Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Gary Johnson vs. Mark Sanford
Bill Kauffman talks up Gary Johnson as a potential presidential candidate in 2012:
At breakfast the morn of the rally, I sat across the table from a friendly dude wearing a peace-sign T-shirt and looking like an affable old surfer. He introduced himself as Gary Johnson, the former two-term governor of New Mexico. Over the next day, I spent a fair amount of time chatting with Governor Johnson: mountain-climber, triathlete, vetoer of 750 bills.
He told me that he may take a shot at the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 as an antiwar, anti-Fed, pro-personal liberties, slash-government-spending candidate—in other words, a Ron Paul libertarian.
South Carolina governor Mark Sanford seems to be carving out similar space in the GOP. While Sanford's stubborn parsimony within the spendthrift GOP is welcome—he is surely a stream of fresh air in a mephitic party—consider, if you will, Gary Johnson.
Yes, as a congressman Sanford opposed the U.S. intervention in Kosovo under a Democratic president; Gary Johnson opposed a Republican president's war upon Iraq. Sanford reluctantly endorsed McCain in 2008; Johnson emphatically endorsed Ron Paul. Sanford has potential on civil liberties; Johnson, like Paul, has the guts to call for the legalization of marijuana and an end to the drug war.
Eight years ago, when Johnson was still governor of New Mexico, Mike Lynch interviewed him for Reason. You can read that conversation here.
libertarian democrat|4.21.09 @ 10:44AM|#
From wikipedia he sounds like a really great moderate libertarian. What are his bad sides?
|4.21.09 @ 10:48AM|#
Both this guy and Sanford seem like good options and a great improvement over what the Republicans have now. The question is can the anti-war libertarians live with Stanford and can the evangelicals live with Johnson. Can either side take half a loaf?
robc|4.21.09 @ 10:50AM|#
can the evangelicals live with Johnson
Yes.
Of course, Im speaking only for myself here. But, you know, since
people treat evangelical christians as a mono-block, I can speak
for us all.
|4.21.09 @ 10:51AM|#
Right now, merely decent on civil liberties and on limited government sounds pretty danged good.
|4.21.09 @ 10:55AM|#
IMO, if he isn't a big pro-lifer, anti-drugger, he won't stand a chance in the national GOP scene. The gop still has to suck up to the christian conservatives.
|4.21.09 @ 10:55AM|#
Anybody who can begin a sentence with a phrase other than "We Must!" would be a fucking gigantic improvement.
|4.21.09 @ 10:57AM|#
I will say this. When Obama is done in 8 years, that might be a good time for the libertarians to make a huge national push. People may be worn out from big government. (if Obama's policies aren't working the way I hope they will)
Cabeza De Vaca|4.21.09 @ 11:00AM|#
I doubt he could win the nomination, but I hope he runs. If he gets a large enough following it might influence the other candidates to adopt parts of his political agenda.
creech|4.21.09 @ 11:06AM|#
Has no more chance of winning the GOP nomination than Ron Paul did. So, after the GOP convention, he disappears leaving whomever unknown the LP has put up to carry the libertarian banner. Johnson should instead, if wanting to tilt at windmills, go after the LP nomination right now and spend some time building credibility, contacts, and a campaign team within the LP. Barr proved you can't do it at the last minute.
Gimme Back My Dog|4.21.09 @ 11:07AM|#
The gop still has to suck up to the christian
conservatives.
It's like Branch Rickey told Ralph Kiner--"we could have come in
last place without you".
Right now the GOP is in last place and the sooner they stop blowing
the Moral Majority types the sooner they can start rebuilding.
cuernimus|4.21.09 @ 11:08AM|#
He's certainly going to need more exposure if he wants to beat Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, or even Mark Sanford. Former governors don't make the news cycle as much as current governors, so unless he is a 10-second soundbite machine, his empty platitudes just aren't going to reach the masses.
|4.21.09 @ 11:08AM|#
And he might actually stand a chance, sine he doesn't have the
appearance of nutjob baggage that Ron Paul did hanging around his
neck.
Note that I say appearance, not actual. I voted for Paul in '88 and
would do so again in a heartbeat, but he's roadkill as far as
residential politics go. Johnson is younger and decent looking, and
heck, his skin isn't blue. (No, not Paul obviously...) He's
probably a better speaker than Paul and won't be lured into arcane
civil war arguments on TV.
Brandon|4.21.09 @ 11:10AM|#
Johnson's stances beg the question: how did he get elected NM's governor...twice? Is he a recent convert to libertarian ideas? Is he a slick talkin' politician? Or is he just a fortunate fluke a la Ron Paul?
robc|4.21.09 @ 11:13AM|#
My favorite Johnson story is when he admitted to having used cocaine. Some media member asking a question about it used the term "experimenting" and Johnson went off on the guy because he didnt experiment. He knew what it would do and did it because he enjoyed it.
|4.21.09 @ 11:14AM|#
Right now the GOP is in last place and the sooner they stop
blowing the Moral Majority types the sooner they can start
rebuilding.
Not really sure on that one. Even assuming America is relatively
socially moderate, I don't see how the GOP moving from being
socially conservative to socially moderate-conservative gets them
any votes. Why vote for the half-Democrat when the other guy's a
full Democrat?
That being said, many Republicans need to understand there are
other priorities in governance than just social issues. Taking firm
action on economic principles, making meaningful steps to corral
government waste, and allowing people to determine their own
outcomes would go a long way to rebuilding image, even if they
don't really budge on their social issues (let's face it, issues
like gay marriage, abortion, and the death penalty don't personally
affect a huge swath of the population).
Then again, the Democrats promised the same stuff the last four
years or so, and look what we've gotten... I don't hold out much
hope for the GOP to learn from both their mistakes and those of the
Obama administration.
|4.21.09 @ 11:15AM|#
Most of the people on here who rip on the evangelicals don't
know shit about what they are actually like. They are generally not
supporters of big government. They don't support gay marriage or
drug legalization. But for the most part they want the feds to
leave them alone and certainly want the feds to get the hell out of
the State's business.
Yes, the evangelicals are not going to help with ending the drug
war or gay marriage. But, right now the Dems control everything and
I don't see either of those things changing.
|4.21.09 @ 11:16AM|#
The libertarians are gonna have to make a run as their own
party. Not riding the GOP's tattered coattails. When wholesale
restructuring of government is what you are selling, you don't do
it by aligning with one of the two major parties.
"You know who gave us the democrats we have in office now? The
republicans."
|4.21.09 @ 11:20AM|#
"That being said, many Republicans need to understand there are
other priorities in governance than just social issues. Taking firm
action on economic principles, making meaningful steps to corral
government waste, and allowing people to determine their own
outcomes would go a long way to rebuilding image, even if they
don't really budge on their social issues (let's face it, issues
like gay marriage, abortion, and the death penalty don't personally
affect a huge swath of the population)."
