If the election was held today...

[Brett]

What an arse!

 

[Klostrophobic]

Me? I definitely agree.

I'm under the impression that it makes close to no difference which president is in office. They all screw up in some horrific way. And unless they are named Ronald Reagan they can't get away with it.

Well, FDR gets away with it, because for some unknown reason everyone loves him.

 

[Brett]

You forgot to include George washington and Abraham Lincoln in there. You can forgot like the two most important presidents ever. But no matter whoever has the office of president, there will always be someone out that will not like what he does. It really boils down to him making less bad decisions than good ones.

 

[ledhed]

Well for shure most of the time they will be pissing off at least30 to 50 % of the country no matter what they do. If its a liberal he/she's scum to the conservatives if its a conservative , scum to the liberals, hell if its a President until he's dead and a few years go bye he's a worthless phillandering, war mongering fiscal degenerate with bad breath and a learning disorder that wears dresses/pants at night and buggers chimpmunks in his/her /its spare time ..wonder why anyone wants the job ? ( aside from the lewinski's you get)..

 

[Duke]

This thread is completely absurd.
This is what all the wannabe intelligent people say now - "nobody represents me" "you can only vote for TWO parties" "my voice isn't heard." If your voice isn't being heard, then RUN YOURSELF. Otherwise, choose the closest-aligned with your own views and GET ON WITH IT. John McCain did it...

Read below. Duh.

YES!!! I support you and whatever loser the Libertarians or the Greens or whatever chooses to nominate - it's just one more vote that won't cancel out mine when I'm off voting for somebody with a chance.

Am I whining about my voice not being heard? Am I moaning about only having TWO parties from which to choose? **** no, I'm not! I'm going to choose the closest-aligned with [my] own views and GET ON WITH IT. But somehow this makes me less intelligent, because instead of changing my rational, considered political opinions to suit some pissant candidate, I'd rather vote for someone who won't win, but who does share my views?

Which am I supposed to do, Doug: shut up and pick from the Big Two, or be an independent and GET ON WITH IT? You decide which one you meant more, and get back to me.

And why's Kerry weak? Or a flip-flopper, as someone else said. Because the media tells you he is? I've got to tell you, I've been paying attention to the man and I don't see it with nearly the frequency as Fox News would have you believe.

I don't think Kerry is necessarily weak. I think he's an arrogant SOB, and if he talked to me the way I've heard him talk to other citizens, I'd have a pile of Secret Service agents on me pretty quickly, but I'd have his front teeth in my hand, too.

Of course! Your party - which has less support than Pinoche - just happens to stand for maximum freedom in all cases! Why, sure! Gotta hand it to you danoff - you're the one person at GTP who's managed to be more arrogant than Viper Zero.

Ummmm, please do explain how this is "arrogant"? The acknowledged goal of the Libertarian Party is the maximum possible individual freedom that is consistent with protecting everyone's rights. They say right in their literature: "You know more about how to run your life than we do. We're trying to make sure you can run your own life."... but this is arrogant somehow?

As once said by George Will: "You Libertarians have a 14-karat-solid gold idea, and yet you can't give it away." This is because the majority electorate will always vote themselves bread and circuses instead of something truly constructive but that might involve cutting back on government spending, God forbid.

As an aside, do you know that numerous states have laws IN EFFECT that require free broadband internet be provided in new public housing projects? Apparently broadband has been promoted to "basic human need" status. If that's the case, my family was living below the poverty level until last ****ing month.

Viper Zero, you aren't wise beyond your years, despite what you might think. Bowl for all the truth you want, but in the end, Michael Moore's just a fat guy making movies. It's not the liberals, but the radical conservatives like you that are giving him all the money and fame he wants. When you (and by you I mean conservatives - though most conservatives have "seen" Michael Moore's movies by having Rush Limbaugh tell them about it) go see his movie and look for inaccuracies and laugh at his theories, you don't seem to realise that at the end of the day, he made money off you. He's the one laughing when he cashes the checks.

