Alright, you caught me being sloppy! Fine!
I'm on my phone, bored and opinionated. I guess you can see my point in their somewhere if you look hard enough.
I forgot a smiley :P
I was about 85% being facetious, anyway.
It's not every day someone concedes on the forums. You should be proud!
ZOMG!
I wun teh interwebz!!11ELEVENTY-ONE!!
I'll agree with that. No one would have been prosecuted for that perjury if there wasn't political advantage in it.A magic promise is just a promise if there is no magic.
I'm not saying perjury isn't a crime. I'm saying enforcement of perjury law when it is tangential at best is an abuse of law, and I am glad it went nowhere.
+1.
On the larger topic, there is a gap between actions that will make me not want to vote for someone and actions that I think someone should be impeached for. Many things fall in the first category that do not fit in the second.
+101.
I'm less concerned about Gingrinch's marital record, and more about the 1.6M he earned consulting for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac right before the housing bubble burst.
Yeah, as an atheist I have to say that's nonsense. Atheist's are permitted to take that oath, or other official ones, without the "God" parts. It's still legally binding. There are legal penalties for lying in court under oath. It doesn't rely on the liar believing in God or not.
WHAT god part?
Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
There's no under god there. The president (and the last time, the supreme court justice who should know better) add it in.
Holy flying monkeys! You can earn 1.6 million dollars by being an expert historian? My high school guidance counsellor totally lied to me!
Rotfl!
Holy flying monkeys! You can earn 1.6 million dollars by being an expert historian? My high school guidance counsellor totally lied to me!
And yet some people buy it...
It's gonna be another d-bag or crap sandwich choice again isn't it?
What do you expect coming from the Democrats and Republicans? You don't think the GOP is actually going to put up a good candidate against Obama, do you? That would probably violate their Memorandum of Understanding between these two [supposedly] rival parties.
No! I expect a magical bat-s%%@ insane 3rd party canidate to save me.
Seriously, though. I think it's been proven, the only thing a third party canidate does is pull votes from one of the other 2 canidates, but doesn't win. We'll need some election reform before we can have a system with more than 2 parties.
No! I expect a magical bat-s~#@ insane 3rd party canidate to save me.
Seriously, though. I think it's been proven, the only thing a third party canidate does is pull votes from one of the other 2 canidates, but doesn't win...
You do realize who told you that, don't you? There's a reason that the two dominant parties [if you can even still call them different anymore] are the only ones who have a chance at winning, right? If you know the answers to these questions, how could you still vote for them even if it means "throwing your vote away"?
And Jill Stein seems pretty sane to me. I'm sure whoever the Libertarians and Constitutions decide to run will be pretty normal people, as well. I'm sure You-know-who will tell you differently, though. ;)
We'll need some election reform before we can have a system with more than 2 parties.
You don't think this will ever happen as long as we're voting for Democrats and Republicans, do you?
My high school guidance counsellor wasn't the only guy who lied to me - throw in every social studies teacher I ever had (except one). Then again, if social studies taught truth instead of theory, schoolchildren would be deliberately hurling themselves into the sea. In fact, there'd be a line.
I had a card carrying communist as my 10th grade social studies teacher. He's still probably my favorite high school teacher I ever had.
On the other front-good. I'm not a fan of children anyway. At least then those that can cope well enough to make it to high school will have a good head on their shoulders.
You do realize who told you that, don't you? There's a reason that the two dominant parties [if you can even still call them different anymore] are the only ones who have a chance at winning, right?
Yup. That reason is the Constitution. If you look at the way the POTUS election process is set up and think about it for a few minutes it's obvious that it's always going to be a two party race.
Note that I'm not making a case that this is a good thing, but it is what is and ever shall be for so long as the law remains as it is.
I had a card carrying communist as my 10th grade social studies teacher. He's still probably my favorite high school teacher I ever had.
I didn't know you went to my high school!
Robert M. La Follette?
Robert M. La Follette?
I had a card carrying communist as my 10th grade social studies teacher. He's still probably my favorite high school teacher I ever had.
https://secure.paizo.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Store.woa/wa/DirectAction/c reateNewPost?post=v5748gbijjy7i&thread=v5748dmtz4qq6#newPost
I didn't know you went to my high school!No.
