Motts growing nightmare

WinterBorn said:
The only thing they have done is to get more people elected than all other Third Parties combined.

Representative??? Have you really been paying attention?

Whether the voters are educated or not, the two main parties wield the power. Anyone who gets elected as a republican or democrat is run more by the party than by their promises.
Click to expand...
But that's my point Winter. When you only have 40% to 50% voter turn out, which is a national shame, then politicians can get away with it. Both of our two political parties are broad based coalitions and the reason it's so non-representative today is that voter apathy allows the extremes of both parties to dominate to the detriment of everyone else.

What's the old saying "You get the government you deserve"? Because a huge percentage of the public is apathetic towards their responsibility to participating in the political process our politicians are somewhat apathetic about representing our interest. Why do you think lobbyist with their money have such a strangle hold on our political process?

My point being is that if there was a greater degree of turnout and participation by the public in our political process then the two parties, since they are broad based coalitions, wouldn't be able to get away with this shit, at least not on the extremes. Nor would you see the degree of partisan gridlock either and with out that greater degree of participation having a third party wouldn't fix anything.

But even if you are right about the need for a third party to fix this problem, it sure wouldn't be something as laughable as the libertarians.
 
Liberty said:
I look at it as having a choice. Marxism, or Anti-Marxism. Statments saying Anti-Marxist are anarchist is really a funny thing.

Tell me Mott, "when did you become a liberty hating Marxist?"

How long have you been on welfare?

You know taking care of yourself without accepting help will make you feel real good, and give you a better idea of what life as a Libertarian is like.
Click to expand...
Why do you hate America and why should we trust you to run our government when you hate it?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Why do you hate America and why should we trust you to run our government when you hate it?
Click to expand...

Reporter in 1800: "Mr. President and Mr. Vice President, why do you both hate America, and why should we trust you to run our govt. when you both clearly hate it? Give us one good reason why we shouldn't elect Mr. Burr over the both of you!!"
 
Mott the Hoople said:
But that's my point Winter. When you only have 40% to 50% voter turn out, which is a national shame, then politicians can get away with it. Both of our two political parties are broad based coalitions and the reason it's so non-representative today is that voter apathy allows the extremes of both parties to dominate to the detriment of everyone else.

What's the old saying "You get the government you deserve"? Because a huge percentage of the public is apathetic towards their responsibility to participating in the political process our politicians are somewhat apathetic about representing our interest. Why do you think lobbyist with their money have such a strangle hold on our political process?

My point being is that if there was a greater degree of turnout and participation by the public in our political process then the two parties, since they are broad based coalitions, wouldn't be able to get away with this shit, at least not on the extremes. Nor would you see the degree of partisan gridlock either and with out that greater degree of participation having a third party wouldn't fix anything.

But even if you are right about the need for a third party to fix this problem, it sure wouldn't be something as laughable as the libertarians.
Click to expand...

If we have only 50% voter turnout, the politicians can get away with nonstop lying and selling out?? Huh?

They know that once they are elected, they can start campaigning again in 2 months.

The lack of voter turnout has nothing to do with it.
 
Conservatism is nothing without social conservatism. That's why libertarians fails so consistently. Even been to a town run by libertarians? Its nuts.
 
Southern Man said:
Conservatism is nothing without social conservatism. That's why libertarians fails so consistently. Even been to a town run by libertarians? Its nuts.
Click to expand...

Social conservatives whine about wanting limited gov't and less interference, and then demand that their religious beliefs and their morality be the law of the land. Even you can see the hypocrisy of this.
 
WinterBorn said:
Social conservatives whine about wanting limited gov't and less interference, and then demand that their religious beliefs and their morality be the law of the land. Even you can see the hypocrisy of this.
Click to expand...

i won't make his argument for him...however, to the best of my understanding, the argument is thus....

it is not necessarily a larger government or a less limited government. the argument could be made that expanding the definition of marriage is an expansion of government, in that it expands government over other types of marriage. if one is completely unbiased, one can see the argument has some reason. however, imho, it misses the larger picture, that being a more limited government is about more rights for individuals. thus, if government is involved in "marriage", denying such a contract to those who want to engage in legal activities, is in fact expanding government into, what has been described as upmost privacy, the bedroom.
 
Yurt said:
i won't make his argument for him...however, to the best of my understanding, the argument is thus....

it is not necessarily a larger government or a less limited government. the argument could be made that expanding the definition of marriage is an expansion of government, in that it expands government over other types of marriage. if one is completely unbiased, one can see the argument has some reason. however, imho, it misses the larger picture, that being a more limited government is about more rights for individuals. thus, if government is involved in "marriage", denying such a contract to those who want to engage in legal activities, is in fact expanding government into, what has been described as upmost privacy, the bedroom.
Click to expand...

The aspect that you brought up is more about biased benefits from the gov't.

But I see where you are coming from, and its almost a valid argument. But, as you say, the point of limiting gov't is more rights for the individual. Which is one of the great cries of social conservatives, that they want more individual rights. But they only want the rights they agree with.
 