All very true. Despite what BO thinks, people are not stupid. They
know how bad the deficits are and the price that will be paid for
them. They also know what crooks Congress is. Waste, corruption and
the deficit are what people are going to be voting on in 2012. The
other thing to remember is most people could give a rats ass if NSA
is listening to phone calls trying to stop terrorists and most
people think KSM should have had his balls cut off and wonder why
we didn't waterboard him to death rather than just 200 times or
whatever happened. Libertarians may not like that, but it is
true.
robc|4.21.09 @ 11:20AM|#
You know who gave us the democrats we have in office now?
The republicans. The fuckers who voted for
them.
FTFY
cuernimus|4.21.09 @ 11:21AM|#
Johnson's stances beg the question
No, it raises the question. The western states have had a
"leave me alone" perspective since they were settled; remember that
Barry Goldwater was an Arizona senator. More recent settlers don't
share this sentiment, but it still exists.
BDB|4.21.09 @ 11:21AM|#
"The question is can the anti-war libertarians live with
Stanford "
Sanford has rejected pre-emptive war, John, and says he would have
voted against Iraq.
|4.21.09 @ 11:27AM|#
BDB,
I didn't know that. In that case, what problems will Libertarians
have with Stanford?
robc|4.21.09 @ 11:28AM|#
what problems will Libertarians have with
Stanford
Their mascot is an idiotic tree?
Brandon|4.21.09 @ 11:29AM|#
No, it raises the question. The western states have had a
"leave me alone" perspective since they were settled; remember that
Barry Goldwater was an Arizona senator. More recent settlers don't
share this sentiment, but it still exists.
I wonder if their "leave me alone" perspective extends to policing
grammar.
BDB|4.21.09 @ 11:30AM|#
"I didn't know that. In that case, what problems will
Libertarians have with Stanford?"
I really don't have many problems with him. He's an evangelical but
not the Huckabee/DeLay/W. style Big Government Evangelical (at
least from what I've seen).
BDB|4.21.09 @ 11:31AM|#
One thin I don't know about, and would like to know, is his stance on trade. The American Conservative seems to like him which makes me wary since they're protectionist. If he's a protectionist who wants to scrap NAFTA and get into pointless trade wars with China and Europe then I'd have a big problem.
cuernimus|4.21.09 @ 11:43AM|#
I wonder if their "leave me alone" perspective extends to policing grammar.
I'm free to be an pedantic asshole, man! Leave me alone!
Norbert Sykes|4.21.09 @ 11:50AM|#
BDB I wouldn't go as far as to say he is evangelical...he is listed as Episcopal and my mom met him a few weeks ago while he was attending the 6pm mass at the Catholic church downtown. The Southern Catholics and Episcopals I grew up with were on the socially liberal side of the Southern political spectrum...which in the context of the whole US makes them moderates.
I, Kahn O\'Clast|4.21.09 @ 11:56AM|#
I live in New Mexico and I miss Gary Johnson. Last time I saw
him he was introducing the author of Reefer Madness at a talk and
book signing. He made a big statement on the wasted resources that
go into fighting the drug war and made a great case.
He's well-spoken, intelligent, attractive, an athlete (climbed Mt
Everest soon after breaking a leg), successful businessman and is,
essentially, a libertarian.
Someone above asked how in the world he won in New Mexico -- a
relatively blue state. There were many factors, one of which was an
exhaustion with the rotating, corrupt, entrenched, insiders who
were running the state into the ground. Here was a new idea. And he
was popular.
Taktix®|4.21.09 @ 12:01PM|#
I didn't know that. In that case, what problems will
Libertarians have with Stanford?
He's a creationist, but in the GOP in South Carolina, you have to
be. But otherwise he's not too shabby, and I like how he's making a
national name for himself by challenging the bailout (or rather,
how the bailout can be used).
To resurrect an old phrase, you run with the Sanford/Johnson you
have, not the Sanford/Johnson you want...
|4.21.09 @ 12:10PM|#
Taktix,
If we could get a President who would actually cut the size of
government, I wouldn't care if he was a wican who set up an alter
in the Whitehouse to sacrifice sacred cows to the Gods. Considering
all of the damage a President can do in so many areas, I don't see
how being a creationist is really that big of a deal.
|4.21.09 @ 12:16PM|#
IMO, if he isn't a big pro-lifer, anti-drugger, he won't
stand a chance in the national GOP scene. The gop still has to suck
up to the christian conservatives.
That may be true. Maybe the GOP needs to get it's clock cleaned
another time or two before they realize there are shiltlods of
voters who actually think about issues rather than listening to
Preacher Billy Bob down at the Baptist meeting hall.
Give the fundies veto power over the nominee and you give the Dems
the White House.
No offense intended to my favorite preacher here at H&R.
|4.21.09 @ 12:24PM|#
Yeah, I like this guy. I like Sanford a bit more. I also think Sanford will be embraced by the GOP in a way this guy may not be.
|4.21.09 @ 12:25PM|#
And the "Hoping the GOP throws us a bone" cycle begins
anew...
Nah, just hoping that pigs develop the aerodynamic fundamentals for
sustained flight.
|4.21.09 @ 12:25PM|#
Sanford has no credibilty. He will be as much of a
warmonger(drug and otherwise) as Obama. Gary Johnson seems to be a
much much better candidate.
Running as a republican(ala Ron Paul) works much much better than
as a libertarian. The TV air time in the primary debates is
essential to any succesful campaign.
The 3rd parties are 100% excluded from the MSM debate. The
socialist warmongers(republicrats) are highly skilled at
inflitrating and then destorying liberty movements...Ron Paul
exploited their susceptibility to being infiltrated.
|4.21.09 @ 12:27PM|#
"That may be true. Maybe the GOP needs to get it's clock cleaned
another time or two before they realize there are shiltlods of
voters who actually think about issues rather than listening to
Preacher Billy Bob down at the Baptist meeting hall.
Give the fundies veto power over the nominee and you give the Dems
the White House."
J Sub D you are bigoted fuck. People who are anti-abortion actually
think about things and just come to a different conclusion than
you. The idea that everyone who is pro life is only so because some
preacher told them so is so insulting and stupid as to almost be
beneath response.
I am sorry you are so uncomforable with people holind differing
opinions. But, sometimes life is like that. Perhaps if there were
fewer Libertarians like you and more Libertarians who talked to
evangelicals on their own terms and explained why it is in their
best interests to be for a limited government, Libertarians might
do better in the world. Sitting around saying dumb ass shit like
what you just said doesn't help/.
Boston|4.21.09 @ 12:28PM|#
BDB,
This is
what i could find,
PLAYBOY: Is that behind your support of Nafta?
