Ive been trying to pay alot more attention to politics lately since i have some big plans for a business i'm hoping to get going in the future, real soon i hope. what i see right now is alot of potential to take the Republicans back into power with a real conservative agenda for real hopeandchange. i think that they need to be done with the Bush era and start tapping into a new era of being for conservative freedom, which should be:

-ending taxes
-privatizing things like schools, like the big chunk of health care they have tied up in government
-righteous judges who read the CONSTITUTION
-allowing more business freedoms
-no more regulations
-no more unions
-no more international agreements that dont help us like this one for climate change
-i think we need more religous freedom too. put christ back in christmas. let us worship in public. let us return to the founders visions. allow us FREEDOM.

i want to get involved soon. can anyone help me out? lets do this.

12/22/2009 4:49:33 PM

your shit's weak son

that level of trolling may cut it in sports talk, but we expect more here in the soap box.

12/22/2009 5:02:14 PM

^

12/22/2009 5:04:56 PM

^^

12/22/2009 5:24:21 PM

Come on, dude. You're biggest mistake is making the most ridiculous stuff too obvious. You can't put "ending taxes" first, it tips people off right away. The gig is up.

12/22/2009 5:46:28 PM

<---- supports ending taxes












(I effin hate payin taxes)

12/22/2009 5:49:02 PM

I don't like taxes either, but if you're going to say "abolish taxes" you pretty much have to say "abolish government." People don't do shit for free.

12/22/2009 5:57:41 PM

haha, i think he's serious

12/22/2009 6:00:57 PM

then you lose the internet

12/22/2009 6:05:01 PM

Quote :

"I don't like taxes either, but if you're going to say "abolish taxes" you pretty much have to say "abolish government." People don't do shit for free. "

I think HOOPS MALONE is some kind of commie.

12/22/2009 6:15:07 PM

Parker Griffith = HOOPS MALONE

12/22/2009 6:18:47 PM

Quote :

"you pretty much have to say "abolish government"

What's so wrong with that? A large part of government could be abolished/reduced with no ill effects.

If the total amount each person pays in taxes were published...(I mean income tax, wage withholdings, sales tax, property tax, road use tax, vice tax, the inflated cost of goods due to corporate taxes, the list is endless)

...Americans would be in the streets with torches tomorrow.

Anyone want to guess this total amount? 80% of gross money earned?

Don't give me any bullshit about Europeans paying more taxes either. It doesn't make them better off. Europeans live limited, restricted, cookie-cutter existences. An entire culture built on maintaining the status quo. If you doubt it take note of their abject horror at the state of the muslim influx.

12/22/2009 6:24:32 PM

Quote :

"ending taxes"

Will NEVER happen. Money equals power. No official will vote to get rid of his position.

Quote :

" -privatizing things like schools, like the big chunk of health care they have tied up in government"

I think vouchers could work if done right but complete privatization is not a good idea. I am starting to think u are trolling since healthcare
is private. At least for now it is depending on how much Nancy Pelosi gets her way.

Quote :

" -righteous judges who read the CONSTITUTION "

Judges should be JUST not Rightous which could have religious implications that we have enough of as is. Besides the
constitution was written abstractly such that future officials could interpret the document as our needs changed. Unfortuantly
for 8 years prior to Obama, Bush and Friends thought the constitution was "silly stuff" and followed it only when it suit them.

Quote :

" -allowing more business freedoms "

Besides making sure you pay workers, don't kill your employees, don't dump toxic waste, or sell illegal drugs; businesses are pretty free
free.

Quote :

" -i think we need more religous freedom too. put christ back in christmas. let us worship in public. let us return to the founders visions. allow us FREEDOM. "

I don't believe in religion and government together but I also do not believe in all the bullshit PC crap of not
offending anyone.

12/22/2009 6:43:23 PM

Quote :

"Will NEVER happen. Money equals power. No official will vote to get rid of his position."

Then they should be assassinated.

[Edited on December 22, 2009 at 6:59 PM. Reason : or overthrown ]

12/22/2009 6:58:48 PM

Gentlemen, let's treat this thread with the dignity and sense of purpose that it deserves.

12/22/2009 9:21:11 PM

Quote :

"What's so wrong with that? A large part of government could be abolished/reduced with no ill effects."