TE=WinterBorn;667971]The aspect that you brought up is more about biased benefits from the gov't.
Click to expand...

i don't think strict social conservatives think like that. to them, the benefits could be equal if you allow civil unions and grant all the same rights as marriages. imo....this still misses the point....you can sit on the bus, but you have to sit in the back, but hey, you have equal rights to sit on the bus...


But I see where you are coming from, and its almost a valid argument.
Click to expand...

yes...almost...yet so far

But, as you say, the point of limiting gov't is more rights for the individual. Which is one of the great cries of social conservatives, that they want more individual rights. But they only want the rights they agree with.
Click to expand...

this may be the case. its like some want to restrict rights and with this thinking, they believe restrict is like limit...i don't know.

i believe in christ, but i am weak christian. maybe he will believe in me by some measure of faith. when christ walked the earth he took unto him the dregs of mankind.....he set an adulterous free...by writing in sand....

i don't believe christian marriage should be forced to accept homosexual marriage, or islamic or jewish marriage. out country does not only marry those of christian, islamic or jewish faith.

that is a fact and that is our constitution.
 
Yurt said:
i believe in christ, but i am weak christian. maybe he will believe in me by some measure of faith. when christ walked the earth he took unto him the dregs of mankind.....he set an adulterous free...by writing in sand....

i don't believe christian marriage should be forced to accept homosexual marriage, or islamic or jewish marriage. out country does not only marry those of christian, islamic or jewish faith.

that is a fact and that is our constitution.
Click to expand...

I am a christian. I believe in the sanctity of the church.

But I do not believe that religious organizations should be tax exempt. I also do not believe that the gov't should offer benefits to a specific group (even if it is the majority), and deny them to others. But that is another debate altogether.
 
UOTE=WinterBorn;667976]I am a christian. I believe in the sanctity of the church.
Click to expand...

fair enough. there are so many man made churches, i don't which to believe. so i do my best to believe in what christ believes in.

But I do not believe that religious organizations should be tax exempt. I also do not believe that the gov't should offer benefits to a specific group (even if it is the majority), and deny them to others. But that is another debate altogether.
Click to expand...

i am not so sure. once you tax something, you gain control of it. whether it be tax breaks or tax increases. so long as churches toe the line and don't cross too far into politik, i'm ok with tax exempt. it helps keep our governnmnet away from religious monies. do we tax them like corps? like people? i would rather keep out government away from church money, with the exceptions in place.

i agree, benefits should not be given to any group. of course, i would exempt religion given our founders desire to make religion as free as possible.

you offer good points.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Why do you hate America and why should we trust you to run our government when you hate it?
Click to expand...

I hate the republican, and democratic party because it takes away my property against my will, and uses it toward my own demise.

They're more criminal than that, but that's a good start.
 
WinterBorn said:
Cypress, I think its not that anyone sits around worrying about the Libertarian Party.

I think its that a huge number of people are sick of the two major parties, and want another option. The Libertarian Party offers the best option. And while it will undoubtably change to grow (ie, not pure libertarianism), it has the most elected officials of any third party and can appeal to the large number of disappointed centrists who want results not party politics.
Click to expand...


I don't put much stock in Party or ideological labels, or talk of third parties. Labels are two-dimensional.

The way the system is set up dictates there are going to be only two viable parties. The talk of third parties has been going on for two hundred years, and the only time I'm aware of where a major party was replaced by third party was when the Whigs were dissolved into the republican party.

All the blather about the Libertarian Party or the Green Party is fine. But, with all due respect, to me its just message board theorizing. People might have empathy for certain aspects of the Libertarian party. But, that can only take you so far. The modern libertarian ideology is basically reactionary; it was rooted in the 1950s as a reaction against the New Deal, by corporate and Captains of Industry-friendly interests. Hello? Ayn Rand? You're never going to get large pluralities of people to accept dismantling medicare, social security; and most people are going to be shocked by Ron and Rand Paul's blather that -- distasteful as it might be -- private business should be able to discriminate on the basis of color, gender, or disability.

To me, 200 years of history demonstrates with crystal clarity that political change comes from changing the trajectory or taking over one of the two existing parties - democrats and GOP. History is chock full of examples of that. The populist New Deal democrats displacing the bourbon democrats. The socially conservative, Neocon-ish wing of the GOP displacing the moderate, country-club wing of the GOP. And the progressive northern democrats finally realizing it wasn't worth keeping the southern Dixiecrats around.

As for all the blather about fiscal conservatism, again with all due respect, I really don't think there's that large of a plurality that would make that a viable theology. It's easy to wear the label of fiscal conservatism, but hardly anyone really believes in it. Conservatives love war and defense spending. Liberals like social spending. It's as simple as that. Government is expected to provide some services that the Captains of Industry can't provide, and the only real argument is how to prioritized those services and make them more effective.


All that said, I will say it's always a barrel of fun to have libertarians around on message boards. How much comedy gold can Rand Paul give up? Much more, one hopes!
 
I've got some rules, too, and rule number one is, don't tease the panther.

So join with me and pledge to become a founders keeper. Pledge to not only read the works and words of the Founding Fathers, to not only read and better understand our history but resolve to restore your honor by becoming a better individual, citizen, father, mother, daughter or son.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top