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

Forums - General Discussion - OMG... the Economist endorses Obama.

TheRealMafoo said:
steven787 said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:

If you're Libertarian, aren't you as liberal as me on the social scale?  How is that not pathetic?

I'll like other states when they do something cool, but right now California is our capital for film, music, and technology.

 

See, this is what I don't get.  Why am I the only ex-Libertarian or Libertarian who votes dem.  You can vote away your economic freedoms and then bitch and complain to get them back but it's a lot harder to get your civil liberties back.

 

Two reasons. One is while I want abortion to be legal, gay marriage, legalizing drugs... all that stuff... in the end, none of that effects me directly. I am not gay, will never have an abortion, and don't do drugs (not illegal ones anyway).

And the other reason is if I did want to do those things, the government is very bad at stopping me. Abortion is legal, Drugs anyone can get, and if I was gay, I am sure 90% of my lifestyle would be permitted.

The government however is extremely good at taking away my economic freedoms. You don't pay your taxes, and they will find you.

So I vote for the freedoms that the government sucks at taking away. if a Libertarian had a snow balls chance in hell of wining, I would vote for him or her. The closest thing we had was Ron Paul, and look how that turned out.

So I should only vote on issues that directly affect me? That's just plain myopic.  That's the kind of attitude that kept women from voting, that allowed men to kill their wives without being punished by society, that kept black people in slavery, and that kept kids working in the coal mines for 80 hours a week.  That's the kind of attitude of someone who doesn't deserve to live in this country.

Next time I go to the polls I will only vote for any of the propositions that say, "The state of Texas will give akuma587 X amount of dollars in cash," and the ones that say "Akuma587 will be our unquestioned leader from now on."

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
rocketpig said:

You're not. As of this election, had I been allowed to vote (it appears that California fucked up my absentee ballot), I would have voted Obama.

With most Libertarians, I think it's a give-take trade. In the past, I found the dogmatic social principles of the Republican party tolerable because they, by and large, spent less than the Democrats when in power. See Clinton's 1994-1998 Congresses for examples of this. Also, in case you haven't noticed, the Republicans give the Religious Right mic time and little else. They squawk a lot but nothing got done - well, until the Patriot Act, but that's part of my next point...

Now, the Republicans spend more, try to restrict us more privately, and basically fail on every principles of the Libertarian Party past "tax less". I think you'll see more and more Libertarians vote Democrat until this changes.

 

I am more inclined to vote Obama than McCain, but I will vote for neither of them. They both advocate many policies I disagree with...only McCain advocates a foreign policy that we can no longer afford to perpetuate.



Most attractive = least repulsive. Voting for the lesser evil is sometimes necessary. Plus, as a wise man once said, "if you don't vote, you don't get to bitch."  (Oh wait, are you voting for Barr?  Well, I guess that means you don't give up the right to bitch, even though you might as well have voted for yourself.)

Support runoff voting!



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
steven787 said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:

If you're Libertarian, aren't you as liberal as me on the social scale?  How is that not pathetic?

I'll like other states when they do something cool, but right now California is our capital for film, music, and technology.

 

See, this is what I don't get.  Why am I the only ex-Libertarian or Libertarian who votes dem.  You can vote away your economic freedoms and then bitch and complain to get them back but it's a lot harder to get your civil liberties back.

 

Two reasons. One is while I want abortion to be legal, gay marriage, legalizing drugs... all that stuff... in the end, none of that effects me directly. I am not gay, will never have an abortion, and don't do drugs (not illegal ones anyway).

And the other reason is if I did want to do those things, the government is very bad at stopping me. Abortion is legal, Drugs anyone can get, and if I was gay, I am sure 90% of my lifestyle would be permitted.

The government however is extremely good at taking away my economic freedoms. You don't pay your taxes, and they will find you.

So I vote for the freedoms that the government sucks at taking away. if a Libertarian had a snow balls chance in hell of wining, I would vote for him or her. The closest thing we had was Ron Paul, and look how that turned out.

So I should only vote on issues that directly affect me? That's just plain myopic.  That's the kind of attitude that kept women from voting, that allowed men to kill their wives without being punished by society, that kept black people in slavery, and that kept kids working in the coal mines for 80 hours a week.  That's the kind of attitude of someone who doesn't deserve to live in this country.

Next time I go to the polls I will only vote for any of the propositions that say, "The state of Texas will give akuma587 X amount of dollars in cash," and the ones that say "Akuma587 will be our unquestioned leader from now on."

 

I was talking about liberties like: Having a private phone call and the government staying out of my individual transactions.  Requiring the government to go through the check (judi. brnch.) before the executive can imprison me or other citizens.  This would include getting warrants and allowing an arraignment to procede.  Not holding people indefinitely with out a trial.

 



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
steven787 said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:

If you're Libertarian, aren't you as liberal as me on the social scale?  How is that not pathetic?

I'll like other states when they do something cool, but right now California is our capital for film, music, and technology.