He was probably in disguise and moving around a lot. He was a commie after all. You know how tricksy they are.
Los Angeles? I know he taught there as well. I have a feeling there's quite a few closet Marxists (or Marxians) teaching social studies.
You do realize who told you that, don't you? There's a reason that the two dominant parties [if you can even still call them different anymore] are the only ones who have a chance at winning, right?
Yup. That reason is the Constitution. If you look at the way the POTUS election process is set up and think about it for a few minutes it's obvious that it's always going to be a two party race.
Note that I'm not making a case that this is a good thing, but it is what is and ever shall be for so long as the law remains as it is.
That's fine. Doesn't mean that we can't kick the Democrats and Republicans to the curb and find some real representation. I favor the Libertarians especially since we're $15+ trillion in debt right now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do realize who told you that, don't you? There's a reason that the two dominant parties [if you can even still call them different anymore] are the only ones who have a chance at winning, right?
Yup. That reason is the Constitution. If you look at the way the POTUS election process is set up and think about it for a few minutes it's obvious that it's always going to be a two party race.
Note that I'm not making a case that this is a good thing, but it is what is and ever shall be for so long as the law remains as it is.
This was not the original way it was set up however.
Originally you ran for president. If you won you were president -- if you came in second you were vice president. Personally I would like to see that system return as it promotes a bit more tolerance and thought possess in how to get things done and how to treat each other...
After all you just might end up in the same house together for a while.
That's fine. Doesn't mean that we can't kick the Democrats and Republicans to the curb and find some real representation. I favor the Libertarians especially since we're $15+ trillion in debt right now.
You do realize who told you that, don't you? There's a reason that the two dominant parties [if you can even still call them different anymore] are the only ones who have a chance at winning, right?
Yup. That reason is the Constitution. If you look at the way the POTUS election process is set up and think about it for a few minutes it's obvious that it's always going to be a two party race.
Note that I'm not making a case that this is a good thing, but it is what is and ever shall be for so long as the law remains as it is.
Sorry I don't -- I would rather not strip back the very last of what has been done since the 1920s. I simply don't trust business enough for that.
Beyond that the Libertarians are too much like communist to me (in a mirror image kind of way).
I don't care about anyone's infidelity, except insofar as it affects their job performance in public office.
I apologize, Freehold. I was in the field a long time today and I just now saw this reply.
I have to reiterate: pursuit of Clinton was because he manipulated the system, not because he cheated on his wife. In no way do I have different stadnards for fidelity for different parties. Clinton is an overall sleazebag - as much his politics as anything else. Gingrich was wrong to cheat, has performed numerous mea culpi (?), and does not paly dirty politics in the same sense.
Be clear: not happy with anyone's cheating, not obsessed with Clinton's.
I'm less concerned about Gingrinch's marital record, and more about the 1.6M he earned consulting for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac right before the housing bubble burst.
I'm not overhoyed about this, but he was paid less than some, and his input was to shut down the program and avoid trouble, which would have included image trouble even if they narowly avoided disaster. They took the other route and lied about their stability to earn bigger bonuses.
Would I be happeir if Gingrich had turned down the job? Maybe? Advised that Gorelick be fired andmaybe sent to prison? Sure! But I'm not qualified to tell a former Speaker not to take a 7-figure job advising on government policy. My preference for his not being at all involved doesn't mean taking that job was objectively wrong.
Now, if he'd been sitting with Frank and Raines laughing at economists who were trying to warn them it couldn't last, I'd be asking for his conservative card and hopeful they all get to prison together.
Sorry I don't -- I would rather not strip back the very last of what has been done since the 1920s. I simply don't trust business enough for that.
Our government is bought and paid for by big business. They provide big business unfair advantages so that they can stay on top effectively killing any kind of competition. This is preferable to you? Personally, I would rather see a more open playing field where life-changing ideas can shape the future instead of being snuffed out because it's not as profitable to our leaders.
Beyond that the Libertarians are too much like communist to me (in a mirror image kind of way).
I really hope that you're being facetious or something here. The Libertarian Party is essentially the polar opposite of Communist. I'm really lost now. Since when is freedom and liberty a mirror image of communism?