So, here again, which is it? Are we supposed to pay to see Moore's bull**** for ourselves, so we can judge it for ourselves, or are we supposed to just read the Limbaugh Letter version, so Rush can tell us what we think?

 

[rjensen11]

What makes you belive they are innocent ? do you know something no one else does ? BTW did you pay any attention to the new supreme court ruling ?

Um, about that ruling.... With a Republican congress that doesn't dissent against Bush, who's going to enforce Bush? It's not like he's fearing that he'll have to face impeachment him because he has enough sway over the Republican congress. You see, we wouldn't have this problem of having all of our federal government being stupid, old white conservative republicans if we just have a direct popular vote....
*Spoken by a young, white, moderate Democrat*

Now those old people that become Republican, don't make me get started on old people that switch because of retirement.... Those hypocrites want all of the benefits of a Democratic government and financial system, but once their kids are out of college and they found out they didn't save enough money to retire and pay the taxes because they used their money irresponsibly by moving down to Florida, Arizona, or Cali to reture, they switch to Republican. Essentially, they're saying "Screw you, future of the world, go have fun trying to find out how to get into college, now that we've taken away our tax money from assisting you! Oh, and screw you, families that need welfare, have fun trying to find money. Now, Uncle Sam, give me money for my meds (which you don't give enough) so I'll shut up."

Needless to say, I have more respect for life-long republicans than old people that switch over because they don't want to pay the taxes they used to.... The only reason a person should change sides is if their former representative screwed up royally, like Bush.

Oh, and about the Flip-Flop-Kerry thing, try to find out how many bills the commercials and the Bush administration is refurring to: You'd be surprised at how many different ideas can be put into a SINGLE BILL (No, I'm not saying that all of the things they're saying come from one bill, but undoubtedly come from far less than an individual bill for each idea.)

I think [Kerry]'s an arrogant SOB

Uh, look at your good ol' Buddy Bush, mate.... Oh, and more about Bush: If he can't protect his daughters from the trouble with alcohol, or protect himself from killer pretzels, how do we expect him to protect a country, one of THE LARGEST both financially and landmass wise?

 

[Brett]

[EDIT]Ignore this post. I do not know what I was thinking putting it up, as I could not decide what I wanted to say in it. [/EDIT]

 

[Duke]

Uh, look at your good ol' Buddy Bush, mate....

I've never heard Bush be a quarter as rude and insulting as I have heard Kerry, and Kerry's not even president yet; theoretically at least, he's still trying to get people to like him.

 

[1X83Z]

But hopefully I won't be in Boston when we have tens of thousands of Socialists at the Democratic National Convention. That's going to suck big time.

We get the RNC from August 29 to September 4 - I think I'll miss that one.

Oh no, I pissed off a Liberal! I'm so scared.

When I vote for John Kerry it will be only because I don't like Bush's supporters - I think I'd vote for the man himself. (ie you)

But somehow this makes me less intelligent, because instead of changing my rational, considered political opinions to suit some pissant candidate, I'd rather vote for someone who won't win, but who does share my views?

No!! I love it! For two reasons!!

- you're actually DOING something about it rather than whining about "the system" and how it doesn't work and how it works better in Europe
- your vote won't cancel out mine! Mine will cancel out Viper Zero's! It all works out!

Which am I supposed to do, Doug: shut up and pick from the Big Two, or be an independent and GET ON WITH IT? You decide whcih one you meant more, and get back to me.

Be an independent? I never said that. I said pick and get on with it. By "closest-aligned" I meant of the major two parties. For me it comes down to this: Let's pretend there are three candidates: Paul, Steve, and John Kerry. Now, let's pretend Paul is a fringe candidate whose views are almost entirely aligned with mine. And Steve and John Kerry are members of major parties who actually have a chance at being elected. Now let's pretend this is a really close election (50-49-1 or something) between Steve and John Kerry. And finally, let's pretend that my views are represented, say, 70% by Steve and 10% by John Kerry. Why would I waste my vote on Paul, with 100% of my views, who has no chance and risk electing John Kerry, who shares just ten percent of my views? Wouldn't I rather have Steve, who, though he's not as appealing as Paul, actually has electability and 70% of my views?