JOHNSON: Yes. Nafta has benefited New Mexico. With each passing day, it's a bigger boom for New Mexico as a border state.
PLAYBOY: Do you disagree that Nafta has caused the "sucking sound" Ross Perot warned of--the sound of U.S. jobs being sucked into Mexico?
JOHNSON: Again, my opinion is that the jobs we're talking about are those we generally don't want. What jobs are we saving?
PLAYBOY: Manufacturing jobs.
JOHNSON: There is a shifting, and some companies have relocated to Mexico. But we've benefited far more than we have lost. Also, it's still settling. Intel has a new semiconductor manufacturing plant in Albuquerque, one of the most sophisticated plants on the planet. It is in the U.S. because the workers are qualified and efficient here. If we're not competitive, we had better get competitive. We're moving toward a global economy whether we like it or not.
|4.21.09 @ 12:30PM|#
Most people aren't concerned about 80s and 90s-era rhetoric about small and big government. They care about a functioning government. In the post-Katrina age, most everyone recognizes "smaller government" talk to be about not reducing the size of anything, just funneling tax money to corporations while letting social services and infrastructure crumble. Maybe libertarians should focus on civil liberties and take a break from tacitly defending corporatism for a while.
|4.21.09 @ 12:34PM|#
He's a creationist
Yeah, see, this never bothers me like it bothers a lot of other
libertarians/lefties (and I'm not saying you, Taktix, I just wanted
to bring up the point). So long as Sanford doesn't want to force my
hypothetical child to fall in line with his religious beliefs, I'm
all set with him believing whatever he wants.
Besides, I'm starting to think that economic liberty needs to be
made a priority. All of the social liberties seem to fall in line
with time, which is why I don't get too bent out of shape over
drugs/marriage/choice, for example, unless the candidate goes out
of his or her way to talk about them at length and often(Huckabee
will destroy this country). Yet it seems that a right to property
is either fought for or marked to vanish.
|4.21.09 @ 12:37PM|#
So long as Sanford doesn't want to force my hypothetical
child to fall in line with his religious beliefs, I'm all set with
him believing whatever he wants.
It doesn't bother you that people representing your interests are
so disconnected from reality that they don't even know about
150-year-old established science?
I for one am tired of having leaders who govern based on what the
voices in their heads (or guts) tell them.
Xeones|4.21.09 @ 12:39PM|#
Maybe Tony should focus on taking notice of the fact that corporatism is impossible if the government is too small to hand out favors, and shut the fuck up for a while. But he probably won't.
|4.21.09 @ 12:43PM|#
Most people aren't concerned about 80s and 90s-era rhetoric
about small and big government. They care about a functioning
government. In the post-Katrina age, most everyone recognizes
"smaller government" talk to be about not reducing the size of
anything, just funneling tax money to corporations while letting
social services and infrastructure crumble. Maybe libertarians
should focus on civil liberties and take a break from tacitly
defending corporatism for a while.
It's almost as if you are pure leftist talking points:
leftist talking points incarnate, if you will.
The thing is, you're completely wrong, not that it's ever stopped
you before. That you think you're in the position to give liberals
(the real kind) advice on liberal positions would be funny if it
weren't pathetic. But that you, zombie that you are, wish we would
stop worrying about economic freedom (Capitalism being the greatest
catalyst for personal liberation in the history of the world)
guarantees to me that we're on the right side of this fight.
Thanks for the reality check, Tony.
BDB|4.21.09 @ 12:44PM|#
Boston--
I was talking about Sanford, not Johnson.
I didn't think for one moment than Johnson was not a free trader.
Sanford, OTOH, being the darling of the paleocons lately..I don't
know about.
Xeones|4.21.09 @ 12:45PM|#
Naw, brotherben. But Solana said it better whilst i was focused on digesting this curry.
JB|4.21.09 @ 12:46PM|#
The GOP could run a retarded chimp in 2012 and that would look good. Er, wait...we already have a retarded chimp in office.
|4.21.09 @ 12:47PM|#
It doesn't bother you that people representing your
interests are so disconnected from reality that they don't even
know about 150-year-old established science?
It does, a bit, I won't lie to you about that. I'm willing to bet
it bothers me way more, in fact, than it bothers you that our
sitting president doesn't seem to know about the
300-year-old established historical proof that Capitalism is the
only thing standing between this civilization and the Dark
Ages.
|4.21.09 @ 12:49PM|#
Maybe Tony should focus on taking notice of the fact that
corporatism is impossible if the government is too small to hand
out favors, and shut the fuck up for a while. But he probably
won't.
Ha. Well fucking put.
Taktix®|4.21.09 @ 12:49PM|#
Solana and John,
I was trying to say that, all things being equal, I'd take Sanford
over Obama in '12 or any Democrat put up in 2016.
But as I said before, I have NO problem with the religious aspects
of creationism. My problem is with the overt denial of fact.
Using John's example, were a Wiccan to take office and require that
my hypothetical children learn, in science class, that it's a
scientific fact that harm done to a person comes back threefold,
well, I'd have a problem...
Taktix®|4.21.09 @ 12:52PM|#
Tony,
Good thing you slipped Katrina in there. I was worried you weren't
going to meet your shill quotient for the day...
Boston|4.21.09 @ 12:53PM|#
House:
members who voted the most consistently
for free trade were Philip Crane (R-Ill.),
Tom Campbell (R-Calif.), J. D. Hayworth
(R-Ariz.), Mark Sanford (R-S.C.), and
John Shadegg (R-Ariz.). In the Senate,
Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) compiled the best
free-trade voting record.
http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/pas/tpa-006.pdf
BDB|4.21.09 @ 12:55PM|#
Well, that's good. Then I really don't have any problem with Sanford either. I'm pro-choice but it's not a deal-breaker if I agree on almost every other issue.
|4.21.09 @ 12:57PM|#
When Obama is done in 8 years,
Optimistic, aren't we?
I was looking at some long-range economic forecasting over the
weekend that indicated that there was a pretty good chance we
wouldn't hit the true bottom on the current global meltdown until
2011. Even assuming some kind of perceptible recovery into 2012,
that would be some heavy, heavy baggage for an incumbent.
|4.21.09 @ 12:57PM|#
"Using John's example, were a Wiccan to take office and require
that my hypothetical children learn, in science class, that it's a
scientific fact that harm done to a person comes back threefold,
well, I'd have a problem..."
That is the thing, if the guy beleives in limiting the power of the
federal government and getting it out of education, then it doesn't
matter if he is a satanist because he won't be enforcing his views
on you.
I would rather have a creationist who didn't think he, as
President, had any business telling states and locals what to teach
in schools than have someone who thought that education system
would be perfect if only it would bend to his will regardless of
how much I agreed with that person's ideas.
|4.21.09 @ 1:00PM|#
Most people aren't concerned about 80s and 90s-era rhetoric
about small and big government. They care about a functioning
government.
