Conquer Club

CouchSerf wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

CouchSerf wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Ah, now I understand your view, but based on my history with this Phatscotty character, I've assumed that his perspecitve is something like this: "Move, government, get out the way, get out the way--but OH OH OH WAIT a minute! ... There! You stick around, but don't get in the way of everything."

Which makes him at best a vulgar libertarian. I honestly find it amusing that he parades around calling himself a libertarian, but when it actually comes to the principles of libertarianism, he openly states that he finds his own views unrealistic.

From what I remember, he's a moderate libertarian. Does that deserve to be called "vulgar," good sir?

Perhaps I should explain what I mean by "vulgar" libertarian. This perversion (kinder folk would call it a school) of libertarianism has inscribed on its banner the reactionary watchword: "Them pore ole bosses need all the help they can get." For every imaginable policy issue, the good guys and bad guys can be predicted with ease, by simply inverting the slogan of Animal Farm: "Two legs good, four legs baaaad." In every case, the good guys, the sacrificial victims of the Progressive State, are the rich and powerful. The bad guys are the consumer and the worker, acting to enrich themselves from the public treasury. As one of the most egregious examples of this tendency, consider Ayn Rand's characterization of big business as an "oppressed minority," and of the Military-Industrial Complex as a "myth or worse." The ideal "free market" society of such people, it seems, is simply actually existing capitalism, minus the regulatory and welfare state: a hyper-thyroidal version of nineteenth century robber baron capitalism, perhaps; or better yet, a society "reformed" by the likes of Pinochet, the Dionysius to whom Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys played Aristotle.

Moreover, vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term "free market" in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles. So we get the standard boilerplate article arguing that the rich can’t get rich at the expense of the poor, because "that’s not how the free market works"--implicitly assuming that this is a free market. When prodded, they’ll grudgingly admit that the present system is not a free market, and that it includes a lot of state intervention on behalf of the rich. But as soon as they think they can get away with it, they go right back to defending the wealth of existing corporations on the basis of "free market principles."

... Phatscotty (presumably) and the rest of us "teaparty types" want the government to do the job spelled out specifically for it in the United States Constitution, and nothing else.

...

Funding missile deffence is a pretty bad idea. If there is a better way to push the Chinese and Russians into spending more money on defense i don;t know what it would be.

spurgistan wrote:So, they're gonna do the exact same thing they did throughout the 2000's? Does long-term memory still exist in this country?

I would suggest that it is your "long term" (I would insist that long term consists of over 20 years ago, Reagan is long term memory, not Dubya) memory that is faulty. "Republicans" did very little of those things in the 2000's. They spent money, created regulations, etc with the best of them. You might say that the 2000's was the age of the RINOS. It is somewhat ironic that this "pledge" was actually announced by the Republican congressional leadership, a group that still suffers from some degree of RINO syndrone.

tzor wrote:

spurgistan wrote:So, they're gonna do the exact same thing they did throughout the 2000's? Does long-term memory still exist in this country?

I would suggest that it is your "long term" (I would insist that long term consists of over 20 years ago, Reagan is long term memory, not Dubya) memory that is faulty. "Republicans" did very little of those things in the 2000's. They spent money, created regulations, etc with the best of them. You might say that the 2000's was the age of the RINOS. It is somewhat ironic that this "pledge" was actually announced by the Republican congressional leadership, a group that still suffers from some degree of RINO syndrone.

Although they might have woken up and realized that they haven't been true to the conservative values they claim to espouse. I guess we'll begin to see it if Republicans regain at least one of the chambers of Congress. Of course, we'll see it more if one of those leaders gets replaced during caucus leadership votes.

Nobunaga wrote:

CouchSerf wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

CouchSerf wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Ah, now I understand your view, but based on my history with this Phatscotty character, I've assumed that his perspecitve is something like this: "Move, government, get out the way, get out the way--but OH OH OH WAIT a minute! ... There! You stick around, but don't get in the way of everything."

Which makes him at best a vulgar libertarian. I honestly find it amusing that he parades around calling himself a libertarian, but when it actually comes to the principles of libertarianism, he openly states that he finds his own views unrealistic.

From what I remember, he's a moderate libertarian. Does that deserve to be called "vulgar," good sir?

