[Edited on September 24, 2010 at 5:34 PM. Reason : .]

9/24/2010 5:31:26 PM

[Edited on September 24, 2010 at 5:34 PM. Reason : doublepost]

9/24/2010 5:32:42 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/24/libertarian-leader-republicans-should-apologize-not-pledge/

Quote :

"Libertarian Party executive director Wes Benedict ripped into the document and its Republican authors on Friday, saying in a statement "there are so many lies, distortions, hypocrisies, and idiocy in this document that it's hard to know where to start." The Libertarian Party favors the smallest possible federal government and advocates for free market economics and civil liberties. They often accuse the Republican Party of not representing the small government values they are said to support. Benedict listed off a number of things Republicans should apologize for and dismissed their proposals as simply token gestures to the American public that would fail to reduce the size of the federal government or its debt."

9/24/2010 7:39:37 PM

Haha, that clip is great. Yeah, nothing has changed. My problem with Republicans isn't entirely what they've been campaigning on, though I do have a problem with many Republican policies that they openly advocate. Many Republicans campaign on reduced spending. In the not so distant past, Republicans have run on having a "humble foreign policy." Republicans certainly talk about the Constitution and limiting government, but a good portion of don't vote that way when it counts. The problem isn't entirely the message, it's just that...well, politicians act like politicians. Somehow, "but we're serious this time" seems to fall on deaf ears.

9/24/2010 8:01:49 PM

Quote :

"Republicans tend to call these people RINOs."

Nobody gets to tell me what goddamn party I'm in. If you or they expect lockstep agreement then you've missed the point of the whole fucking organization and jumped straight to fascism. I am a Republican because I like their stance on things like law and order (hang the bastards), foreign policy (nuke the bastards), guns (yes please), and others more than I dislike their position on immigration (which is horrific), religion (pump the brakes on that plz), and cuttings taxes (generally for rich people) without any thought to how we're going to pay our fucking bills.

Quote :

"It's often easier, however, to just scrap something and start over, rather than trying to tinker with problem parts"

This is often true, and may be so here. I have sincere doubts, however, that the Republicans in favor of "repeal" have any intention of putting forward anything remotely helpful.

---

In my humble opinion, the best way to improve the legislating process would be to craft a law such that bills have to deal with things in a specific scope. In other words, no riders about levee maintenance in the desert attached to a bill originally written to deal with military procurement. Kill riders, in other words. God forbid our representatives should have to make their staffs read more documents.

In general I hope Republicans win back congress in November. I don't want them to be in charge, not anymore, but I do want a divided government. Last time we had one for any period of time we had a budget surplus and relative prosperity. I'm of the opinion that making two groups of retards argue about everything will paradoxically produce an outcome less retarded than those either would have produced on their own. Of course, this assumes that the Republicans can back off on the strategy of yelling "No" at the top of their lungs all the time about everything, ever.

9/25/2010 2:02:21 AM

Quote :

"In general I hope Republicans win back congress in November. I don't want them to be in charge, not anymore, but I do want a divided government. Last time we had one for any period of time we had a budget surplus and relative prosperity. I'm of the opinion that making two groups of retards argue about everything will paradoxically produce an outcome less retarded than those either would have produced on their own. Of course, this assumes that the Republicans can back off on the strategy of yelling "No" at the top of their lungs all the time about everything, ever."

In general, I agree, but considering the crop of wackjobs that could likely sweep into office, I've decided that the best possible option is the Dems at least controlling the Senate and trying to find 7-9 Republicans willing to pass anything moderately decent or water down whatever shitty bill John Boehner rangles together.

The other option of people like Sharon Angle sweeping in and teaming up with the Jim Demint waterheads to stop abotion is frightening.

9/25/2010 8:44:05 AM

Quote :

"did you get that from the Right To Life brochures you hide in the LensCrafters office furniture?"

I didnt say that or agree with it. Maybe you need to get your eyes checked and your head out of your ass.

9/25/2010 8:50:20 AM

Quote :

"Sometimes, personal responsibility means the government telling you what you're allowed to do to your own body."

9/25/2010 9:10:05 AM

Quote :

"My hope grumpy is that the teaparty will have an impact on the GOP and weed out the RINOs."

So who exactly are the RINOs that are left? You already chased out virtually everyone that's pro-choice or in favor of environmental protection beyond garbage collection.

I mean, from what I've seen, you get called a RINO even if you diverge on one issue. You could have a 100% from every rating org (Right to Life, ACU, NRA, CofC) but still be a RINO because you dared to say "hey, maybe we shouldn't deport everyone that looks Mexican."

9/25/2010 9:19:30 AM

lol

9/25/2010 9:40:19 AM

Quote :

"In my humble opinion, the best way to improve the legislating process would be to craft a law such that bills have to deal with things in a specific scope. In other words, no riders about levee maintenance in the desert attached to a bill originally written to deal with military procurement. Kill riders, in other words. God forbid our representatives should have to make their staffs read more documents."