Someday, perhaps they will realize that the only way a government
can function is to have a very limited mission (a nightwatchman
state) and focus on it. Big, sprawling government is too big to
function - various branches of it become captured by industry, it
becomes a favor factory that is irredeemably corrupted, etc. If
what we have now doesn't prove this, nothing will. And having the
"right people" in charge is a delusion, not a fix.
|4.21.09 @ 1:02PM|#
J Sub D you are bigoted fuck. People who are anti-abortion
actually think about things and just come to a different conclusion
than you. The idea that everyone who is pro life is only so because
some preacher told them so is so insulting and stupid as to almost
be beneath response.
That non sequitur just made my day. Did I say anything about
abortion? Anything at all? In other threads I've explained
why both pro-lifers and pro-choicers hate me. I've also opined that
Roe vs Wade was a bad decision.
I've also noted the raised hands of GOP POTUS candidates when asked
who here doesn't believe in evolution, Pat Robertson, the pro
drug-war, anti-gambling stances, the ignorant hillbilly whackjob
preacher, prayer in public schools, and other objectionable
nonsense from the religious right wing of the GOP.
If that makes me a bigot in your eyes, I'll just have to live with
the psychological devastation.
Taktix®|4.21.09 @ 1:02PM|#
John, I agree. And once again, Sanford is better than
most.
But does anyone here really trust a major party candidate to get
into the White House and not use all the power currently
vested in the Executive Branch to the fullest extent?
If so, please raise your hand, and I'll be around to pass out your
protective helmets...
BDB|4.21.09 @ 1:03PM|#
We will know whether Obama will get a second term or not by late
2011.
How? If he gets a primary challenge, he's toast (he will win the
primary but lose the general.). If not, he's going to be
re-elected.
Every incumbent President defeated since 1976 (Ford, Carter, Bush
I) had a serious primary challenge the same year they were defeated
(by Reagan, Ted Kennedy, and Buchanan respectively).
|4.21.09 @ 1:05PM|#
Maybe Tony should focus on taking notice of the fact that
corporatism is impossible if the government is too small to hand
out favors, and shut the fuck up for a while. But he probably
won't.
Maybe you should stop letting your rhetoric get coopted by
corporatist political parties, then perhaps people would buy the
idea that "small government" talk was anything other than the
concerted efforts of corporate lobbyists trying to jam their own
tax breaks and deregulations down the throats of the people with
nice-sounding language and fearmongering about government
oppression that doesn't exist.
|4.21.09 @ 1:06PM|#
The state will never get smaller as long as we are as prosperous
as we have been. The parasitical nature of government means it will
always leech off of people as much as possible without making
itself too painful for them to stand (in a democratic
society).
It will do anything necessary to maintain its size, which is why we
are hearing noises about MJ legalization--there is a big pinch
coming and unless money comes from somewhere the government will
have to reduce.
Face it, non-anarchists: the government will always do its best to
take as much from the host as it can without killing it, and that's
the way it is. Some douche from NM isn't going to change that.
|4.21.09 @ 1:07PM|#
"IMO, if he isn't a big pro-lifer, anti-drugger, he won't stand
a chance in the national GOP scene. The gop still has to suck up to
the christian conservatives.
That may be true. Maybe the GOP needs to get it's clock cleaned
another time or two before they realize there are shiltlods of
voters who actually think about issues rather than listening to
Preacher Billy Bob down at the Baptist meeting hall."
J Sub D,
You were responding to the entire quote, which implies you included
pro life within your statements. You seem to be saying that anyone
who is pro-life, anti-gambling, or beleives in the drug war does so
only because some hillbilly preacher, which is an amazingly stupid
thing to say. If that is not what you were saying, what the hell
were you saying?
You may not agree with those positions, with the exception of
abortion I don't either. But you are moron if you think anyone who
agrees with them does so based on some mindless religious views.
Further, if you think Pat Robertson is representative of every
religious person in the country, yes you are bigoted fuck.
|4.21.09 @ 1:08PM|#
"But does anyone here really trust a major party candidate to
get into the White House and not use all the power currently vested
in the Executive Branch to the fullest extent?
If so, please raise your hand, and I'll be around to pass out your
protective helmets..."
If that is true, which it admittedly may be, then we are screwed no
matter what because any politician no matter how committed will
corrupted by the power of the Presidency.
|4.21.09 @ 1:09PM|#
"The state will never get smaller as long as we are as
prosperous as we have been. The parasitical nature of government
means it will always leech off of people as much as possible
without making itself too painful for them to stand (in a
democratic society)."
True. We have big government because we can afford it. You would
think liberals would be smart enough not to kill the golden goose,
but I guess not.
BDB|4.21.09 @ 1:10PM|#
Epi--
You know what's really depressing?
Because they're going to legalize MJ just to get more money for the
state, they'll probably legalize store-bought weed made by Phillip
Morris but leave growing your own as a crime, to make sure they get
the tax money.
|4.21.09 @ 1:11PM|#
R C Dean, I am optimistic. I also think that in this country, at this time, more people are wanting a handout than are wanting smaller government. If the economy stays bad or worsens, Obama shoveling money at the problem will get votes. If the economy improves, he will get the credit and get votes. IMO, he will win re-election, barring some unforeseen circumstance not related to the economy.
|4.21.09 @ 1:14PM|#
"Because they're going to legalize MJ just to get more money for
the state, they'll probably legalize store-bought weed made by
Phillip Morris but leave growing your own as a crime, to make sure
they get the tax money."
That is exactly what they will do. Look at how they did gambling.
The states haven't legalized gambling. What they have done is given
monopolies on gambling to whichever gaming company is willing to
buy them off. Legalizing gambling means that you can go to the
government authorized corrupt monopoly if you want to gamble. But
it also means the government will act as enforcers for the monopoly
so that the police will still kick down your door if you run a
poker night for your friends and the feds will violate every
international law imaginable to stop internet gambling.
Legalized drugs will mean the same thing. You can buy Phillip
Morris weed, but will still go to jail for growing it in your
backyard.
|4.21.09 @ 1:15PM|#
Some douche from NM isn't going to change that.
Very true, but hell, it's better than what we've had for the past
21 years. Maybe things won't suck as much for 4 years, even though
at the end of that terms the free pony lobby will be showing him
the door (assuming he'll actually be any different).
BDB|4.21.09 @ 1:15PM|#
"Legalized drugs will mean the same thing. You can buy Phillip
Morris weed, but will still go to jail for growing it in your
backyard."
Yup. And the PM weed will probably take about six joints just to
get a buzz.
