Romney/Ryan VS. Obama/Biden

[Phatscotty]

Well, I was talking to Night Strike, and then you butted in. I was not talking to you before, so yes, you initiating talking to me....

See? this is just stupid!!!!!!!

Go ruin someone else's thread

[Woodruff]

Well, I was talking to Night Strike, and then you butted in. I was not talking to you before, so yes, you initiating talking to me...

So you really are mentally retarded? I mean...you even made a reference to "Woodruff is just trying to get a rise out of me" or some-such bullshit in your post.

See? this is just stupid!!!!!!!

Yes, it certainly is. You are one dishonest motherfucker.

[Phatscotty]

Anyways....just made this point elsewhere, and I was wondering if the Libertarians here would chew on it...

I understand it seems like the small L libertarians notice they can get elected in the new Republican party, and the capital L libertarians are moving to the third party. But I think we need to come together in a big tent and oppose Obama, because I don't want Obama appointing the next 2 or 3 Supreme Court Justices, as that will probably nail the lid on the casket on any Libertarian issues getting anywhere for the next generation or maybe even 2 generations....
9 minutes ago · Like

[BigBallinStalin]

The growth of non-libertarian SCJs is encouraged by the current political system, regardless of president, but I see your point and will marginally budge but not quite.

Besides, that growth is affected by the dominant cultural attitudes of most Americans whose good intentions lead them to further increase the government's scope of authority.

It's lose-lose with either political party, so all I can work on is voting independent and encouraging others to be more libertarian/classical liberal.

[comic boy]

Scotty
As you seem convinced that Obama is not going to win I am surprised that you have still not accepted my wager . Romney becomes President and I pay out , Obama gets a second term and you lose , any amount you care to stake , surely its easy money for you

[thegreekdog]

The growth of non-libertarian SCJs is encouraged by the current political system, regardless of president, but I see your point and will marginally budge but not quite.

Besides, that growth is affected by the dominant cultural attitudes of most Americans whose good intentions lead them to further increase the government's scope of authority.

It's lose-lose with either political party, so all I can work on is voting independent and encouraging others to be more libertarian/classical liberal.

The most libertarian justice is Justice Thomas. The other conservative justices are not libertarians. So, like BBS intimates, the Supreme Court is not going to get less libertarian.

[Woodruff]

I understand it seems like the small L libertarians notice they can get elected in the new Republican party, and the capital L libertarians are moving to the third party. But I think we need to come together in a big tent and oppose Obama, because I don't want Obama appointing the next 2 or 3 Supreme Court Justices, as that will probably nail the lid on the casket on any Libertarian issues getting anywhere for the next generation or maybe even 2 generations....
9 minutes ago · Like

Is there a reason why you believe that Republicans are more likely to pass Libertarian issues than Democrats? It seems to me that there is a LOT of similarity between liberalism and libertarianism.

(As if Obama or Democratic politicians are particularly liberal.)

[Nola_Lifer]

Who does this remind you of?

[Night Strike]

I understand it seems like the small L libertarians notice they can get elected in the new Republican party, and the capital L libertarians are moving to the third party. But I think we need to come together in a big tent and oppose Obama, because I don't want Obama appointing the next 2 or 3 Supreme Court Justices, as that will probably nail the lid on the casket on any Libertarian issues getting anywhere for the next generation or maybe even 2 generations....
9 minutes ago · Like

Is there a reason why you believe that Republicans are more likely to pass Libertarian issues than Democrats? It seems to me that there is a LOT of similarity between liberalism and libertarianism.

(As if Obama or Democratic politicians are particularly liberal.)

When it comes to fiscal issues, yes, the Republicans are more likely to approve Libertarian issues. And libertarianism IS similar to classical liberalism; there's just nothing remaining of classical liberalism in the Democratic party. They've all turned into big-government progressives/statists. And yes, there are some statists in the Republican party too, but because of the Tea Party and Libertarians, they haven't taken complete control of the party.

