Ha! Government hilarity

[Phatscotty]

And you were literally so terrified of Mitt Romney so much so that you completely wasted your vote, which resulted in 4 more years of Obama, who is obsessed with attacking the 2nd amendment and appointing hardcore Liberals to lifetime terms in the Supreme Court.

I voted for what I think is best for my country and who can best work with Congress given the (realistic) options the primary process Democratically delivered. You voted for what makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

Congrats. you are a real patriot, and by all means, way to go changing the subject from the most important issue of our time to a personal quip you have with the way other people practice their voting rights. You are incredibly selfish, and your wasted vote makes even more sense now.

You are part of the failed democratic problem if you are voting for Romney because he is closer than Obama to your ideals. You should be voting for what you believe in (which is apparently the Libertatrian party).

I believe in what the Tea Party in Congress is doing. They would accomplish more with Romney than Obama. That's just a fact.

And you know what else, I won't ever vote for a candidate who does not run a serious campaign or cannot even get their name out to more than 1% of people. When a Libertarian runs a good campaign and looks like they really want to win instead of just get a certain number of votes, then I will give them money and support them.

And another thing, my vote needs to be earned. Just because someone is saying on a stage what I believe does not automatically get a zombie vote. There are a hundred other things to consider and different times. Like Obamacare.... or just voting no against Socialism and redistribution of wealth, rather than have it broadened and cemented permanently into the fabric of our everyday life as the law of our land, all while government power continues to grow exponentially.

Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura, and Ralph Nader are good examples of good campaigns that can get double digits and have a shot. Gary Johnson and whoever ran in 2008 (see what I mean) are not. I've really tried not to rip on people for what I think of their vote, I don't believe in that, but sometimes people deserve it.

I don't understand the underlined. Romney is definitely in favor of redistribution of wealth (taxation, crony capitalism), and he favors socialism by supporting state-owned or de facto ownership over certain sectors of the economy (courts, police, military, finance, health, and more).*

*Yeah, there's a spectrum with socialism at one end and total private ownership/control at the other end (anarcho-capitalism and other varieties of voluntary anarchism--e.g. communo-anarchism, syndicalism, etc.).

I understand all that. But I think Congresses can steer Presidents, especially when they have a majority. And Romney also ran on a platform of repealing Obamacare. I understand that does not mean he for sure would, but that would be what we sent him to do if he won, and I don't find it likely that Romney would rail against Republicans and side with Democrats, not on Obamacare. Even Democrats are jumping off that train now. That's what I was thinking of when I wrote the underlined. Obamacare expands government on a massive scale, and the spending...I think you understand that picture perfectly well.

Just like I understand there are a lot of things that Ron Paul says, and he believes in what he says, but there is no way in hell a Congress would be on board with certain things he might want to do, and I would hope Ron Paul of all people would respect the Congress. I believe he would, that's why I don't get freaked out by his position on foreign policy. I believe he would reduce it, but he probably could not come close to his ideal being realized, because of the checks and balances.

[Lootifer]

And you were literally so terrified of Mitt Romney so much so that you completely wasted your vote, which resulted in 4 more years of Obama, who is obsessed with attacking the 2nd amendment and appointing hardcore Liberals to lifetime terms in the Supreme Court.

I voted for what I think is best for my country and who can best work with Congress given the (realistic) options the primary process Democratically delivered. You voted for what makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

Congrats. you are a real patriot, and by all means, way to go changing the subject from the most important issue of our time to a personal quip you have with the way other people practice their voting rights. You are incredibly selfish, and your wasted vote makes even more sense now.

You are part of the failed democratic problem if you are voting for Romney because he is closer than Obama to your ideals. You should be voting for what you believe in (which is apparently the Libertatrian party).

I believe in what the Tea Party in Congress is doing. They would accomplish more with Romney than Obama. That's just a fact.

And you know what else, I won't ever vote for a candidate who does not run a serious campaign or cannot even get their name out to more than 1% of people. When a Libertarian runs a good campaign and looks like they really want to win instead of just get a certain number of votes, then I will give them money and support them.

And another thing, my vote needs to be earned. Just because someone is saying on a stage what I believe does not automatically get a zombie vote. There are a hundred other things to consider and different times. Like Obamacare.... or just voting no against Socialism and redistribution of wealth, rather than have it broadened and cemented permanently into the foundation of our everyday life as the law of our land, all while government power continues to grow exponentially.

Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura, and Ralph Nader are good examples of good campaigns that can get double digits and have a shot. Gary Johnson and whoever ran in 2008 (see what I mean) are not. I've really tried not to rip on people for what I think of their vote, but that's what I think about that.