But hey, they finally managed to get homebrew beer legalized about
forty some years after prohibition ended, so maybe in a few
decades...
|4.21.09 @ 1:20PM|#
Face it, non-anarchists: the government will always do its
best to take as much from the host as it can without killing it,
and that's the way it is. Some douche from NM isn't going to change
that.
He might. So might Sanford. So might have Ron Paul. There are
candidates worth supporting.
|4.21.09 @ 1:21PM|#
assuming he'll actually be any different
And there we have it. Or, maybe one should say "assuming he will
allowed to be any different by Congress".
|4.21.09 @ 1:25PM|#
And there we have it. Or, maybe one should say "assuming he
will allowed to be any different by Congress".
The power to veto in the hands of an honest small-government
president would be truly awesome.
Boston|4.21.09 @ 1:26PM|#
"Because they're going to legalize MJ just to get more money for
the state, they'll probably legalize store-bought weed made by
Phillip Morris but leave growing your own as a crime, to make sure
they get the tax money."
I know nothing about (growing) MJ, can't they tax the seeds?
|4.21.09 @ 1:26PM|#
Congress can easily override that veto. Congress, as a whole, is vastly more venal than one man (the President) can be.
kinnath|4.21.09 @ 1:41PM|#
If that is true, which it admittedly may be, then we are
screwed no matter what because any politician no matter how
committed will corrupted by the power of the Presidency.
I have repeated a joke off and on that I heard several years
ago:
America is at that awkward stage; too late to work within the
system; too early to start shooting people.
It's not a funny as it used to be.
|4.21.09 @ 1:42PM|#
Congress can easily override that veto. Congress, as a
whole, is vastly more venal than one man (the President) can
be.
Yeah, but that would be a fun show. Can you imagine the convulsive
conniptions and public gyrations from the lefties?
|4.21.09 @ 1:43PM|#
FWIW, I have no faith in Sanford. He looks to me that he just got on the bus at the Slimy Old Pol stop.
|4.21.09 @ 1:47PM|#
Personally, I wish someone would run as a solid Democrat,
Clinton-style and then run as for to the libertarian side as s/he
could once elected, with a scorched earth policy in full effect.
Just imagine an administration of nothing but 11th hour
deregulations.
That would be teh awesome. It would be like punking the entire
political establishment.
Oh shit, did I just invoke the demon Kutchner? NOOOOOOOOOO.....
|4.21.09 @ 1:55PM|#
You were responding to the entire quote, which implies you included pro life within your statements. You seem to be saying that anyone who is pro-life, anti-gambling, or beleives in the drug war does so only because some hillbilly preacher, which is an amazingly stupid thing to say. If that is not what you were saying, what the hell were you saying?
You may not agree with those positions, with the exception of abortion I don't either. But you are moron if you think anyone who agrees with them does so based on some mindless religious views. Further, if you think Pat Robertson is representative of every religious person in the country, yes you are bigoted fuck.
*bites tongue*
If it was all too subtle for you to understand, I'll spell it out.
If the GOP continues to kowtow to the religious right* they will
continue to lose elections.
* Yes, I equate "religious right" with unthinking, often uneducated
Christian fundies. No, I'm not going to apologize for holding them
in contempt.
Taktix®|4.21.09 @ 1:59PM|#
If that is true, which it admittedly may be, then we are
screwed no matter what because any politician no matter how
committed will corrupted by the power of the Presidency.
Bingo!
Xeones|4.21.09 @ 2:10PM|#
Maybe you should stop letting your rhetoric get coopted by
corporatist political parties
Hey, a point! Yo, libertarians, we gotta trademark this
SmallGovernment® shit so nobody else can say it! 'Cause unless we
do that Tony says we can't... do... something, i don't know what,
he's getting kind of incoherent.
T|4.21.09 @ 2:12PM|#
America is at that awkward stage; too late to work within
the system; too early to start shooting people.
Claire Wolfe said it. The pessimistic among us are stockpiling guns
and ammo because we think we're getting closer to next stage.
Taktix®|4.21.09 @ 2:15PM|#
Claire Wolfe said it. The pessimistic among us are
stockpiling guns and ammo because we think we're getting closer to
next stage.
And the system is declaring the aforementioned pessimistic as
enemies -- further proof that we're getting closer to that
stage.
kinnath|4.21.09 @ 2:16PM|#
Claire Wolfe said it.
I'm pretty good a remembering the unique and interesting thoughts
of other people, but almost completely incapable of remembering who
said or when it was said.
|4.21.09 @ 2:17PM|#
"If it was all too subtle for you to understand, I'll spell it
out. If the GOP continues to kowtow to the religious right* they
will continue to lose elections.
* Yes, I equate "religious right" with unthinking, often uneducated
Christian fundies. No, I'm not going to apologize for holding them
in contempt."
No one says you have to apologize. Your ignorance speaks for
itself.
kinnath|4.21.09 @ 2:19PM|#
And the system is declaring the aforementioned pessimistic
as enemies -- further proof that we're getting closer to that
stage.
I like to remind people that the founding fathers committed acts of
high treason and would have been executed using barbaric means had
the colonies lost the revolutionary war.
alan|4.21.09 @ 2:27PM|#
JW | April 21, 2009, 1:12pm | #
Tony makes me miss gaius marius.
Nah. Tony is a hoot. Remember the old SNL bit from the 80's Dana
Carvey did where he was playing Frank Zappa and every other word
was 'corp-uh-ra-tions' in a sincere, hound dog eyed, drone? Well,
that's Tony.
BTW, if you voted for the guy who supported TARP, and you bought
the 'saving capitalism from itsself bullshit,' you can't go around
calling the pure porceline teacup of Libertarianism black when you
are a dark souled kettle, i. e. a corporate shill yourself.
matt2|4.21.09 @ 2:33PM|#
John, are you really going to argue that the religious right is
a bastion of independent thought, made up of a bunch of people who
just happened to arrive at the same conclusion (worldview,
I believe, in fundie speak)?
Really?
That is about as untenable as a position gets.
alan|4.21.09 @ 2:40PM|#
Religion is entirely secondary in my opinion:
Sanford, not only acceptable, but I would enthusiasticaly support
him.
Palin, no enthusiasm, but i would vote for her given the
opposition.
Huckabe, fuck no. He is a fiscal liberal, and an anti-libertarian
coummunitarian, so I would strongly oppose him if he got the
nomination.
kinnath|4.21.09 @ 2:41PM|#
Nah. Tony is a hoot.