[Woodruff]

I understand it seems like the small L libertarians notice they can get elected in the new Republican party, and the capital L libertarians are moving to the third party. But I think we need to come together in a big tent and oppose Obama, because I don't want Obama appointing the next 2 or 3 Supreme Court Justices, as that will probably nail the lid on the casket on any Libertarian issues getting anywhere for the next generation or maybe even 2 generations....
9 minutes ago · Like

Is there a reason why you believe that Republicans are more likely to pass Libertarian issues than Democrats? It seems to me that there is a LOT of similarity between liberalism and libertarianism.

(As if Obama or Democratic politicians are particularly liberal.)

When it comes to fiscal issues, yes, the Republicans are more likely to approve Libertarian issues.

What evidence do you have for that statement?

As well...that's the sum total of Libertarian issues, in your view? Only the fiscal ones? Or is it that you only want to talk about those because they fit the view you want to claim (as if Republicans were closer to Libertarians than Democrats are).

And libertarianism IS similar to classical liberalism; there's just nothing remaining of classical liberalism in the Democratic party.

First of all, I essentially made that point myself (although "just nothing remaining" really isn't true, as there are still small pockets of resistance).

They've all turned into big-government progressives/statists. And yes, there are some statists in the Republican party too, but because of the Tea Party and Libertarians, they haven't taken complete control of the party.

You're a pretty funny guy, Night Strike. Unfortunately, I can't help but think it's unintentional.

[thegreekdog]

I think NS is right that Republicans are more likely THAN DEMOCRATS to decrease spending (the Bush administration notwithstanding). The chances of Democrats to appreciably decrease spending is approximately 0.8%. The chances of Republicans appreciably decreasing spending is 1.4%.

Also, I would note that Libertarians and Republicans (including Tea Partiers) differ on some range of fiscal issues.

That being said, fiscal issues are not the only thing that Libertarians stand for.

[Night Strike]

My evidence is the exact same that you keep ignoring since you've convinced yourself that the Tea Party has been taken over by republicans (and not the other way around). The evidence is that there were people in the House who actually attempted to make some cuts in spending. There is further evidence in several states that have slashed state spending and enacted many other fiscally responsible policies.

[Night Strike]

I think NS is right that Republicans are more likely THAN DEMOCRATS to decrease spending (the Bush administration notwithstanding). The chances of Democrats to appreciably decrease spending is approximately 0.8%. The chances of Republicans appreciably decreasing spending is 1.4%.

There was a good op-ed on Foxnews.com this morning by Judge Napolitano about how the election is between Obama's massive spending and supporters of Bush's massive spending. At this point, I'd much rather return to Bush's massive spending because even that spending is much lower than Obama's spending. In order to return to fiscal sanity, we have to start somewhere. There's just no way we'll be able to start that return under Obama.

[Phatscotty]

I think NS is right that Republicans are more likely THAN DEMOCRATS to decrease spending (the Bush administration notwithstanding). The chances of Democrats to appreciably decrease spending is approximately 0.8%. The chances of Republicans appreciably decreasing spending is 1.4%.

Also, I would note that Libertarians and Republicans (including Tea Partiers) differ on some range of fiscal issues.

That being said, fiscal issues are not the only thing that Libertarians stand for.

but they are issues that are transforming the Republican party.....is this an "all issues fixed or don't bother with anything" thing?

The tax hikes have been prevented thus far, afterall...

And you are using the old Republican model with your 1.4%. There weren't any people who were serious about cutting spending 4 years ago, and some people who are seriously serious about cutting spending have not even finished their first term yet. We need to send them more like-minded individuals this November, and then they will not be able to ignore us.

That's the plan

[thegreekdog]

My evidence is the exact same that you keep ignoring since you've convinced yourself that the Tea Party has been taken over by republicans (and not the other way around). The evidence is that there were people in the House who actually attempted to make some cuts in spending. There is further evidence in several states that have slashed state spending and enacted many other fiscally responsible policies.