Perhaps I should explain what I mean by "vulgar" libertarian. This perversion (kinder folk would call it a school) of libertarianism has inscribed on its banner the reactionary watchword: "Them pore ole bosses need all the help they can get." For every imaginable policy issue, the good guys and bad guys can be predicted with ease, by simply inverting the slogan of Animal Farm: "Two legs good, four legs baaaad." In every case, the good guys, the sacrificial victims of the Progressive State, are the rich and powerful. The bad guys are the consumer and the worker, acting to enrich themselves from the public treasury. As one of the most egregious examples of this tendency, consider Ayn Rand's characterization of big business as an "oppressed minority," and of the Military-Industrial Complex as a "myth or worse." The ideal "free market" society of such people, it seems, is simply actually existing capitalism, minus the regulatory and welfare state: a hyper-thyroidal version of nineteenth century robber baron capitalism, perhaps; or better yet, a society "reformed" by the likes of Pinochet, the Dionysius to whom Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys played Aristotle.

Moreover, vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term "free market" in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles. So we get the standard boilerplate article arguing that the rich can’t get rich at the expense of the poor, because "that’s not how the free market works"--implicitly assuming that this is a free market. When prodded, they’ll grudgingly admit that the present system is not a free market, and that it includes a lot of state intervention on behalf of the rich. But as soon as they think they can get away with it, they go right back to defending the wealth of existing corporations on the basis of "free market principles."

... Phatscotty (presumably) and the rest of us "teaparty types" want the government to do the job spelled out specifically for it in the United States Constitution, and nothing else.

...

Such an old document shouldn't be applied so liberally to today's game and rules. Granted, it's a lovely work, but current cases should take into account other sources that are more relevant to today's situations.

By applying such an old document to today's situations, you get unfair situations like corporations using the 1st Amendment to enable them to financially influence elections and greatly influence the legislative and executive branches' decisions. All that was made legal by treating the Constitution as "alive." It's nonsense. Since corporations are entities entitled to such rights, we may as well give corporations the right to vote just for shits and giggles, right?

@CouchSerf: Thanks for explaining. I don't really know enough about Libertarianism to really contribute though.

Nobunaga wrote:Cutting Spending:

....

"Defense" Spending:

That's what this part should look like, me thinks.


--Andy

You know what I like about this thread? Apart from the defense portion (and this new guy's very general, very by the book "Republican = facsist" rhetoric), it appears that everyone agrees with the Republican's "pledge." I've seen no real specific arguments against any of these planks, so I must assume you all agree. I think that's pretty awesome.

Night Strike wrote:Doing nothing is better than doing the things that took place over the past 2 years. But those ideas clearly aren't "doing nothing". They're trying to get the government out of the way of people and businesses so the economy can grow.

The republicans had 8 years to get us into this situation. 8 long grueling years. Their plan was to give all the money to the people at the top in some insane scheme that would somehow give it all back at some point. Instead, it was fleeced. The resources are gone, the deficit is insanely massive with two wars, and we are in the worse economic situation ever. No doubt, Obama could probably have found some different ways to handle these situations, which should never have happened in the first place, but essentially you are saying that yeah, we ffed this shit up good, and that poor guy cant even fix it after two years of trying...but give the ball back to us...we wont f it up again...WE PROMISE. We knew what to do all along. But this time, we will actually do it. WE PROMISE.

Its laughable. Whats funny is that more dont see it. You spent 8 years systematically creating the situation that you want us to vote you in for to fix, and some are even stupid enough to fall for it, because it really is so bad, they just dont know what else to do.

Coach, I know I let them score 50 in the first half, but this guy only got one touchdown in the third quarter. Put me back in, ill fix his mess.

Night Strike wrote:

Simon Viavant wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Doing nothing is better than doing the things that took place over the past 2 years. But those ideas clearly aren't "doing nothing". They're trying to get the government out of the way of people and businesses so the economy can grow.

If their plan for running the government is "getting the government out of the way", then that is indeed doing nothing.

Because the government should NOT be doing what they have been doing.

For once you are correct. The government SHOULD be ensuring that commong folk can live decently, not just support what the big wigs want at the expense of the rest of us and our futures.

thegreekdog wrote:You know what I like about this thread? Apart from the defense portion (and this new guy's very general, very by the book "Republican = facsist" rhetoric), it appears that everyone agrees with the Republican's "pledge." I've seen no real specific arguments against any of these planks, so I must assume you all agree. I think that's pretty awesome.