"Abolishing taxes" would not "abolish a large part of government." It would abolish all government. To have any government at all, that government needs money. You might think we need less taxes and less government. But what HOOPS MALONE so wisely suggested was that we end taxes. He didn't break that down at all.

12/22/2009 11:31:34 PM

Let's argue politics with the JAMMIN ON THE HOT guy.

12/22/2009 11:37:26 PM

here's my plan for the GOP:

-purge everyone except the RINOS and send them to some 3rd party
-peel off centrist Dems
-go back to being the GOP circa 1904-1976

12/23/2009 12:12:01 AM

Quote :

"What's so wrong with that? A large part of government could be abolished/reduced with no ill effects."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia

12/23/2009 8:24:51 AM

Here's my plan for the GOP:

jk lol. I don't have much faith in the Republican party at this point. It's not going to reform itself. As long as they're clinging onto "traditional family values" and all that bullshit, they're going to alienate a large percentage of voters. Either they go back to the constitution and fiscal responsibility, or we need another party where progressives/libertarians (and I don't just mean "Paultards")/fiscal conservatives can all work towards a common goal. Of course, it's going to take some work to convince the progressives that we can't just dream up all these social programs without having a way to pay for it. They don't seem to care enough or understand enough about budgets and debt, so they'll have to get educated.

12/23/2009 8:46:00 AM

regarding Somalia, here's a look at some of the ways society has improved despite (more correctly, because of) the lack of a central government:
http://mises.org/daily/2701
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880

12/23/2009 12:28:31 PM

Quote :

"As long as they're clinging onto "traditional family values" and all that bullshit, they're going to alienate a large percentage of voters."

I don't think you understand. They alienate some people (mostly democrats), but "traditional family values" are what endear them to many others (mostly republicans). We see it happen all the time. A Republican who isn't frothing-at-the-mouth enough about gay marriage and abortion is attacked more brutally by his own party than by the democrats.

Let's say we could do what so many of us want and split the Republican Party into social conservatives and the rest. "The rest" would probably siphon off a few independents and moderate Democrats, but I doubt enough to make it a contender. And if it's not a contender, the Democratic party runs roughshod over its smaller opponents, who can only be viable on the national level if they work together so closely that they might as well be the Republican Party again.

12/23/2009 2:52:38 PM

^^Exactly. Left to their own devices, humans will prosper and police themselves with or without government. They'll even setup a basic justice system that is accepted by the community. Ask any generation about the most horrific thing they experience and they'll likely say being conscripted by a central government to fight in a foreign land or fight in a civil war between political factions.

What does suffer is the protection of communal resources...roads, basic education, infrastructure, the environment. Fortunately these are the most affordable things a government provides. Any other services should be weighed carefully as potential perversions.

But don't misconstrue this as blind support for the extremely wealthy or corporate interests. In mob rule these institutions would be lynched and destroyed, and they should be similarly aggressively checked by a minimalist government.

[Edited on December 23, 2009 at 3:08 PM. Reason : .]

12/23/2009 3:04:25 PM

Quote :

"Let's argue politics with the JAMMIN ON THE HOT guy."

12/23/2009 3:14:39 PM

Quote :

"Exactly. Left to their own devices, humans will prosper and police themselves with or without government. They'll even setup a basic justice system that is accepted by the community. "

haha

so you’re saying that without government, people will set up a government?

12/23/2009 3:18:07 PM

justice system != government

government is a monopoly. laws do not need to be determined or enforced by a monopoly. there are better, more natural ways for these things to occur without placing all of the power into the hands of a select few.

12/23/2009 4:07:53 PM

Quote :

"justice system != government"

It will always inevitably lead to a government, unless you are happy keeping society repressed to an agrarian economy.

Quote :

"government is a monopoly. laws do not need to be determined or enforced by a monopoly. there are better, more natural ways for these things to occur…"

haha, like what?

Quote :

"without placing all of the power into the hands of a select few. "

This is primarily what our gov. is designed to resist. Without government, power pools much more rapidly with a select few.

12/23/2009 4:26:56 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "justice system != government" It will always inevitably lead to a government, unless you are happy keeping society repressed to an agrarian economy."

How so? Nothing inevitably leads to government. It only arises as a result of people choosing to be ruled rather than ruling themselves.

Quote :

" Quote : "government is a monopoly. laws do not need to be determined or enforced by a monopoly. there are better, more natural ways for these things to occur…" haha, like what?"