The dude from Wisconsin (can't remember his name) is not a Tea Partier or a Libertarian. My governor is DEFINITELY not a Tea Partier (Christie). You must have a very different experience with the Tea Party than me. You also have a very different view of the Republican Party than I do. Think about who they've nominated for president as well as the leading candidates for president; while they may self-identify with the Tea Party or libertarian fiscal ideals (definitely not social libertarians), what do we see? We see Romney, Gingrich, George Bush III... none of those dudes are fiscally responsible candidates. Are they better fiscally than the president? Yes. But let's not pretend they are anything other than "old school" George Bush Republicans. Seriously, can we please stop pretending. I mean if you and Phatscotty would at least stop drinking the Republican Kool Aid and wake up someday, I would be more supportive. But when you contrast any of the Republican candidates with Obama and try to convince me there is some vast and meaningful difference between them, I scoff at you and label you a 2004 GOPer.

There was a good op-ed on Foxnews.com this morning by Judge Napolitano about how the election is between Obama's massive spending and supporters of Bush's massive spending. At this point, I'd much rather return to Bush's massive spending because even that spending is much lower than Obama's spending. In order to return to fiscal sanity, we have to start somewhere. There's just no way we'll be able to start that return under Obama.

You fast-posted this and have proved my point above!

[Phatscotty]

I think Strike touched on the most important part, concerning the Tea Party anyways. Our biggest impact has been at the state and local level. Anyone paying close enough attention can see our impact all across the country on state ballot initiatives, state constitutional amendments, and even a few balanced budgets, including my state. We got a Tea Party Majority in the House and the Senate, and now we boast a surplus, Our guns laws are being relaxed, we are getting voter ID and a marriage amendment, becoming a right to work state, amongst many other positive things. I am seeing a lot of change, right before my very eyes. Might explain why I remain so positive and hopeful for the future and our cause. we are putting up fights against the labor unions and collective bargaining, much like in Wisconsin, but not at the same level. We would be, but our Tea Party candidate for governor lost by 5,000 votes. Interestingly, the third party candidate in my state got 6,000 votes.

Maybe this sheds a little more light on why I have been turned off by third parties over the last year, and why I am going with the big tent philosophy. I see firsthand what we are missing out on, ad how important it is to have an Executive that will be able to work with it's Congress.

That's why Obama needs to go. He will ignore Congress, executive order after executive order. I think Romney can be moved by a Tea Party Congress.

[thegreekdog]

Wait... the Tea Party is for a marriage law and voter identification? I thought they were a libertarian-leaning wing of the Republican party. Explain Phatscotty.

Let me put it another way - the only difference between a Bush Republican and a Tea Party Republican is that Tea Party Republicans think Bush spent too much (but Obama is worse, so we should go back to Bush spending, which was better). That's not a big enough ideological shift for me. And it's not libertarian (by any definition - fiscal or social). So, I'm glad I bowed out of the Tea Party.

[Phatscotty]

Wait... the Tea Party is for a marriage law and voter identification? I thought they were a libertarian-leaning wing of the Republican party. Explain Phatscotty.

Let me put it another way - the only difference between a Bush Republican and a Tea Party Republican is that Tea Party Republicans think Bush spent too much (but Obama is worse, so we should go back to Bush spending, which was better). That's not a big enough ideological shift for me. And it's not libertarian (by any definition - fiscal or social). So, I'm glad I bowed out of the Tea Party.

not specifically, but they are conservative values. That is the overall point I was making, my state is moving from a blue state to a red state for the first time since 1984. Those were just 2 of about 6 different things I named. Turning a state from blue to red (no easy task!) is not the answer to everything, but we have to start somewhere no?

Anything that is for spending less, and has a realistic shot and I'm not wasting my time with, is a good start for me.

[BigBallinStalin]

I think Strike touched on the most important part, concerning the Tea Party anyways. Our biggest impact has been at the state and local level. Anyone paying close enough attention can see our impact all across the country on state ballot initiatives, state constitutional amendments, and even a few balanced budgets, including my state. We got a Tea Party Majority in the House and the Senate, and now we boast a surplus, Our guns laws are being relaxed, we are getting voter ID and a marriage amendment, becoming a right to work state, amongst many other positive things. I am seeing a lot of change, right before my very eyes. Might explain why I remain so positive and hopeful for the future and our cause. we are putting up fights against the labor unions and collective bargaining, much like in Wisconsin, but not at the same level. We would be, but our Tea Party candidate for governor lost by 5,000 votes. Interestingly, the third party candidate in my state got 6,000 votes.