* head explodes *
What do you believe Libertarians stand for?
Our government is bought and paid for by big business. They provide big business unfair advantages so that they can stay on top effectively killing any kind of competition. This is preferable to you? Personally, I would rather see a more open playing field where life-changing ideas can shape the future instead of being snuffed out because it's not as profitable to our leaders.
I don't think giving business's even less regulation will do anything to solve the problem.
I really hope that you're being facetious or something here. The Libertarian Party is essentially the polar opposite of Communist. I'm really lost now. Since when is freedom and liberty a mirror image of communism?* head explodes *
What do you believe Libertarians stand for?
Exactly the mirror opposite of Communist. They are both so damn naive though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really hope that you're being facetious or something here. The Libertarian Party is essentially the polar opposite of Communist. I'm really lost now. Since when is freedom and liberty a mirror image of communism?* head explodes *
What do you believe Libertarians stand for?
The thing is that the libertarian utopia with no government at all hands ALL power over to corporations who are not beholden to the people, even in name. What we see time and time again is that deregulation doesn't lead to more competition and exploration of better ideas, it leads (as it has these last 30 years) to consolidation of money power in the hands of an elite few who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
In short, it ends up being a question of who you're afraid of more. Setting aside for the moment the wars that we've fought the last half century, which have really been a vile cooperation of the state and the money power elites/corporations in other words the machinations of the "military-industrial complex", it scares me far more what Monsanto, big oil et al are doing with the power they have than what the government does. You can argue that the state fueled these entities to help them become the behemoths they are today, and you might be right, but now they're big enough to exist as global firms without our help. We can't pull the plug on them, our only choice is to fight them, and the state is the biggest organizing force we've been able to create.
In short, WE need to transform the state into an entity that acts as a counterbalance to the big corporations. Disassembling the state at this juncture, without having in mind an instantaneous recreation of it in our image, is folly.
I know it's insane, but I still can't discount Ron Paul in this race.
Last time around, everyone thought John McCain was a non-starter by this point. Then in a matter of weeks he managed to go from nothing to the nominee, seemingly losing (almost) every one of his principles in the process. Remember McCain-Feingold? Those were the days...
RP is only slightly more out there than McCain used to be, and he has a much stronger base of ideologues in the Occupy/Tea Party. That's right, I said the Occupy/Tea Party, because if you remove all of the crazies from both they have a remarkably unified platform. Can RP win the middle by going so far out he comes back around the other side?
It's going to finally be Romney as front runner in a few weeks, and then maybe RP will bust out some fiery and effective populism that will exploit Romney's serious issues with his message to the republican base.
At least, that's how I hope it goes. We can't really deal with 4 years of another RINO... even though I take issue with RP's worldview, at least he believes what he says. Romney just wants to be president real bad.
I know it's insane, but I still can't discount Ron Paul in this race.
Oh I don't discount him -- he's a great scheming professional politician that's made a life of doing exactly what all politicians do, only he's a bit better at the lying about it part (and has 'true believers' which is always dangerous).
I just really hope he doesn't happen, because if he does I fear the sorts of things corporations get away with now will look like nothing compared to what they will get away with.
Corporate towns where they tell you that the toxic sludge they are producing is a beauty treatment wasn't such a long time ago and I would really not like to see the return of that, or of rivers that burn every summer from the pollution dumped into them.
I just really hope he doesn't happen, because if he does I fear the sorts of things corporations get away with now will look like nothing compared to what they will get away with.
Corporate towns where they tell you that the toxic sludge they are producing is a beauty treatment wasn't such a long time ago and I would really not like to see the return of that, or of rivers that burn every summer from the pollution dumped into them.
I fondly wish that presidential power wasn't so unconstitutionally bloated. Having a libertarian president wouldn't be such a risk then.
Anyway, I agree about the potential risk, but I'd rather have Paul than Romney. Maybe it's because I had him as a governor for years.
I dunno. I have always believed that despite the excesses of the bush administration, presidential power is relatively limited to certain avenues. I truly don't care for the man or his views on but maybe the presidency is just what he needs to curtail his crazy.