Free competition of laws, courts, protection, etc. See the links I posted for an idea of how these have developed in Somalia. There are many possibilities for how these things could be handled and many solutions have been theorized, but it is impossible to know exactly what it would look like in any specific society.

Quote :

" Quote : "without placing all of the power into the hands of a select few. " This is primarily what our gov. is designed to resist."

Yes, that was the idea. Unfortunately, it has not worked. And it never will.

Quote :

" Without government, power pools much more rapidly with a select few."

Power pools only because of government. It is impossible for people to obtain power without being granted special rights that enable them to do so. Governments are given this power from their inception. The entire idea of government is to concentrate power by giving rights to a certain group of people that no one else has. If these special rights do not exist, the power does not either.

12/23/2009 4:56:28 PM

How many of the good things that happened in Somalia happened as the result of intervention by outside organizations, like the UN, which are formed and maintained by governments?

How much of it came from crime running rampant in a country without a government? Plenty of money has been brought into Somalia by piracy.

To say nothing of the fact that the country is filled with horrific violence and all that goes along with it. And there are plenty of factions warring with each other for the express purpose of filling the void left by government.

---

Quote :

"It is impossible for people to obtain power without being granted special rights that enable them to do so. "

They don't have to be "granted" anything. They just have to take it. In in anarchic environment some group of enterprising people with a bunch of guns will do just that. They've been doing it since the dawn of history. Sooner or later, someone in Somalia will do it, and even if the Somalis are historically "stateless people" the majority will be willing to forfeit that status and some freedom in exchange for the ability to keep their lives.

12/23/2009 5:33:59 PM

^ The UN has only stifled the growth and caused the majority of the violence you're referring to by attempting to force a central government.

Quote :

"They don't have to be "granted" anything. They just have to take it."

What exactly would they be taking? If there is no centralized power, there is no system in place for them to overtake and abuse. Do you think it possible to enslave an entire population overnight with no existing structure to enable it?

12/23/2009 6:49:04 PM

12/23/2009 10:44:31 PM

Quote :

"The UN has only stifled the growth and caused the majority of the violence you're referring to by attempting to force a central government."

You're right, before the UN was there and whenever it lessens its involvement, Somalia positively breaks out in peace.

Quote :

"If there is no centralized power, there is no system in place for them to overtake and abuse. Do you think it possible to enslave an entire population overnight with no existing structure to enable it?"

Overnight? Not necessarily. But quite quickly. Most of the population will gladly exchange some freedom for safety, especially if that means "safety from the power-hungry man pointing a gun at me." And many of the people who are willing to fight back will be doing so to promote their own takeover.

12/24/2009 12:30:13 AM

Quote :

"Let's say we could do what so many of us want and split the Republican Party into social conservatives and the rest. "The rest" would probably siphon off a few independents and moderate Democrats, but I doubt enough to make it a contender. And if it's not a contender, the Democratic party runs roughshod over its smaller opponents, who can only be viable on the national level if they work together so closely that they might as well be the Republican Party again. "

Exactly, but let's start nominating and electing some true limited government, pro-personal freedom, fiscal conservative types, and give a little lip-service here and there to stifling faggotry and keeping Mexicans out, rather than the other way around like we do now. Actually, let's not even give much lip service to that last thing, so as to not fuck away the Latino vote the way we did with the black vote.

12/24/2009 12:35:24 AM

I'm inclined to agree with you...but then I think about that representative up in NY who wasn't socially conservative enough, so the social conservatives just split off, ran their own guy, and giftwrapped the election for the dems.

I dunno. I guess the plan you propose is still the best we've got. But until the social conservative fringe dies out or is "converted," I'm low on hope.

12/24/2009 1:03:47 AM

I think social conservatives can get along with fiscal conservatives. If you believe that being gay is a sin, I don't care. If you believe that abortion is wrong, I don't care. If you're religious, I don't care. Just don't try to force everyone else to conform to your beliefs through political means. "Moral values" or whatever are fine, and everyone should have their own way of determining what is right or wrong, but it isn't up to the government to do that. Abortion isn't going away, so why are we dividing the country over it? There's no point. There has to be a party that is going to stand up for personal freedom and fiscal responsibility, but we can't have that if everyone is arguing over trivial things.

12/24/2009 8:59:31 AM

I don't want to hijack this thread, so we can save the anarchy discussions for another time.