Now granted, if none of the candidates shared any of my views, I'd be an idiot not to vote for Paul, but you'd have to be some sort of radical to share no viewpoints with major candidates. And if you share NO viewpoints and complain about how only two parties get elected, maybe you need to examine your own viewpoints, because those two parties are trying as hard as they can to appeal to the largest portion of the population possible.

I don't think Kerry is necessarily weak. I think he's an arrogant SOB, and if he talked to me the way I've heard him talk to other citizens, I'd have a pile of Secret Service agents on me pretty quickly, but I'd have his front teeth in my hand, too.

I'm with you - I don't think I'd hit the guy, I'd just vote for President Bush - but he is an arrogant jackass (it's why I wanted Edwards).

Ummmm, please do explain how this is "arrogant"? The acknowledged goal of the Libertarian Party is the maximum possible individual freedom that is consistent with protecting everyone's rights.

But do you see how danoff worded it piss-poorly? He said Democrats are for fiscal oppression, Republicans are for social oppression, but Libertarians (and, of course, only Libertarians) are for fiscal and social freedom for all! Yaay! Keep dreaming.

So, here again, which is it? Are we supposed to pay to see Moore's bull**** for ourselves, so we can judge it for ourselves, or are we supposed to just read the Limbaugh Letter version, so Rush can tell us what we think?

I thought the 'fat guy making a movie' line made something of a point - these films are entertaining at their very core. I was thoroughly entertained - but I'm not about to get caught up in the 'is this true, is this false' trash; I just don't care. I didn't take it at face value and in the end, it won't decide my vote for the 2004 election.

that is exactly the mission of the Libertarian party.

Individual liberty, a free-market economy, and personal responsibility are the goals of the Democratic and Republican party too, Sage. Let's have a look at some of the Libertarian Party's other positions:

- Free immigration, citing "immigrants actually lead to an increase in the number of jobs available".
- Free Internet speech, citing attempts by the Democrats and Republicans to "turn the Internet into a government-controlled medium" and further saying that the Communications Decency Act of 1995 was unconstitutional.
- Free drug use, saying that "drug laws don't help, they only make things worse" and that "Individuals have the right to decide for themselves what to put in their bodies, so long as they take responsibility for their actions." Who's going to take responsibility after they kill someone? Or after already bad neighbourhoods become worse when drugs go rampant?

It goes on like this. The Libertarian Party and its members believe that everyone lives like Duke and Sage: intelligent, well-mannered, and able to take responsibility. The Libertarian Party and its members are wrong. People are incompetent jackasses and need everything done for them.

I'll grant the Libertarian Party this - their five-point plan on healthcare is intelligent beyond belief. 👍

 

[rjensen11]

I've never heard Bush be a quarter as rude and insulting as I have heard Kerry, and Kerry's not even president yet; theoretically at least, he's still trying to get people to like him.

Um, being rude, here we go:

Bush sends his friend with the weak heart over to the Vatican to give the Holy Father a crystal dove, both knowing it's about Iraq. Actually, anything Bush's administration has done by communicating with the Vatican or interacting with it in any way has been a rude means. They could at least try to act humble.... Pope John Paul II may have a frail body, but he still remains the most influential person throughout the globe.

 

[1X83Z]

Bush sends his friend with the weak heart over to the Vatican to give the Holy Father a crystal dove,

When I got to this point I honestly thought he was going to be telling a joke.

Look, rjensen, there's no two ways about it - Kerry's an arrogant guy. Have you ever seen him speak casually (ie not being interviewed or giving a speech)?

 

[Klostrophobic]

When I vote for John Kerry it will be only because I don't like Bush's supporters - I think I'd vote for the man himself. (ie you)

I find this to be a brilliant way to decide who gets my vote. Now I just have to decide who I hate more. Liberals of Conservatives? Hmm.

Despite the fact that, assuming I had to classify myself into on of the two categories, I would call myself a conservative, I'd rather vote against Conservative supporters. Most of them are assholes.