 

See, this is what I don't get.  Why am I the only ex-Libertarian or Libertarian who votes dem.  You can vote away your economic freedoms and then bitch and complain to get them back but it's a lot harder to get your civil liberties back.

 

Two reasons. One is while I want abortion to be legal, gay marriage, legalizing drugs... all that stuff... in the end, none of that effects me directly. I am not gay, will never have an abortion, and don't do drugs (not illegal ones anyway).

And the other reason is if I did want to do those things, the government is very bad at stopping me. Abortion is legal, Drugs anyone can get, and if I was gay, I am sure 90% of my lifestyle would be permitted.

The government however is extremely good at taking away my economic freedoms. You don't pay your taxes, and they will find you.

So I vote for the freedoms that the government sucks at taking away. if a Libertarian had a snow balls chance in hell of wining, I would vote for him or her. The closest thing we had was Ron Paul, and look how that turned out.

So I should only vote on issues that directly affect me? That's just plain myopic.  That's the kind of attitude that kept women from voting, that allowed men to kill their wives without being punished by society, that kept black people in slavery, and that kept kids working in the coal mines for 80 hours a week.  That's the kind of attitude of someone who doesn't deserve to live in this country.

Next time I go to the polls I will only vote for any of the propositions that say, "The state of Texas will give akuma587 X amount of dollars in cash," and the ones that say "Akuma587 will be our unquestioned leader from now on."

 

 

When I vote not to spread the wealth, it's not my wealth I am voting to protect. How pathetic of an attempt to vilify me.

I think the government is good at taking away one thing, and bad at taking away another. I think they shouldn't take away either, so I vote in the direction that limits them taking away the thing they are good at taking away.

Sorry your small mind can't see that past your hate. How is it you care about anyone else? Sure doesn't show with regards to me. I guess I have to be poor for your to give a shit about me.



Around the Network

Because wars are fought for poor peoples interest, right? Oh, and all those bank bail outs, 2-3% of home owners who borrowed too much it's their fault and the other 97%'s fault the banks went under. Oh,disregard that most of the foreclosures were mostly speculators and house flippers, they're probably going to get a bail out to because they were bought under a company name.

$1.1 Trillion on bailouts so far, has nothing to do with the people who make interest or profits off of banks (capital gains).

So far we have 1/3 of the national budget (defense) and all the bail outs going to the people 1% of the population.

If you think of medicare, retirement and unemployment as guarantees companies don't have to offer as incentives to come work for them, a portion of those programs would have to be counted too.

The point? The rich have more to gain from a stable country, and pay more taxes because of that.

"All the poor people should have everything handed to them" (Communism)
"All the rich people do all the work" (Corporatism)
or "Everybody for themselves" (Libertarianism)

The world is not that simple.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

TheRealMafoo said:
steven787 said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
 

If you're Libertarian, aren't you as liberal as me on the social scale?  How is that not pathetic?

I'll like other states when they do something cool, but right now California is our capital for film, music, and technology.

 

See, this is what I don't get.  Why am I the only ex-Libertarian or Libertarian who votes dem.  You can vote away your economic freedoms and then bitch and complain to get them back but it's a lot harder to get your civil liberties back.

 

Two reasons. One is while I want abortion to be legal, gay marriage, legalizing drugs... all that stuff... in the end, none of that effects me directly. I am not gay, will never have an abortion, and don't do drugs (not illegal ones anyway).

And the other reason is if I did want to do those things, the government is very bad at stopping me. Abortion is legal, Drugs anyone can get, and if I was gay, I am sure 90% of my lifestyle would be permitted.

The government however is extremely good at taking away my economic freedoms. You don't pay your taxes, and they will find you.

So I vote for the freedoms that the government sucks at taking away. if a Libertarian had a snow balls chance in hell of wining, I would vote for him or her. The closest thing we had was Ron Paul, and look how that turned out.

What you need is a big pile of rice to sit on and a shotgun to protect it from the government and poor people.

I guess Robin Hood wasn't one of your favorite stories when you were growing up.

 

 

 



Paul said:

I guess Robin Hood wasn't one of your favorite stories when you were growing up.

 

Robin hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. he didn't steal money from the rich for himself.

Not that I condone steeling, but he put his life at risk, so he could then do something better for others. I give more to charity then probably anyone who I am arguing with.

He earned it (well stole it, but risked his life for it), and then chose who to give it to. That a lot different then stealing it for himself.

I think whoever earns the money, aught to say who it's given too. I have no problems with rich paying more for programs. I have a massive problem with my government taking a citizens money for the sole purpose of giving it to another citizen.

That's not the country I was born it, but I guess it will be the country I die in.

 



Were you born in America before the Depression or something?



The Ghost of RubangB said:
Were you born in America before the Depression or something?

 

never has a candidate before Obama run on a platform of taking from the rich to give to the poor. I know a lot have wanted to do so, but it was never part of there platform.

When your insulted by saying you want to "share the wealth", and you don't even realize it's an insult... and that wins you votes, this country has become something I don't recognize.