I completely agree that we need the Republican party to get back to being the fiscally conservative, limited government party. One problem with catering to the social conservative, war-mongering group is that these things directly conflict with limited government. Legislating morality and policing the world requires more government spending and greater intrusion into personal liberties, as we saw under Bush. So while these neo-conservatives still claim they want smaller government, this is incompatible with their greater desire of control.

12/24/2009 10:26:56 AM

Quote :

"I completely agree that we need the Republican party to get back to being the fiscally conservative, limited government party."

The republicans were never this type of party in reality.

12/24/2009 11:21:10 AM

Yeah. For the late 19th century and early 20th century, Democrats were the party of limited government. Obviously, parties change over time as different factions take control.

12/24/2009 11:32:17 AM

Quote :

"One problem with catering to the social conservative, war-mongering group is that these things directly conflict with limited government. Legislating morality and policing the world requires more government spending and greater intrusion into personal liberties, as we saw under Bush"

Yet conservatives wonder why so many people bitch and moan about the GOP

12/24/2009 4:07:33 PM

Here's my plan for the GOP:

12/24/2009 6:43:31 PM

My plan for the GOP:

12/24/2009 7:18:16 PM

but you can abolish taxes without abolishing government. The US Government collects large sums of money through user fees at national parks and leases with logging and mining on federal lands. It could also earn lots of money by selling off federal lands and federal corporations (Amtrak, TVA, USPS, etc). Then there is also charity. The federal treasury already receives many millions of dollars a year in unsolicited donations. These donations would only get bigger without taxes, especially if Congress started soliciting donations like any other charity.

12/25/2009 12:39:52 AM

The fees and leases don't even completely cover the expenses of the parks service, I think (to say nothing of the fact that, if you want to abolish all taxes, you probably don't think that there should be a parks service to begin with). Selling things off provides you with a temporary influx of cash, not an income. I'm curious to hear more about all the charitable donations going to the Federal Treasury. Certainly your mention of it just now is the first mention I've run into.

12/25/2009 12:45:58 AM

money.cnn.com/2009/11/11/news/economy/national_debt/
The most ever donated was $23 million in 1993. And imagine how much more they would get if you could direct your contribution to NASA or have a wing of the local FBI office named after you.

And througout the 19th century, land sales was a major source of income, and by the end of it they still own a large fraction of everything. Like any rational liquidator, they sold it off as it developed slowely over time.

12/25/2009 9:25:40 AM

Quote :

"The most ever donated was $23 million in 1993. And imagine how much more they would get if you could direct your contribution to NASA or have a wing of the local FBI office named after you. "

I'm not really on one side or the other but can't you see how easy this could lead to more corruption in government?

12/25/2009 9:34:18 AM

Quote :

""On average, we get five donations a week.""

Yeah boy, can't wait to finance the national defense on charity.

I'm sure you could get the influx to increase with the promise of direct contributions and whatnot. I'm also sure that, as bobster said, corruption would increase right alongside. There's a reason you're not supposed to give large gifts to elected officials, and the same logic applies to agencies.

Quote :

"And througout the 19th century, land sales was a major source of income, and by the end of it they still own a large fraction of everything."

Which is great, but it's still very finite. They're not making more land. Sooner or later they will have sold their last piece, and then what do we do? Steal a bunch from the Indians again? They barely have anything left.

12/25/2009 11:43:39 AM

quite a few good points. Maybe they should rent out the land instead, on long term leases. That's what the forrest service does.

And I don't see how voluntary donations will be any more corrupt than forced taxation. Afterall, Congress would still manage the agencies, just as they do today. Able to throw out bad managers at will. Only with an extra threat: if people perceive an agency as corrupt then they can give their money to some other perceived as less corrupt.

12/25/2009 12:03:26 PM

More Ninja Turtle streamers.

12/25/2009 12:19:04 PM

As you say, that's what the forest service currently does. And as I say, the forest service doesn't really pay for itself as things are.

And I can see corruption getting worse because it gives individual manages and departments heads all sorts of motivation to pander directly to donors. Even if most of the public is disgusted with a department's corruption and looks elsewhere, it just gives that department all the more incentive to aggressively court a small number of large contributors.

At least now Big Pharma has to pull a bunch of strings if it wants to have the FDA bought and paid for.

12/26/2009 1:06:06 AM

12/26/2009 12:30:26 PM