After spending a couple days in a thread over at Salon, I can
testify that Tony is fairly bright for a liberal ;-)
alan|4.21.09 @ 2:43PM|#
Typing with my big toe so i can read the book I'm holding without getting out of a lounging postion, so if any one wants to correct my spelling errors, be my guest. The position doesn't pay well, though.
alan|4.21.09 @ 2:46PM|#
After spending a couple days in a thread over at Salon, I
can testify that Tony is fairly bright for a liberal ;-)
Can you bring back some fun examples? I'm in a snickery mood.
|4.21.09 @ 2:56PM|#
A Republican ticket of Johnson / Flake would be a dream ticket for me. I'm not sure that it could happen with them both being from the southwest
kinnath|4.21.09 @ 2:56PM|#
I was in a bad mood and made a few inflamatory remarks (wyzzyrdd
is a very, very old handle from the early days of Salon when it was
actually worth paying the annual subscription)
Wyzzyrdd represents the sheer stupidity of trying to engage
Republicanism
What in Christ's name could have led Wyzzyrdd to imagine that the
synaptic impulses dancing around in his head constitute an
"opinion" that needs to be shared with others?
Move to France if you want French health care. (copied
from one of my posts)
I wouldn't trust most government agencies to take care of my
dogs, let alone my wife or children. (me again)
Let's face it, your average tea-bagger is pushing the limits of his
intellectual capacity in trying to convert oxygen to carbon
dioxide. They are incapable of conjuring up a single observation
that isn't drawn straight from the toilet of Republican talk radio,
and should be treated accordingly.
-- david-smith
Apparently dave doesn't like me very much ;-)
|4.21.09 @ 3:00PM|#
Congress can easily override that veto. Congress, as a
whole, is vastly more venal than one man (the President) can
be.
Uh... no? 2/3 is not easily.
|4.21.09 @ 3:02PM|#
Apparently dave doesn't like me very much ;-)
Or me. Compared to the Iraq protests I've been to, the tea parties
were tame --- in terms of raging psycopaths and morons making the
rest of us look bad, I mean.
|4.21.09 @ 3:02PM|#
BTW, if you voted for the guy who supported TARP, and you
bought the 'saving capitalism from itsself bullshit,' you can't go
around calling the pure porceline teacup of Libertarianism black
when you are a dark souled kettle, i. e. a corporate shill
yourself.
Both major parties are corrupted by corporate influence. But only
one major interlocutor (I'll be generous and add libertarians to
the list of major interlocutors), liberals, are advocating for
changes to the system that has corrupted them in this way. We have
a much friendlier government now that it's run by Democrats, and at
the top of the party is a guy who is at present getting some
criticism from the LEFT because his anti-lobbyist policies may be
counterproductively draconian. Say what you will about Barack
Obama, but he was never an insider and wasn't in government long
enough to be corrupted by corporate money. But even as he shows
disappointing signs, you can bet liberals will be there questioning
him and working from within to make the changes we want to
see.
Meanwhile libertarians are parroting rhetoric straight from the
Reagan campaign. At what point does "small government" actually
mean small government, since that ideal has never been used as
anything but an excuse for pro-corporate-welfare policies? It's a
depressingly small leap from "less government" to "more outsourcing
of government work to overcharging corporate interests with agents
on K Street."
alan|4.21.09 @ 3:07PM|#
I suppose Mr Smith has some examples of demonstrations where
more than a handful of slogans wre the rallying cries? WTO '99,
maybe? Ha.
What is really infuriating the left is that in their hearts when
they saw the Teabaggers, they wondered, 'eww, is that what we look
and sound like when we march in the streets? Only, smellier and
filthy looking, instead?' Yeap!
Xeones|4.21.09 @ 3:09PM|#
Tony, i take back everything bad i've written about you. Your last post was hilarious. I think you managed to nail every single talking point on that one. Folks, dare we hope that Cesar has come back to us?
kinnath|4.21.09 @ 3:10PM|#
The democratic party is your nagging mother-in-law who only has
your best interests at heart when she tries to get you to end your
evil ways.
The republican party is your smug, self-righteous uncle who runs
the local chamber of commerce and won't lend you a dime, but has
lots of bright ideas on how you can make some money (assuming you
let him run things for you).
alan|4.21.09 @ 3:11PM|#
Say what you will about Barack Obama, but he was never an
insider and wasn't in government long enough to be corrupted by
corporate money.
So being on the Annenberg dole doesn't count?
Annenberg, Ford Foundation, etc. are just means for leftist to suck
off favored corporate interest while pretending to be pure.
|4.21.09 @ 3:12PM|#
36 million people worldwide turned out for 3000 protests of the
Iraq War in the first 4 months of 2003 alone.
Were there left-wing nuts present? Duh. Camera-philic code pinkers
and all types--and, I might add, all colors.
We were protesting a massive wrong that deserved all of the
screaming bloody murder it got and then some.
You guys (couple hundred thousand maybe) are still writing
dissertations on just what exactly it was you were protesting.
cls|4.21.09 @ 3:12PM|#
If Johnson stays away from 9/11 "Truthers," doesn't run off into wacko Bircher conspiracy theories, and hasn't published racist newsletters in his past, then he's better than Paul. I also doubt that Johnson is as much the social conservative (read anti-liberty) as Paul.
|4.21.09 @ 3:14PM|#
When does confirmation bias become a pathology? See
above.
What's the name of the fallacy when you call everything you don't
agree with a fallacy, regardless of whether it is, as if you just
had a class in logic and wanted to try out a new vocab word? Let's
just call it the libertarian fallacy.
Geotpf|4.21.09 @ 3:14PM|#
I still can't see how libertarians (small or big L) win the
presidency, or even many governors/senators.
The Libertarian Party itself is a complete basket case. They have a
current opportunity to step up if they weren't crazy lunatics and
willing to moderate their stances a bit, but they are crazy
lunatics that are unwilling to moderate their stances at all, so
they will remain on the sidelines forever and ever. They are
completely unwilling to do what is needed to be done before they
can actually win elections (any elections).
The Republican Party is now completely controlled (both in terms of
voters and party bigwigs) by the religious wingnuts. All the social
moderates are now Democrats, or at least indies. Anybody who isn't
anti-gay marriage, pro-life, and heavily into the war on drugs will
never win a primary at this point.
Going to Democratic Party route is actually an easier path, but
that's unlikely to draw libertarian(-lite) candidates, especially
after the current economic crisis and Democratic governmental
response.
creech|4.21.09 @ 3:39PM|#
Even if the Lp were to "moderate" its stances, how would it live down its radical past stances? There would have to be a complete repudiation of its 35 years of platforms and positions. Not to mention that half the members would immediately walk out while those remaining would find it impossible to reconcile their beliefs with anything that resembles libertarianism. Those who wish to go the "moderate" route are pretty much going to have to start a new party with no baggage.
|4.21.09 @ 3:59PM|#
Libertarians are not prone to moderation. That's okay, but it
means they'll forever be on the sidelines throwing rocks.