What you said about voting for JK or GW depending on which of the two is most closely aligned with my absurd views the most makes sense. But now I'm just confused as to whether I should take your advice and vote for one of the two, or just waste my vote on a third/fourth/eleventh party candidate.

 

[Brett]

People are incompetent jackasses and need everything done for them.

So should we be Communists then? As that means the government will have a say in everything we do.

 

[Duke]

No!! I love it! For two reasons!!

- you're actually DOING something about it rather than whining about "the system" and how it doesn't work and how it works better in Europe
- your vote won't cancel out mine! Mine will cancel out Viper Zero's! It all works out!

OK, it didn't seem that you meant it at face value. My apologies for getting shirty.

Be an independent? I never said that. I said pick and get on with it. Why would I waste my vote on Paul, with 100% of my views, who has no chance and risk electing John Kerry, who shares just ten percent of my views? Wouldn't I rather have Steve, who, though he's not as appealing as Paul, actually has electability and 70% of my views?

In actuality, for me anyway, it's more like 30%, 40% and 100%. Those percentages aren't worth compromising my views for.

I'm with you - I don't think I'd hit the guy, I'd just vote for President Bush - but he is an arrogant jackass (it's why I wanted Edwards).

I actually heard Kerry ask a guy who was questioning him - reasonably, might I add - who the guy had voted for, and then lead the audience in laughing when the man admitted to voting for Bush. I was more thoroughly disgusted than I think I can describe.

But do you see how danoff worded it piss-poorly? He said Democrats are for fiscal oppression, Republicans are for social oppression, but Libertarians (and, of course, only Libertarians) are for fiscal and social freedom for all! Yaay! Keep dreaming.

No, I don't see that he worded it poorly at all. I think he pretty much hit those nails right on the head.

I thought the 'fat guy making a movie' line made something of a point - these films are entertaining at their very core. I was thoroughly entertained - but I'm not about to get caught up in the 'is this true, is this false' trash; I just don't care. I didn't take it at face value and in the end, it won't decide my vote for the 2004 election.

You're unfortunately doing exactly what you describe we Libertarians as doing: assuming everybody has the sense to see it that way. Unfortunately I've met an alarming number of people who are willing to take Moore's quote documnetaries unquote at face value. So fire must be fought with fire.

Individual liberty, a free-market economy, and personal responsibility are the goals of the Democratic and Republican party too, Sage.

You're going to have to put a lot more into than that if you expect me to be even the slightest bit convinced of this. Right now, you're kind of sounding like Willy Wonka when the kid is running off to grab something, and he mutters under his breath, "wait, stop, come back..." as the brat meets a horrible fate - not very convincing.

Let's have a look at some of the Libertarian Party's other positions:

- Free immigration, citing "immigrants actually lead to an increase in the number of jobs available".

Are controlled immigrations getting the job done? The ex-governor of California seriously proposed creating an illegal immigrant driver's license, so they could get to their jobs more easily.

- Free Internet speech, citing attempts by the Democrats and Republicans to "turn the Internet into a government-controlled medium" and further saying that the Communications Decency Act of 1995 was unconstitutional.

And...?

- Free drug use, saying that "drug laws don't help, they only make things worse" and that "Individuals have the right to decide for themselves what to put in their bodies, so long as they take responsibility for their actions." Who's going to take responsibility after they kill someone?

Libertarians don't want to make killing people legal. Quite the opposite. So, where's the issue? Murder and manslaughter are still punishable offenses. Can't handle the drugs, stay out of the crack kitchen.

[Who's going to take responsibility] after already bad neighbourhoods become worse when drugs go rampant?

How about - here's an idea - the people in those neighborhoods? It won't happen overnight. It's going to be ugly when it does happen. Withdrawal symptoms are tough. But people need to be weaned off the public teat, and to learn that there is no question of "who's going to be reponsible". YOU are responsible for YOURSELF.