Maybe this sheds a little more light on why I have been turned off by third parties over the last year, and why I am going with the big tent philosophy. I see firsthand what we are missing out on, ad how important it is to have an Executive that will be able to work with it's Congress.

That's why Obama needs to go. He will ignore Congress, executive order after executive order. I think Romney can be moved by a Tea Party Congress.

I think you're overestimating the capability of the minority Tea Party group to effectively implement change within the larger Republican group.

Why would the Tea Party be ineffective?
(a) there simply aren't enough Tea Party Congressmembers, and
(b) some of the self-avowed Tea Party Congressmembers are false Tea Party members because they apply Tea Party principles selectively--as oppose to "across the board."


To me, the core tenets of the Tea Party are "(1) reduce spending across the board and (2) no increases in taxes."

If (1) is changed to "reduce spending selectively, in order to reduce the total," then that may bump up the numbers of "true" Tea Party Congresspeople. If this is the case, then I still maintain the position that (a) would not change significantly, thus rendering ineffective the Tea Party goals within government.


Furthermore, I have no idea where Tea Party Politicians stand on deficit spending because deficit spending alleviates the need of additional taxation (in the SR) and would be used as a means of compromise to support the funding of programs that certain politicians are interested in maintaining for their donors/constituents. Deficit spending aligns very well with the incentives faced by all politicians.

[Phatscotty]

I think Strike touched on the most important part, concerning the Tea Party anyways. Our biggest impact has been at the state and local level. Anyone paying close enough attention can see our impact all across the country on state ballot initiatives, state constitutional amendments, and even a few balanced budgets, including my state. We got a Tea Party Majority in the House and the Senate, and now we boast a surplus, Our guns laws are being relaxed, we are getting voter ID and a marriage amendment, becoming a right to work state, amongst many other positive things. I am seeing a lot of change, right before my very eyes. Might explain why I remain so positive and hopeful for the future and our cause. we are putting up fights against the labor unions and collective bargaining, much like in Wisconsin, but not at the same level. We would be, but our Tea Party candidate for governor lost by 5,000 votes. Interestingly, the third party candidate in my state got 6,000 votes.

Maybe this sheds a little more light on why I have been turned off by third parties over the last year, and why I am going with the big tent philosophy. I see firsthand what we are missing out on, ad how important it is to have an Executive that will be able to work with it's Congress.

That's why Obama needs to go. He will ignore Congress, executive order after executive order. I think Romney can be moved by a Tea Party Congress.

I think you're overestimating the capability of the minority Tea Party group to effectively implement change within the larger Republican group.

In my view, this is due to two factors: (a) there simply aren't enough Tea Party Congressmembers, and (b) some of the self-avowed Tea Party Congressmembers are false Tea Party members because they apply Tea Party principles selectively--as oppose to "across the board."

I agree completely, on a Federal level. I have even made that point many times, that there aren't enough tea party members, so the tea party message can only by partially pushed in a divided republican party, and that is also why people are prematurely ejaculating by writing the tea party off, saying "they didn't do anything" It's a 2 stage act, and I am confident we will have over 110 Tea Party members in the House at the beginning of next year, and possibly 15 tea party senators.

As for my state, yes there are enough tea party members. Remember, my state's GOP party is 100% run by Ron Paul Republicans. We are ahead of the curve.

And yes I also agree there are some to many phonies, and I have conceded that before. I mean, of course there are! How could there not be? A politician copying talking points of whatever is hot at the moment is as old as politics itself. But that is not the end all be all, because we still got a lot of real tea party people in. And when they have some numbers and start leading, they will have enough people to follow them.

I think a balanced budget signed on Romney desk is a reality in 2013. It might take 10-15 years, but I believe that is what I am fighting for. The brick walls of entitlement spending that we always figured was too far in the future to be concerned about is here. The time to handle all this is now.

[BigBallinStalin]

Sorry, PS. I edited in my more:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 2#p3861712

Would the additional content change your above post?

[Woodruff]

Wait... the Tea Party is for a marriage law and voter identification? I thought they were a libertarian-leaning wing of the Republican party. Explain Phatscotty.