Change in this country requires small pragmatic steps since there
are so many competing interests--the nature of democracy. The
entire point of, say, the first amendment, is to foster a free
marketplace of ideas. If your ideas are better than others, they
should spread and gain influence. (This is assuming some voices
aren't louder just because they are better funded, but that's
another debate.)
So practically speaking what minority voices have to do is join one
of the two major parties and influence it from within. I've
suggested here that the GOP may not be that party for libertarians,
partly because they have no track record of increasing liberty or
reducing the size of government whatsoever, but mostly because it's
both unprecedentedly corrupt and as a result gonna be out of
national power for a generation.
|4.21.09 @ 4:01PM|#
What's the name of the fallacy when you call everything you
don't agree with a fallacy
Confirmation bias isn't a fallacy. It's a simple observation in
your case.
regardless of whether it is, as if you just had a class in
logic
A rejection of rhetorical logic is a fine position to take. You
can't seem to employ it, so deride its validity when your opponents
do.
and wanted to try out a new vocab word?
"Confirmation bias" is a phrase, not a vocabulary word. Words put
together form a phrase. If they have both a noun and verb,
they might form a sentence. And it's a sad day when having
a large vocabulary is considered a negative. Would you like to slap
books out of my hands and play "keep away" with my glasses?
Let's just call it the libertarian fallacy.
The only "libertarian fallacy" that over-indulging deliberately
ignorant ideologues like you has any utility. I will stop
committing it forthwith.
Craig|4.21.09 @ 4:05PM|#
I will say this. When Obama is done in 8 years...
Obama will be a one-term president. The ongoing economic
catastrophe he inherited and is working hard to magnify will have
Republicans back in power in four years, and may cost him the
Congress in 2010.
As for the Republican candidate in 2012, Johnson would be much
better than Sanford from a libertarian perspective, but Sanford is
less threatening to the establishment and far more appealing to the
base.
I could see Sanford as a Reagan type, talking a good game but doing
little more than slowing down the runaway growth of government. Not
much in other words, but a lot better than a Bush-league spender
like Huckabee or an authoritarian like Perry.
It amazes me when people are surprised that candidates like Ron
Paul and Gary Johnson can get elected -- most Americans are
moderately libertarian, and anyone who speaks with integrity about
wanting to reduce government spending becomes an attractive
candidate.
The problem in the presidential race is that voters let the media
and the "experts" tell them who the viable candidates are.
|4.21.09 @ 4:18PM|#
SugarFree,
For libertarians to be lecturing anyone on their confirmation
biases is just about the most ridiculous thing I can imagine. Same
goes with the perennial favorite, the straw man.
|4.21.09 @ 4:19PM|#
Obama will be a one-term president. The ongoing economic
catastrophe he inherited and is working hard to magnify will have
Republicans back in power in four years, and may cost him the
Congress in 2010.
Care to make a wager? I've got $10,000 that says the GOP is and
will remain a regional party incapable of winning national
elections beyond their own gerrymandered swamps of idiocy.
|4.21.09 @ 4:38PM|#
"I could see Sanford as a Reagan type, talking a good game but
doing little more than slowing down the runaway growth of
government. Not much in other words, but a lot better than a
Bush-league spender like Huckabee or an authoritarian like
Perry."
Or an airhead like Palin.
We really need somebody who will reverse the socialism that Obama
brings us. Maybe after the mess that Obama brings us, the public
will be ready to elect somebody like Gary Johnson.
mark|4.21.09 @ 4:44PM|#
I also doubt that Johnson is as much the social conservative
(read anti-liberty) as Paul.
That could win him quite a few votes. If Johnson were to answer all
"social conservatism" questions with "the states have the right to
decide for themselves" he could appeal to both sides.
Hopefully.
Ron Paul's pro-life stance always bothered me but not as much as
your typical Republican's, because I doubt he would be too focused
on stopping abortions at the federal level.
|4.21.09 @ 4:46PM|#
"I've suggested here that the GOP may not be that party for
libertarians, partly because they have no track record of
increasing liberty or reducing the size of government whatsoever,
but mostly because it's both unprecedentedly corrupt and as a
result gonna be out of national power for a generation."
Neither is the Democratic Party a good home for libertarians
because of their economic viewpoint. Also, the Democratic Party is
every bit as corrupt as the Republican Party. There was probably no
more corrupt couple in the White House than the Clintons.
|4.21.09 @ 4:47PM|#
Are we a little sensitive about the fate of the GOP,
Colonel_Angus? Or is it you just don't like anyone interrupting
your libertarian circle jerk?
Must be the latter, because as I have been scolded many, many
times, this is definitely not just a hangout for wingnut
Republicans who smoke weed.
mark|4.21.09 @ 4:48PM|#
And let me just bring the thread back to Reagan if I may, since he has been brought up several times already. What makes anyone here think Sanford would be any different from Reagan--talking about small government an awful lot but never actually getting around to working on it?
|4.21.09 @ 4:49PM|#
Regarding social liberties, what did Johnson do in that respect as governor of New Mexico?
|4.21.09 @ 4:53PM|#
There was probably no more corrupt couple in the White House
than the Clintons.
Really? I mean really? Not Nixon, not Bush II?
Hate radio warps the mind.
ChrisO|4.21.09 @ 4:53PM|#
I'd gladly vote for Johnson or Sanford over any of the other likely GOP candidates in 2012, which already looks like it's going to be a regular Clown College on the big-name side of the Republican primaries. Johnson is a longshot, but I think an outsider is going to have a better shot in 2012 than Ron Paul did last year.
|4.21.09 @ 5:00PM|#
"Really? I mean really? Not Nixon, not Bush II?"
Filegate, Fostergate, Travelgate, Monicagate, sicking the IRS on
their political opponents, Chinagate, Whitewatergate, Troopergate,
Pardongate, stealing furniture out of the White House.
|4.21.09 @ 5:04PM|#
Filegate, Fostergate, Travelgate, Monicagate, sicking the
IRS on their political opponents, Chinagate, Whitewatergate,
Troopergate, Pardongate,
Wilson still wins.
stealing furniture out of the White House.
True, but that's just tacky.
|4.21.09 @ 5:13PM|#
Johnson is a longshot, but I think an outsider is going to
have a better shot in 2012 than Ron Paul did last year.
Alright, this might get me yelled at, but... Johnson and Sanford
also seem more like Presidents. The way they look, speak,
present themselves --- it's "presidential." I mean this in the most
awful, most shallow sense of the word. But I also doubt either of
them are going to start blabbering about the NWO and the NAFTA
Superhighway. These cats have mainstream appeal.
