93-95, 01-07, 09-11. What do those years have in common? Single party rule. No checks on power. Huge deficits (except for TARP in '08), huge problems. Why are you so gung-ho on Democrats? Social Security, Medicare can't be solved with what they advocate. We'll end up like Greece if they don't move to the center on government spending. Republicans too!
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Clinton cut the budget by more in 1994 than any year with Republicans in congress. I'll copy paste that for you, maybe it will stick: Clinton cut the budget by more in 1994 than any year with Republicans in congress. Here's the deal.. the deficit is bigger than the entire domestic discretionary budget. A political party that's only interested in cutting the domestic budget and has no desire to close tax loopholes or anything like that physically can't balance the budget. This is basic arithmetic.