It goes on like this. The Libertarian Party and its members believe that everyone lives like Duke and Sage: intelligent, well-mannered, and able to take responsibility. The Libertarian Party and its members are wrong. People are incompetent jackasses and need everything done for them.

I respectfully submit that the worst possible solution to this problem is to breed yet more generations of incompetent jackasses by continuing to do everything for them.

 

[Brett]

Wow! Great post duke! 👍 Why do people seem to criticize the Libertarian views, especially no one gives them the chance in hell to get tried out? I mean it is not like it is going to hurt to try them. Our system of government is made in a way where if the effects from the Libertarian views were bad, the things changed could very easily changed to something better. And like duke said, "I respectfully submit that the worst possible solution to this problem is to breed yet more generations of incompetent jackasses by continuing to do everything for them." We as a nation definitely need to start holding our society/citizens responsible for their actions, instead of letting them whine and ***** about everything, as whining and *****ing accomplish absolutely nothing.

 

[Klostrophobic]

I doubt we'll ever, ever have a libertarian president. I just don't see how it could happen.

I do wonder what the country would be like. I don't know if life would be a lot different or if I would notice the changes in my daily life.

 

[ledhed]

So someone tell me why the libertarian party isnt ruling the world ?

 

[Duke]

Because, as I said earlier, the general public will always vote themselves bread and circuses, to paraphrase a Roman emperor. The majority of people are happy voting their own responsibilities off on someone else. That "someone else" is someone richer or more capable of handling it, who is therefore punished for the crime of wealth and/or capability.

This is why danoff, Sage, ///M-Spec and I are so quick to polarize the socialism/capitalism question. And thanks, Vash; I would include you in the list above but I haven't seen enough of your posts to know whether you'd take it as a compliment or not.

 

[Brett]

What do you mean duke?

 

[Duke]

I mean, I'm confident that Sage, danoff, and ///M wouldn't mind being "accused" of polarizing the argument between socialism and capitalism. As a Libertarian, I'm sure you agree that capitalism is better, but I didn't want to automatically include you in a list of people described as "polarizing" an issue, that's all.

 

[Brett]

Ahhhh! I see. Yes, capitalism is better. I will not mind being mentioned with that group. And I now think I will log off of GTP as it is taking too much time away from GT3 at the moment. That or I will be hitting the sack, I am kinda tired. Don't know which one I'll do yet.

 

[1X83Z]

OK, it didn't seem that you meant it at face value. My apologies for getting shirty.

Where'd you hear that word?

In actuality, for me anyway, it's more like 30%, 40% and 100%. Those percentages aren't worth compromising my views for.

I agree.

I actually heard Kerry ask a guy who was questioning him - reasonably, might I add - who the guy had voted for, and then lead the audience in laughing when the man admitted to voting for Bush. I was more thoroughly disgusted than I think I can describe.

I've seen Kerry questioned following a speech by VH1 reporters just attempting to ask him some questions about pop culture to see if he knew anything. Even though he got all the questions right (stuff like 'who does LeBron James play for?') he was a total jackass in doing so - I agree with you there.

No, I don't see that he worded it poorly at all. I think he pretty much hit those nails right on the head.

Of course. You're a Libertarian.

You're unfortunately doing exactly what you describe we Libertarians as doing: assuming everybody has the sense to see it that way. Unfortunately I've met an alarming number of people who are willing to take Moore's quote documnetaries unquote at face value. So fire must be fought with fire.

Fire with fire? Are you off your head? Michael Moore makes movies. Liberals see these movies. Conservatives argue about the credibility of these movies. But at the end of the day, the only people caring are the ones who've ALREADY made up their minds about their political affiliation.

You're going to have to put a lot more into than that if you expect me to be even the slightest bit convinced of this.

It's obvious. All parties have the same goal as the Libertarian Party. Just not to the same degree. You're once again off your head if you don't believe this.

Are controlled immigrations getting the job done? The ex-governor of California seriously proposed creating an illegal immigrant driver's license, so they could get to their jobs more easily.

Under political pressure. And I seem to recall that same ex-governor being recalled from office, then, when the new governor came in and opposed illegal immgration, he was labeled a RACIST by "leading Latino groups."