I love Ron Paul, but his shot at the Oval Office is nothing
compared to these two, both of whom I think have a genuinely decent
chance. Sanford, maybe, a very strong chance after Obama.
|4.21.09 @ 5:22PM|#
bookworm,
Hate radio atrophies the mind. But you may be a lost cause. Looks
like yours withered away sometime in the late 90s.
|4.21.09 @ 5:30PM|#
Filegate, Fostergate, Travelgate, Monicagate, sicking the
IRS on their political opponents, Chinagate, Whitewatergate,
Troopergate, Pardongate, stealing furniture out of the White
House.
My favorite is Bill donating his used boxers to charity and then
claiming a charitable deduction at the value of $3 each off his
taxes.
Not a scandal by any stretch, but that is a BIG window into the
guy's mind. H-o-lee fuck.
|4.21.09 @ 5:34PM|#
Really? I mean really? Not Nixon, not Bush II?
It's too bad you weren't here during the primaries when you could
have had the fortune of getting an education at the feet of our
last house liberal, joe.
Even he wouldn't deny how corrupt and power-mad those 2 are,
particularly Hillary. And he *liked* Bill.
|4.21.09 @ 5:43PM|#
JW,
What I do no is the vast majority of accusations against the
Clintons were right-wing hyperbole or just pure made up bullshit.
They really don't like being out of power. Can't wait to
see what they come up for Obama.
Oh wait, it's 3 months in and already he's a Muslim socialst
terrorist pal who is lying about his place of birth.
|4.21.09 @ 5:59PM|#
What I do no is the vast majority of accusations against the
Clintons were right-wing hyperbole or just pure made up
bullshit.
That's nice Tony, you go right on believing that they were just the
victims of circumstance.
They really don't like being out of power. Can't wait to see
what they come up for Obama.
No, no, they like being out of power. Frees up more time for at the
beach.
Tony's so cute; thinking that politics is a game of honor and
sportsmanship. Oh right, only when Democrats play the game.
Colonel_Angus|4.21.09 @ 6:36PM|#
Tony you sound fucking retarded trying to talk about
corporatism. What the fuck do you think the Democrats are doing
right now? They are giving free handouts to horribly unproductive
businesses and wasting money on this fucking green fad. Government
giving money to corporations and picking winners is corporatism. No
difference from Republicans.
I hope your hybrid batteries leak and combust.
Clemsonuee|4.21.09 @ 6:50PM|#
Don't make fun of our state tree, or our flag. The Palmetto tree
is a pretty good tree to build forts out of; at least back in the
day. The fort used to defend Charleston was built out of it and was
able to take a lot of damage because the tree is so soft. And don't
get me started on state flags. Kentucky's flag is 2 men facing each
other in a quite gay looking stance; Michigan's flag looks like it
was designed by committee. It has a little bit of everything and
makes no sense. Virginia's flag shows murder, or tyrannicide if it
turns out you win the fight afterwords.
Requiring 2/3's of Congress to make a veto may seems like a lot,
but Sanford has managed to piss off the entire establishment during
his time as Gov, and veto's are now pretty routine. I'm sure he has
the ability to piss off all of Congress.
That being said I like him as Gov and think he's the best we've had
in a while (a midget jumping contest I know, but still).
|4.21.09 @ 7:42PM|#
Tony's so cute; thinking that politics is a game of honor
and sportsmanship. Oh right, only when Democrats play the
game.
Don't change the subject. I'm perfectly well aware that politicians
stretch the truth. But what you're saying is that they stretch the
truth (or make up bullshit) and that you happily believe what they
say.
This is the Google age. If you still believe in nonsense that isn't
true it's no one's fault but your own.
|4.21.09 @ 7:50PM|#
They are giving free handouts to horribly unproductive
businesses and wasting money on this fucking green fad.
I'm in favor of government subsidies to industry in certain cases.
But the deciding factor on whether an industry is subsidized should
not be whether they donate money to campaigns, but whether the
product they provide does a service to people commonly. One could
say all government bureaucracies were such entities, just on a
complete scale (whose only shareholders are the people
commonly).
But that's all beside the point because you refuse to acknowledge
established science, which is very convenient for your argument
since it means you're not required to actually address the
issue.
|4.21.09 @ 8:01PM|#
If you still believe in nonsense that isn't true it's no
one's fault but your own.
I haven't believed a word of either the Republican's or Democratc's
platforms in decades.
I just default to both parties are full of shit and as dishonest as
surely as the sun coming up tomorrow. Saves a lot of time and I
beat the averages on being right.
|4.22.09 @ 9:22AM|#
But that's all beside the point because you refuse to
acknowledge established science, which is very convenient for your
argument since it means you're not required to actually address the
issue.
It's sort of pathetic that you think you have the intellectual high
ground. This isn't a message board full of Christian Conservatives.
Most of the people on this board are either agnostic or atheist.
You'll not find the FOX News Jesus Freak or the HuffPo "I believe
in energy/consider myself more spiritual than religious" bullshit.
Established Science? Seriously? You want to talk about Science?
"Established Science," which is a bitch of a term if I ever heard
one considering the malleable nature of truths garnered by way of a
scientific method, is the product of a series of objective laws
concerning an objective reality. The closest thing we have in
politics to an objective, scientific political philosophy… is
libertarianism.
Here, you're the intellectual lightweight. We put up with
your irrational antics, Tony, not the other way
around.
|4.22.09 @ 11:30AM|#
I just default to both parties are full of shit and as dishonest as
surely as the sun coming up tomorrow. Saves a lot of time and I
beat the averages on being right.
Again, this is the age of Google. There is no excuse for being
liberated from facts. Politicians lie, but they don't all lie all
the time. Fact checking is easier than ever in the history of the
world. There just is no excuse for ignorance.
|4.22.09 @ 11:39AM|#
Solana,
I'm referring to climate change and you're ranting about Jesus for
some reason. I know most people here aren't theocratic
wingnuts.
The human brain is not wired for pure logic. It takes a lot of
training to be able to parse facts objectively and to suppress
fallacious tendencies such as confirmation bias.
The closest thing we have in politics to an objective,
scientific political philosophy… is libertarianism.
This is really, really laughable. You can't discover objective
facts by first trapping yourself in a framework of first principles
you believe in by faith alone. Of course when libertarians don't
have history on their side they have been shown to be perfectly
willing to rewrite it. This mostly happens by selectively citing
sources that help confirm what they already believe. Citing
dissenting voices is only helpful if they're put into the context
of all science. Same goes for economics. There was just a post
supposedly describing a consensus of economists, but only listed
libertarian-minded economists. This is unscientific.
I apologize if I misunderstood your rather incoherent argument.
|4.22.09 @ 1:14PM|#
johnson is the only choice. i don't trust sanford, he'll turn
into dubya the minute he gets a sniff at power!
if conservatives are going to continually encourage the nanny state
on the issue of drugs, they must consider that the same nanny
state, for whom they have been cheerleading, is coming for their
guns!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245