Some of the pledges are just great. Believing they will do it is quite another. What was their pledge that got us into this in the first place....to get us here so they could make this pledge to get us out? I suppose if that was their pledge...well done.

AAFitz wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:You know what I like about this thread? Apart from the defense portion (and this new guy's very general, very by the book "Republican = facsist" rhetoric), it appears that everyone agrees with the Republican's "pledge." I've seen no real specific arguments against any of these planks, so I must assume you all agree. I think that's pretty awesome.

Some of the pledges are just great. Believing they will do it is quite another. What was their pledge that got us into this in the first place....to get us here so they could make this pledge to get us out? I suppose if that was their pledge...well done.

That, and it's more empty promises by another group of typical American politicians. TGD, I'm tired of the BS, and I won't buy it.

AAFitz wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:You know what I like about this thread? Apart from the defense portion (and this new guy's very general, very by the book "Republican = facsist" rhetoric), it appears that everyone agrees with the Republican's "pledge." I've seen no real specific arguments against any of these planks, so I must assume you all agree. I think that's pretty awesome.

Some of the pledges are just great. Believing they will do it is quite another. What was their pledge that got us into this in the first place....to get us here so they could make this pledge to get us out? I suppose if that was their pledge...well done.

I find it hard to believe any pledges made by politicians or political parties, especially from the two major political parties. That being said, there is a better chance that the pledges indicated above (most of which I agree with) will be instituted by the Republicans than by the Democrats.

I'm not sure what President's Bush's pledge was. You might also consider: (1) the political makeup of Congress during the past 8 years before considering whether the Republicans got us into this mess and (2) the overall effect that the federal government, specifically the president, has to get us into a mess (and whether that the mess was actually gotten into by non-government parties to whom we are currently paying tax dollars to - admittedly, both a Bush and Obama "pledge.")

BigBallinStalin wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:You know what I like about this thread? Apart from the defense portion (and this new guy's very general, very by the book "Republican = facsist" rhetoric), it appears that everyone agrees with the Republican's "pledge." I've seen no real specific arguments against any of these planks, so I must assume you all agree. I think that's pretty awesome.

Some of the pledges are just great. Believing they will do it is quite another. What was their pledge that got us into this in the first place....to get us here so they could make this pledge to get us out? I suppose if that was their pledge...well done.

That, and it's more empty promises by another group of typical American politicians. TGD, I'm tired of the BS, and I won't buy it.

I don't buy it either, but, as I said above, the best chance for the things I agree with to get done is the Republican Party (not the Democrats, not the Libertarians, not the Socialists, not the Green Party). So, there is a distinct lack of alternatives. I had hoped that the president would take care of some of this (considering, again, his last state of the union address), but I have not yet seen any evidence that he is going to do any of these things.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Such an old document shouldn't be applied so liberally to today's game and rules. Granted, it's a lovely work, but current cases should take into account other sources that are more relevant to today's situations.

By applying such an old document to today's situations, you get unfair situations like corporations using the 1st Amendment to enable them to financially influence elections and greatly influence the legislative and executive branches' decisions. All that was made legal by treating the Constitution as "alive." It's nonsense. Since corporations are entities entitled to such rights, we may as well give corporations the right to vote just for shits and giggles, right?

NO other sources should be used to determine the Constitutionality of legislation. If you think the Constitution is not relevant to today, then amend it. Once you start using modern documents, especially ones from other countries, to interpret the Constitution, you will head down the road to curbing of individual freedoms and expanding of government power. Like or not, the Constitution is the justification for all of our government's actions, and no other modern source should ever be used to justify government action.

By the way, it's Congress's fault that corporations have 1st amendment rights. Section 1 of the United States Code states: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;" If Congress is going to define a corporation as a person, they have to live with the rights that our Constitution grants to persons, including the freedom of speech in elections. It's really a cut and dry scenario.

By the way, wiki appears to have a good article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

AAFitz wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:You know what I like about this thread? Apart from the defense portion (and this new guy's very general, very by the book "Republican = facsist" rhetoric), it appears that everyone agrees with the Republican's "pledge." I've seen no real specific arguments against any of these planks, so I must assume you all agree. I think that's pretty awesome.