Let me put it another way - the only difference between a Bush Republican and a Tea Party Republican is that Tea Party Republicans think Bush spent too much (but Obama is worse, so we should go back to Bush spending, which was better). That's not a big enough ideological shift for me. And it's not libertarian (by any definition - fiscal or social). So, I'm glad I bowed out of the Tea Party.

not specifically, but they are conservative values.

But they're definitely not Libertarian values.

That is the overall point I was making

Really? It seemed to me that both yourself and Night Strike have been trying to make the point that the Tea Party is taking over the Republican Party and not the other way around.

my state is moving from a blue state to a red state for the first time since 1984. Those were just 2 of about 6 different things I named. Turning a state from blue to red (no easy task!) is not the answer to everything, but we have to start somewhere no?
Anything that is for spending less, and has a realistic shot and I'm not wasting my time with, is a good start for me.

In other words "it's Tea Party stuff because it's stuff I want"...typical of Phatscotty.

[Woodruff]

I think Strike touched on the most important part, concerning the Tea Party anyways. Our biggest impact has been at the state and local level. Anyone paying close enough attention can see our impact all across the country on state ballot initiatives, state constitutional amendments, and even a few balanced budgets, including my state. We got a Tea Party Majority in the House and the Senate, and now we boast a surplus, Our guns laws are being relaxed, we are getting voter ID and a marriage amendment, becoming a right to work state, amongst many other positive things. I am seeing a lot of change, right before my very eyes. Might explain why I remain so positive and hopeful for the future and our cause. we are putting up fights against the labor unions and collective bargaining, much like in Wisconsin, but not at the same level. We would be, but our Tea Party candidate for governor lost by 5,000 votes. Interestingly, the third party candidate in my state got 6,000 votes.

Maybe this sheds a little more light on why I have been turned off by third parties over the last year, and why I am going with the big tent philosophy. I see firsthand what we are missing out on, ad how important it is to have an Executive that will be able to work with it's Congress.

That's why Obama needs to go. He will ignore Congress, executive order after executive order. I think Romney can be moved by a Tea Party Congress.

I think you're overestimating the capability of the minority Tea Party group to effectively implement change within the larger Republican group.

In my view, this is due to two factors: (a) there simply aren't enough Tea Party Congressmembers, and (b) some of the self-avowed Tea Party Congressmembers are false Tea Party members because they apply Tea Party principles selectively--as oppose to "across the board."

I agree completely, on a Federal level. I have even made that point many times, that there aren't enough tea party members, so the tea party message can only by partially pushed in a divided republican party

Then why are you going on about Romney being moved "by a Tea Party Congress", as if that were about to happen? You seem to be contradicting your own statements again.

I think a balanced budget signed on Romney desk is a reality in 2013. It might take 10-15 years, but I believe that is what I am fighting for.

Impressive mathematical skills. Perhaps, like Paul Ryan, you "just haven't run the numbers yet"?

[Night Strike]

Then why are you going on about Romney being moved "by a Tea Party Congress", as if that were about to happen? You seem to be contradicting your own statements again.

The Tea Party people who are currently in Congress have already worked to change the default mode of Congress from "How much should we expand the government by?" to "Should we really be spending all this money?". Once they get even more support on the federal level, the next step will be to move to "Where should we cut actual spending?" and then eventually to "How do we get this budget balanced?". It has taken decades to get us to these levels of excess spending; you can't expect it to be fixed in just a couple of years. And there is absolutely no chance that we will move down that path with Obama in office. We do have that opportunity with Romney.

[Woodruff]

Then why are you going on about Romney being moved "by a Tea Party Congress", as if that were about to happen? You seem to be contradicting your own statements again.

The Tea Party people who are currently in Congress have already worked to change the default mode of Congress from "How much should we expand the government by?" to "Should we really be spending all this money?".

They have? What evidence do you have for this?

Once they get even more support on the federal level, the next step will be to move to "Where should we cut actual spending?" and then eventually to "How do we get this budget balanced?". It has taken decades to get us to these levels of excess spending; you can't expect it to be fixed in just a couple of years. And there is absolutely no chance that we will move down that path with Obama in office. We do have that opportunity with Romney.

I truly have no idea at all why you would believe that last sentence. It is highly irrational.