By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Jumpin said:
HappySqurriel said:


1) What's wrong with being a libertarian?

2) Please define "environmental project" and provide a list of successful, cost effective, government run projects which would be cut

3) Being that the United States spends (roughly) as much on healthcare per capita as Canada does while providing benefits to a fraction of the people, please provide evicence that government funding of healthcare in the United States is cost effective and should be protected from budgetary cuts.

 

Beyond that, the end of the war in Iraq was Barack Obama following the exit plan of George W. Bush. Isn't it amazing that the same timeline everyone was so critical of Bush for these same people praise Obama for?

1.  What's wrong with being a libertarian? It excludes the well being of the larger portion of society in order to benefit the people who have the greatest investments (those who run the corporations and who can afford to buy up everything) and not the people who actually work. It ignores environmental issues, and issues of healthcare, and instead turns both into a business - which ignores everything that does not lead to a profit. It's essentially an evil ideology, and we know from history that Laissez Faire economics always fail.

2. He wants to remove restrictions on oil drilling, repeal federal tax on gasoline, lift restrictions on the use of coal and nuclear power, and eliminate the Environmental Protection Act.

3. I don't know about Canada, but public Health Care works everywhere else in the world. If you expect it to be absolutely perfect in the US after 1 year of implementation your deluded. If you think there is anything particular about American society where it doesn't work in the US, yet somehow works fantastically everywhere else, you're deluded. Being against public healthcare is essentially evil, and leaves hospitals and the medical profession in corporate hands - when this is something that should be eliminated throughout the entire world for the betterment of the world.

George Bush Jr's plan was to be out of Iraq in 6 weeks - and Iraq should have never been invaded in the first place - it was the leading cause to rising military expenses in the US that led to major colapses in the western economy. Obama's was the plan that worked, not Bush's. Bush failed.

 

Ron Paul has his heart in the right place, but he has to change his economic views to reflect that - not keep supporting econmomic policies that will widen the gap between rich and poor.

First of all, I'm highly disappointed that anyone would ever consider someone to be stupid based on political alignment. That is the most narrow minded view of politics you can have and not only is it limiting and counter productive, but it shows that you seem incapable of thinking for yourself. Never, ever judge someone based on their political party. You won't ever solve problems by constantly thinking along party lines. Think for yourself and don't assume someone is dumb just because they identify a certain way.

1. Wrong. Libertarians are for the most freedom for everyone. But the thing with freedom is that it comes with responsibility. And a lot of people don't get that. You can't have one without the other. The thing about not trusting government to take care of us comes more from the fact that if a corperation screws up, they can fail. If a government does, it can't. If the government hadn't bailed out all of those companies that mismanaged themselves, those companies would have failed. Then, the successful ones would have stepped in, and others would have risen to take their place. When the government screws up, you're stuck with it and you have to hope that you can vote in people who can change things for the better, which we have seen has not been working very well. Also, there are libertarians out there who are not at all rich; I believe we have a few on this site, in fact. Competition benefits the consumer, which is why making healthcare into a business is not a bad idea. There will be competition, which will lower prices and ultimately benefit the consumer.

2. What are the successful ones again? Also, why are we so intent on getting rid of fossil fuels, when we depend so heavily on them? In time, the market will naturally move away from them as the supply decreases and price drives costs too high. But more importantly than that, why not use them now while renewable energy sources are still improving, so that we have cheap energy now, and can transition later when the renewable energy sources are as cheap? Especially limiting nuclear power; we have the technology now, we have the capability to provide it relatively cheaply, and it could be a great way to transition into the renewable fuels. It's not any more dangerous than other energies as long as the proper precautions are taken.