Some of the pledges are just great. Believing they will do it is quite another. What was their pledge that got us into this in the first place....to get us here so they could make this pledge to get us out? I suppose if that was their pledge...well done.

The pledge that got us here was that massive government spending would save and then recover our economy. That obviously failed.

Nobunaga wrote:Highlights:

I wish you had posted a thread so we could verify the original source, see details.

However, based on what you say:

Overall-- interesting, for all these claims about the "government getting out of the way", it seems they want to blame government for economic failures, not businesses doing stupid things.

Reagan is the one who changed that thinking. Before that, the government was tasked with protecting people, etc... not controlling our economy.

Nobunaga wrote: Jobs:

- Stop job-killing tax hikes

hmm... yes, and just forget about our sliding infrastructure. Who needs safe roads, schools, etc.

And well, if the average taxpayer winds up paying more... well, that's only fair. After all, THEY are not creating jobs (or supporting politicians in big ways.. though that is, of course, utterly irrelevant).

Nobunaga wrote:- Allow small businesses to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their income

To replace all the thousand deductions they now get? GREAT IDEA!
But.. it will result in most Small businesses paying more money, so I hardly think it will pass. Also, even I believe small businesses actually NEED some of those deductions. The "scammers" , the ones paying little are not the mom and pops, it is the big guys. (and THOSE are the ones Obama is targeting, not truly small businesses)

Nobunaga wrote:- - Require congressional approval for any new federal regulation that would add to the deficit

yeah.. particularly any of those "pesky" environmental rules, based on science and not just ecnomics.

Ironically, this pretty much IS the rule already. Nice-- take credit for what already exists!

Nobunaga wrote:- - Repeal small business mandates in the new health care law.

The part that actually will benefit so many people the most. But.. most people won't truly realize that for a few
years.. years in which the insurance companies will raise rates, play other games. So, people are being fooled into thinking this is about them. In truth, its about insurance companies getting a tiny income drop. (with more potential drops looming, once people realize the ideas work!).

Nobunaga wrote:-Cutting Spending:

Easy to say, but remember.. it was REPUBLICANS who got us where we are, not Democrats! Democrats inherited this mess. Now they are being blamed for not fixing it quick enough? I myself don't WANT more of the crash eras. Sure, the boom was nice for a few people, but only if you ignored the long-term damage being done to infrastructure, our economy and overall health of the nation.

Nobunaga wrote:- Repeal and Replace health care

Bull, but discussed enough elsewhere. You have been sold a load of goods. We STILL have the worst health care, pay more than any other modern nation on earth.

Nobunaga wrote:- Roll back non-discretionary spending to 2008 levels before TARP and stimulus (will save $100 billion in first year alone)

NIce try.. those are due to expire anyway. The money out there is already speant. Really just Republicans trying to take credit for what already happens.

Also, more than a few econmists feel we need more stimulus, not less. They say that if you really want to spur the economy, you put more money in the hands of poorer folks, who SPEND the money, buy things and then build up the economy that way. Trickle down is how we got here in the first place. And its a big failure!

-

Nobunaga wrote: Establish strict budget caps to limit federal spending going forward

Again, already in the law...put in under Clinton, in fact.

Nobunaga wrote:- Cancel all future TARP payments and reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Cancel which payments, exactly? Non-existant or virtually non-existant payments, you mean.. Oh, yes, another bit of Republicans attempting to promote what is already happening as "their agenda".

Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac DO need reform, are being reformed, but likely not in the way many Republican leaders dream.

Nobunaga wrote:Reforming Congress:

- Will require that every bill have a citation of constitutional authority

Hmm... yes, as in.. each law may be challenged before the Supreme court?

Gotcha! Another attempt by Republicans to tout current law as "their agenda".

Nobunaga wrote:- Give members at least 3 days to read bills before a vote

In many cases, they do. But when to vote is up to congress itself. AND, most congressfolk don't actually read through bills no matter how long they have. Changing that is not about giving more time, its about simplifying the "legaleze". I highly doubt any Republican will truly push that forward! (or any politician, for that matter). n

Nice talk about nothing.