Can't handle the drugs, stay out of the crack kitchen.

It's unbelievable that you'd think that people can actually do this.

How about - here's an idea - the people in those neighborhoods?

Ever been to the ghetto? Not the bad neighbourhood in Dover or Wilmington, but truly, government-built housing with police substations within the buildings, like in Chicago? These places are unbelievably out of control with drugs illegal.. If you legalize drugs, it'll be worse beyond belief. You admit it'll be ugly when the Libertarians take over and drugs are legalized - why go through that?

I respectfully submit that the worst possible solution to this problem is to breed yet more generations of incompetent jackasses by continuing to do everything for them.

The first generation under Libertarian rule will destroy the planet.

 

[AP1]

Who's Nader?

 

[Klostrophobic]

He's the guy who takes away all of Kerry's votes. Basically, a vote for him, is a vote for Bush.

 

[wellyrn]

the "libertarians for Bush" delegation here (you know who you are) should take thier right hand, make a fist, raise it up above your head and punch yourself right in the nutz.

 

[wellyrn]

oh i noticed this...

"Ever been to the ghetto? Not the bad neighbourhood in Dover or Wilmington, but truly, government-built housing with police substations within the buildings, like in Chicago? These places are unbelievably out of control with drugs illegal.. If you legalize drugs, it'll be worse beyond belief. You admit it'll be ugly when the Libertarians take over and drugs are legalized - why go through that?"

The drug problem can't possibly get any worse than it is in the states. It seems illogical. The US was the first to prohibit drugs, they have spent the most money for enforcement, they have the strictest laws and most addict/dealers in jail. Somehow they still have the highest rates of use and abuse. I don't have a clue why but you can't argue the fact prohibition makes it worse. So support legalization and harm prevention.

 

[ledhed]

If drugs were legalized along with a program for treatment , education and counseling ( funded by taxes on drugs and the money saved ) You would eliminate the incentive for drug dealers, and eliminate an entire class of criminal, a reason for alot of gun violence . eliminate a dangerous sub culture . Eliminate the need to warehouse users in gladiator school ( prison )
Eliminate the need for alot of petty theft, car jackings , robbery etc. And the police could do something else besides round up drug dealers and users and tend to the victims of turf violence and drug wars. It makes so much sense but will likely not happen any time soon.
Oh well I guess I just got thrown out of the right wing conservative club.

 

[Carl.]

This is getting off topic from the election, but THIS, provided it is as effective as expected, would be a better solution for drug issues, than to legalize it or put users behind bars. If it work wells, that's Nobel prize material.

Those who want to legalize drugs such as heroin or cocain clearly have never been closed to someone who had real addiction issues with them. Instead of trying to cut it at the source, let it loose, and while Imperial Coca-Hero Inc. is making Billions of profits, let's cleverly spend our tax dollars on dealing with issues caused by their customer base (not by the distributor, of course).

It'll be all good: law enforcement will become a more rewarding job. It's better (and easier) dealing with the guy who's beating the **** out of his girlfriend because he's too high or he can't have his next fix than trying to stop the organization who made the crap availible to him in the first place.

And that's not a problem, because we'd have enough money to deal with those little issues, given the taxes we'd collect on drug sales. Or perhaps not, if I got it right from the libertarians, we shouldn't put an extra tax on drugs, because that would be an intrusion of the government to promote a certain lifestyle for its population, right?

 

[Duke]

the "libertarians for Bush" delegation here (you know who you are) should take thier right hand, make a fist, raise it up above your head and punch yourself right in the nutz.

Is there a particular reason why they should do that? Some of those people might suggest that you should take a power saw, run a quick lap around your skull, lift the top off, and see if you can find your brain.

But that wouldn't be particularly constructive, now would it?

 

[Danoff]

Or perhaps not, of I got it right from the libertarians, we shouldn't put an extra tax on drugs, because that would be an intrusion of the government to promote a certain lifestyle for its population, right?

It shouldn't have more than just the standard sales tax.