I don't care about anyone's infidelity, except insofar as it affects their job performance in public office.I apologize, Freehold. I was in the field a long time today and I just now saw this reply.
I have to reiterate: pursuit of Clinton was because he manipulated the system, not because he cheated on his wife. In no way do I have different stadnards for fidelity for different parties. Clinton is an overall sleazebag - as much his politics as anything else. Gingrich was wrong to cheat, has performed numerous mea culpi (?), and does not paly dirty politics in the same sense.
Be clear: not happy with anyone's cheating, not obsessed with Clinton's.
I'm sorry, but a lot of this comes off as "it's okay when he does it". Gingrich is just as dirty a politician as the next.
I'm sorry, but a lot of this comes off as "it's okay when he does it". Gingrich is just as dirty a politician as the next.
Worse.
At least the democrats don't think that sex drugs and rock and roll make you a bad person. They don't tout their need for spiritual purity in order to be a good person or a good leader. Republicans do. When republicans cheat they're undermining their own arguments for why they should be in power: that you need a morally superior person in a position of power and they're it.
I just really hope he doesn't happen, because if he does I fear the sorts of things corporations get away with now will look like nothing compared to what they will get away with.
Corporate towns where they tell you that the toxic sludge they are producing is a beauty treatment wasn't such a long time ago and I would really not like to see the return of that, or of rivers that burn every summer from the pollution dumped into them.
I fondly wish that presidential power wasn't so unconstitutionally bloated. Having a libertarian president wouldn't be such a risk then.
Anyway, I agree about the potential risk, but I'd rather have Paul than Romney. Maybe it's because I had him as a governor for years.
Yeah I just don't like picking one evil over another.
Personally I think the problem more resides in Congress right now, and less in Congress and more in the leadership of both parties involved.
Personally I think the way bills are presented should be changed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is that the libertarian utopia with no government at all hands ALL power over to corporations who are not beholden to the people, even in name. What we see time and time again is that deregulation doesn't lead to more competition and exploration of better ideas, it leads (as it has these last 30 years) to consolidation of money power in the hands of an elite few who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
There are so many things wrong with first paragraph that I don't even know where to begin. Libertarians are not anarchists. They don't believe in "no government" nor do they want "absolutely no regulation" on business. What they do want is the bare minimum necessary of both of these things. Right now, big business is less regulated in many ways because they actually are the ones putting our leaders in place for us. You really believe that America elected George W Bush twice because he was best person to lead our country? Big oil elected both of the Bushes.
Anti-competitive behavior stifles competition and that's what our government currently endorses. Electric cars were actually more popular at the turn of the century yet we still use the same combustion engines we have for the last century with little innovation elsewhere. If someone were to invent a car that runs on water, do you honestly believe that it would ever see the light of day? Marijuana would make a much better medicine than much of the synthetic chemicals we use today but the Alcohol, Tobacco and Pharmaceutical industries have been squashing that for decades. What we have now is exactly the consolidation of money and power that you are saying will happen if we elected a Libertarian government.
The United States of America didn't become a world superpower with the ideals we hold today. We were a libertarian nation for much of our glory years and almost all of our great innovations came from that era. Would you have liked it if electricity was stamped out because it would have hurt the candle industry or if automobiles never were because horse-breeders and carriage makers would lose business and eventually be phased out? Allowing fair and equal competition doesn't stifle innovation. It's exactly the opposite. We should be much further ahead than what we are today and our government is highly responsible for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anti-competitive behavior stifles competition and that's what our government currently endorses.
Actually having competition requires a even playing field -- which will only exist with regulation... and a lot of it. Unless you are going to give everyone the exact same starting place you can't honestly say you have a competition. Instead you have a big guy - that doesn't want competition against a little guy that has much more limited resources and means. Unless you regulate the maximum size of businesses at which point again it doesn't work.
Free market never means competitive behavior -- it means survival of the one that can crush everyone else. That's what capitalism by itself does -- it forces things into a single larger more powerful unit.
Now I'm not 'anti-capitalist' I'm socialist, these are not the same. Capitalism has some good points -- greed works to an extent after all. Communism has some good points too, helping others out and giving an even playing field are laudable goals -- however neither of them actually works on their own in a satisfactory fashion.