Nobunaga wrote:Defense:

- Provide resources to troops

Oh, I see... as opposed to simply passing virtually every request presented, as happend now?

Again.. Republicans sure like to take credit for things that already happen! Too bad people believe the rhetoric!

Nobunaga wrote:- Fund missile defense

Specifics? Which ones and from where is the money going to come?

Nobunaga wrote:- Enforce sanctions in Iran

Not up to the US alone.

Nobunaga wrote:... Any thoughts?

Yes.. mostly a bunch of garbage. Over half of it is Republicans trying to take credit for what already exists.
Then some non-specific and contradictory statements (cut spending, but give troops more, for example).

The only "real" issues will wind up harming most of the US, namely attempts to repeal insurance reform, taxing small businesses instead of focusing on bigger businesses, etc.

AND, general claims that all our current problems are due to Democrats, when in truth, the Republicans have been in power for most of the past 3 decades.

But, nice try...

PLAYER57832 wrote:Yes.. mostly a bunch of garbage. Over half of it is Republicans trying to take credit for what already exists.
Then some non-specific and contradictory statements (cut spending, but give troops more, for example).

The only "real" issues will wind up harming most of the US, namely attempts to repeal insurance reform, taxing small businesses instead of focusing on bigger businesses, etc.

AND, general claims that all our current problems are due to Democrats, when in truth, the Republicans have been in power for most of the past 3 decades.

Taking credit for things that already exist? Most of the document is directly counter to what the Democrats have put in place over the past 2 years. And where are you and the White House getting the idea that these proposals raise taxes on small businesses? The health care mandate is possibly the largest tax raise on small businesses ever passed, and this proposal specifically says that small businesses can deduct 20% of their income from their taxes. No matter what the Republicans have done the past 3 decades, it pales in comparison to the massive government expansion and deficit spending from the past 2 years. Once Democrats got power, they absolutely ran with it and the country is against the direction they ran.

AndyDufresne wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:Cutting Spending:

....

"Defense" Spending:

That's what this part should look like, me thinks.


--Andy

I will disagree. Defense Spending should not be "cut." I would suggest that it should be "reallocated."

I know people will stare at me funny when I say this, but "cutting" defense spending was the cornerstone of the Rumsfield fallacy. He really thought that we could do all the things of a great superpower on a shoe string budget. This sloppy attitude cost us dearly in the Iraq war (and almost lost it for us as he wanted to cut the initial forces by half). It is most clearly seen in the Bush budget attitudes towards those who reutrn from the wars (assuming they return at all, even the Vietnam era did not have the re-re-re-re-re-deploy hell that Bush put his armed forces service men and women through) which was massively underfunded.

We need significant funds to help returning veterans deal with the massive new reality of 21st century concussion filled wars. That should, logically, be a part of the defense budget. That way future presidents can really understand the real costs of war continue for decades beyond the "mission accomplished" banner.

Nobunaga wrote:Highlights:

Jobs:

- Stop job-killing tax hikes

- Allow small businesses to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their income

- Require congressional approval for any new federal regulation that would add to the deficit

- Repeal small business mandates in the new health care law.


Cutting Spending:

- Repeal and Replace health care Replace it with what, go back to zero?

- Roll back non-discretionary spending to 2008 levels before TARP and stimulus (will save $100 billion in first year alone)

- Establish strict budget caps to limit federal spending going forward doh!

- Cancel all future TARP payments and reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac doh!


Reforming Congress:

- Will require that every bill have a citation of constitutional authority

- Give members at least 3 days to read bills before a vote

- How about getting political donations and conflicts of interest under control first?

Defense:

- Provide resources to troops isn't this already done?

- Fund missile defense what new horror will this protect us from?

- Enforce sanctions in Iran

Bollocks. Actions speak louder than words and this is just more lip service
from a core group that had nearly a decade to implement their "ideas."

IF every Republican in the Senate/Congress who has held their position for more than two terms resigned to allow some fresh blood into the mix I might give this pledge some merit.

Night Strike wrote:Doing nothing is better than doing the things that took place over the past 2 years.

Where were you the prior 8 years while Bush/Cheney ran the show with their GOP majority? Or do you just miss having smoke blown up your butt by politicians
while they resume business as usual?