9/25/2010 9:42:42 AM

The best thing the Dems can hope for politically is to lose the Senate, imo. That way, they can run against the "obstructionist Republicans in the Senate who block everything".

But that's just politically. I think it might be more interesting and prudent if they keep the Senate but have to get 7-9 moderate Republicans to pass anything. Then again, are there 7-9 moderates even left? I count Snowe, Collins, Brown, Lugar...Grassley?...Lindsey Graham if he grows a pair and says "fuck yall, I'm not running in 2014"....wow, I can't think of anyone else (John McCain if the current doppleganger dies after the election and John McCain travels into the future from 2000).

The GOP is still skrooooed up.

9/25/2010 9:52:08 AM

Pink, as Ive said earlier I was hoping that the teaparty was going to stay more focused on govt and not religious aspects, but that didnt happen. Im hoping as our generation ages into politics that the party will move away from more of the religious arguements. btw im prochoice with restrictions.

And I would call RINOs are the ones responsible for almost doubling the national debt from 2000 to 2008. But thats me. The other issues are secondary to fiscal concerns/policy imo. People dont riot that their cash for clunkers check didnt come or stopped, they sure as hell will if we cant fund our entitlements.

9/25/2010 10:00:13 AM

Those people aren't moderates, they're Republicans that often vote with Democrats.

9/25/2010 10:01:06 AM

Quote :

""In my humble opinion, the best way to improve the legislating process would be to craft a law such that bills have to deal with things in a specific scope. In other words, no riders about levee maintenance in the desert attached to a bill originally written to deal with military procurement. Kill riders, in other words. God forbid our representatives should have to make their staffs read more documents.""

9/25/2010 10:23:44 AM

Quote :

"they're Republicans that often vote with Democrats"

well we know theres none of those around anymore

9/25/2010 11:01:33 AM

Quote :

"Those people aren't moderates, they're Republicans that often vote with Democrats."

based on the makeup of the present congress, they would make up the center of that body of government. Look up the National Journal rankings. They might not be "moderate" based on some global analysis (where our Democrats are about as far to the left as Germany's Christian Democrats), but put this in context.

i honestly don't know what you're definition of moderate is based on your previous posts.

Quote :

"And I would call RINOs are the ones responsible for almost doubling the national debt from 2000 to 2008."

Considering the proposals in this pledge and what they are likely to do to the debt that you're worried about, I expect you'll be voting Libertarian or something?

Quote :

"well we know theres none of those around anymore"

Based on where the balance of power is likely to swing if the GOP takes either chamber, and turnout expectations for 2012, I'd venture to guess that the Republicans in New England won't be adverse to voting for modest proposals which the President would sign.

If the GOP has the house and can pass bills out of there, and the Dems have the Senate, I seriously doubt the GOP would still block everything for risk of making it look like their guys in the House can't do anything worthwhile.

[Edited on September 25, 2010 at 1:58 PM. Reason : .]

9/25/2010 1:51:59 PM

Quote :

"I expect you'll be voting Libertarian or something? "

Which I would gladly do if they had a chance of winning. Im hoping these groups pull the GOP towards more libertarian.

9/25/2010 4:22:22 PM

If nobody ever goes out on a limb to vote Libertarian, they'll never have a chance of winning.

GAME THEORY, Y'ALL.

9/25/2010 5:09:24 PM

Yes, I'm sure that's what Democrats would like people to believe. "Yeah...vote Libertarian. I'm sure, at some point, you'll gain some traction...and in the mean time, we can keep electing Democrats!" Sorry, but for the foreseeable future, the two party model will dominate, and if you want to get anything done, you have to accept that.

9/25/2010 5:20:51 PM

I spoke at length w/ the Libertarian candidate in our district here in Virginia. He says he got into politics because vaccines gave his kids autism.

I changed the subject to immigration, agreed with him, shook his hand, and left. Egads.

Quote :

"Which I would gladly do if they had a chance of winning. Im hoping these groups pull the GOP towards more libertarian."

If I remember correctly, don't they support personal liberty at all levels and, if so, wouldn't that mean that they'd be hostile to you telling anyone that they can't control their own body?

Back on topic: where is the debt reduction plan here?

[Edited on September 25, 2010 at 7:55 PM. Reason : .]

9/25/2010 7:53:27 PM

Quote :

"Sorry, but for the foreseeable future, the two party model will dominate, and if you want to get anything done, you have to accept that."

Why vote for somebody you don't like when all it does is propagate the two-party system which you seem to dislike? If anything, if you can't commit to voting for whom you want and trying to convince everybody else to do the same, you should at least secretly vote for whom you want while telling people you are voting for a major party candidate.

9/27/2010 10:24:57 AM

I never said anything about voting for someone I don't like. I'm just saying that you have to run under one of the two major parties if you want to win.

9/27/2010 10:53:14 AM