The question isn't are you socialist, it's how socialist are you?
To all of the people who fear a libertarian government, I have a riddle for you to solve. If you believe that large, government controlling corporations would benefit from such a change in leadership philosophy, why do you suppose it hasn't happened yet? Why does the political party that you think wants to make toxic sludge the next hip beverage get absolutely no support from these evil corporations?
Beacuse they won't win and it's not a good use of funds?
I'm not saying Paul isn't a viable canidate. I was referring to his supposition that if he doesn't get the GOP nod, he'll go third party.
That will pretty much hand Obama a second term on a platter.
Ron Paul is only slightly more out there than McCain used to be ...
The fact that everyone seems to think that Ron Paul is the crazy one is so troubling to me. I've never before seen so many people (not here, just in general) flaunt our freedom and democracy then turn around and fight against those very things ... in the name of freedom and democracy! Every time I talk politics, my brain hurts.
If Ron Paul didn't want to be percieved as crazy, then he should amend his foreign policy ideas. If he had studied history at all, he would realize burying your head in the sand in global politics doesn't work. It didn't work before we had a global economy, and it certainly will not work now.
Maybe if he sounded a little less like Jeremiah Wright with the whole "chickens came home to roost" tripe, I'd take him more seriously.
To all of the people who fear a libertarian government, I have a riddle for you to solve. If you believe that large, government controlling corporations would benefit from such a change in leadership philosophy, why do you suppose it hasn't happened yet? Why does the political party that you think wants to make toxic sludge the next hip beverage get absolutely no support from these evil corporations?
First off I don't think the corporations are 'evil' -- at least not in the intentional sense, much like I don't think the top 1% are purposefully out to end the world and make everyone suffer, or that Republicans want to turn us all to Jesus and rid us of the Demons of gay marriage with a government much like what is in Iran.
Now as to your question -- why rock the boat when things are going so well now? I would suggest those at the top of such an 'evil conspiracy of super corporations' realize they need some form of resistance to what they do -- they know they can go too far and that it will result in the destruction of the system they rely on. SO rather than shoot the goose that lays the golden egg they are fine with collecting everything in smaller bites.
The fact that everyone seems to think that Ron Paul is the crazy one is so troubling to me. I've never before seen so many people (not here, just in general) flaunt our freedom and democracy then turn around and fight against those very things ... in the name of freedom and democracy! Every time I talk politics, my brain hurts.
Ron Paul is only slightly more out there than McCain used to be ...
Perspective. "Out there" in this case is only relative to the republican primary. What's really crazy is what the GOP thinks is actually the baseline of republican opinion, and what's scary is that they're evidently not that far off.
Basically, I'm talking about how Paul is perceived in the primary, not how I personally perceive him.
Beacuse they won't win and it's not a good use of funds?
Really? You honestly believe that if most corporations pulled their funding from the Democrats and/or Republicans and dumped it on the Libertarians that they would still have no chance at winning congress or the presidency? Ross Perot used his own money, ran a terrible campaign and still managed 19% of the vote in a 3-way election. How soon we forget history and subscribe to baseless propaganda.
Really? You honestly believe that if most corporations pulled their funding from the Democrats and/or Republicans and dumped it on the Libertarians that they would still have no chance at winning congress or the presidency? Ross Perot used his own money, ran a terrible campaign and still managed 19% of the vote in a 3-way election. How soon we forget history and subscribe to baseless propaganda.
"Corporations" aren't a single entity (yet!) -- meaning they don't act collectively. Deciding to go all in on the Libertarians looks like a pretty classic case of the prisoner's dilemma to me -- no "subscribing to baseless propaganda" required. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frog: If the definition of libertarianism is the bare minimum amount of government regulation in order to function then some could argue that, given our broken system, we need to regulate more in order to reach it.
Most corps now invest (donate to the campaigns of) in both Reps and Dems becasue one of them will will. Guaranteed. A third party won't.
Why on earth would they pull all of their donations from those two, and back a third party? How does even remotely make sense?
From a business standpoint, the payout isn't worth the risk.
So Perot was 19% less of a loser?
How soon we ignore history and rename it baseless propoganda.