Night Strike wrote:They're trying to get the government out of the way of people and businesses so the economy can grow.

How about they demand the banks pull their thumbs out of their collective asses
and actually make loans to businesses who's tax dollars bailed them out when
their investment greed placed their very existence in jeopardy?

Maybe they also have some beachfront everglade resort properties you can buy cheap.

tzor wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:Cutting Spending:

....

"Defense" Spending:

That's what this part should look like, me thinks.


--Andy

I will disagree. Defense Spending should not be "cut." I would suggest that it should be "reallocated."

I know people will stare at me funny when I say this, but "cutting" defense spending was the cornerstone of the Rumsfield fallacy. He really thought that we could do all the things of a great superpower on a shoe string budget. This sloppy attitude cost us dearly in the Iraq war (and almost lost it for us as he wanted to cut the initial forces by half). It is most clearly seen in the Bush budget attitudes towards those who reutrn from the wars (assuming they return at all, even the Vietnam era did not have the re-re-re-re-re-deploy hell that Bush put his armed forces service men and women through) which was massively underfunded.

We need significant funds to help returning veterans deal with the massive new reality of 21st century concussion filled wars. That should, logically, be a part of the defense budget. That way future presidents can really understand the real costs of war continue for decades beyond the "mission accomplished" banner.

Agreed on ^. Missile defense, though? Missile defense? That's a central component of the platform? In case zee Germans fire zee missiles?

oVo wrote:

Night Strike wrote:They're trying to get the government out of the way of people and businesses so the economy can grow.

How about they demand the banks pull their thumbs out of their collective asses and actually make loans to businesses who's tax dollars bailed them out when
their investment greed placed their very existence in jeopardy?

Maybe they also have some beachfront everglade resort properties you can buy cheap.

They shouldn't have been bailed out in the first place, but once they were, the government passed massive new regulations on them. Now that credit agencies can't raise rates when someone misses payments, what's their incentive to lend?

spurgistan wrote:Agreed on ^. Missile defense, though? Missile defense? That's a central component of the platform? In case zee Germans fire zee missiles?

No, North Korea, who might actually launch an ICBM that might actually, you know, work.

And Iran, bcecause their missles will work.

And in a few more decades, we may need it as defense against the Islamic Republic of England.

tzor wrote:

spurgistan wrote:Agreed on ^. Missile defense, though? Missile defense? That's a central component of the platform? In case zee Germans fire zee missiles?

No, North Korea, who might actually launch an ICBM that might actually, you know, work.

And Iran, bcecause their missles will work.

And in a few more decades, we may need it as defense against the Islamic Republic of England.

North Korea doesn't have the range to hit any important target within the US with any good degree of accuracy--probably within the next 10-20 years, they might, but AGAIN like Iran they won't do it unless we invade them or unless we come to South Korea's aid in case the Korean War II starts.

Iran can't fire missiles that far nor any time soon, and Israel already has their missile defense system, which is perhaps the best in the world.

The missile defense system is really for the US to be able to someday remove the threat of nuclear weapons from other countries, which is genius. It allow the US to invade any nuclear-armed country, and then simply bat down their nukes with our missiles, thus no more deterrence. Think of how scary that would be for the world.

thegreekdog wrote:You know what I like about this thread? Apart from the defense portion (and this new guy's very general, very by the book "Republican = facsist" rhetoric), it appears that everyone agrees with the Republican's "pledge." I've seen no real specific arguments against any of these planks, so I must assume you all agree. I think that's pretty awesome.

andy disagreed in the above post, but as usual he just stated his opinion and didn't really back it up at all.

CouchSerf wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

CouchSerf wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Government! Get out of the way!!!

Let me keep more of what I earn, and I will start a new business tomorrow morning, and hopefully create one job, maybe 2. I already know what I would do, I just need to earn/keep a little bit more

Letting you keep "more" of what you earn is all you want?

Fucking weak, man. Why not take everything you've earned? Why not abolish all of the market entry barriers that prevent the working class from becoming independent, self-employed contractors?

because, that isn't realistic and therefore a waste of time. I try to focus on the possible

So you're not actually a principled person.

At least we cleared that up.

LOL, can't wait until you've been around here for a few months and then realize how "newbs" be actin.

I am principled. I just do not take the position "cut taxes 100% or bust"...