Eh, whatever helps you sleep at night dude.

[Woodruff]

And you know what else, I won't ever vote for a candidate who does not run a serious campaign or cannot even get their name out to more than 1% of people. When a Libertarian runs a good campaign and looks like they really want to win instead of just get a certain number of votes, then I will give them money and support them.

BUT YOU ARE CREATING THAT PROBLEM. That's the point. YOU are personally holding Gary Johnson back by your ridiculous voting antics of fear. You won't vote for him until he gets a significant number of votes but he can't get a significant number of votes because people like you who allegedly believe in his cause won't vote for him. The truth is, you're NOT a Libertarian, and you should really stop pretending to be one, because you just give them a bad name. You're a social conservative who likes some Libertarian ideas.

[Phatscotty]

And you know what else, I won't ever vote for a candidate who does not run a serious campaign or cannot even get their name out to more than 1% of people. When a Libertarian runs a good campaign and looks like they really want to win instead of just get a certain number of votes, then I will give them money and support them.

BUT YOU ARE CREATING THAT PROBLEM. That's the point. YOU are personally holding Gary Johnson back by your ridiculous voting antics of fear. You won't vote for him until he gets a significant number of votes but he can't get a significant number of votes because people like you who allegedly believe in his cause won't vote for him. The truth is, you're NOT a Libertarian, and you should really stop pretending to be one, because you just give them a bad name. You're a social conservative who likes some Libertarian ideas.

LMAO! He didn't even run a real campaign. Nobody even knows who he is. I'm sure he's a great guy, but he has not even earned name recognition yet. But sure, it's my fault. OKAY! Project all your problems onto me.

Earth to Woodruff: I am not a Libertarian, never have claimed to be, which makes you dumb. Clearly I am Tea Party. Did my not voting for Gary Johnson give me away? Or have I just never talked about the Tea Party? Seriously dude, Spock is showing some serious emotional interference and piss poor observation skills.

[Woodruff]

Earth to Woodruff: I am not a Libertarian, never have claimed to be, which makes you dumb.

If you haven't DIRECTLY claimed to be a Libertarian (and I don't think that's true, but I'm not going to bother going through your posts to prove it, so I'll accept it as true), that's probably because in that weasely way you have, you so consistently avoid making a definitive statement about anything. You certainly HAVE tried very hard to be fitted into the Libertarian camp, going on about how much you loved Ron Paul's candidacy and how much you support the movement that he started. You have certainly tried very hard to pretend to be a Libertarian, even going so far as to AVOID COUNTERING those who made that point about you.

This is really just another admission on your part that you're a dishonest weasel.

[BigBallinStalin]

And you were literally so terrified of Mitt Romney so much so that you completely wasted your vote, which resulted in 4 more years of Obama, who is obsessed with attacking the 2nd amendment and appointing hardcore Liberals to lifetime terms in the Supreme Court.

I voted for what I think is best for my country and who can best work with Congress given the (realistic) options the primary process Democratically delivered. You voted for what makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

Congrats. you are a real patriot, and by all means, way to go changing the subject from the most important issue of our time to a personal quip you have with the way other people practice their voting rights. You are incredibly selfish, and your wasted vote makes even more sense now.

You are part of the failed democratic problem if you are voting for Romney because he is closer than Obama to your ideals. You should be voting for what you believe in (which is apparently the Libertatrian party).

I believe in what the Tea Party in Congress is doing. They would accomplish more with Romney than Obama. That's just a fact.

And you know what else, I won't ever vote for a candidate who does not run a serious campaign or cannot even get their name out to more than 1% of people. When a Libertarian runs a good campaign and looks like they really want to win instead of just get a certain number of votes, then I will give them money and support them.

And another thing, my vote needs to be earned. Just because someone is saying on a stage what I believe does not automatically get a zombie vote. There are a hundred other things to consider and different times. Like Obamacare.... or just voting no against Socialism and redistribution of wealth, rather than have it broadened and cemented permanently into the fabric of our everyday life as the law of our land, all while government power continues to grow exponentially.

Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura, and Ralph Nader are good examples of good campaigns that can get double digits and have a shot. Gary Johnson and whoever ran in 2008 (see what I mean) are not. I've really tried not to rip on people for what I think of their vote, I don't believe in that, but sometimes people deserve it.

I don't understand the underlined. Romney is definitely in favor of redistribution of wealth (taxation, crony capitalism), and he favors socialism by supporting state-owned or de facto ownership over certain sectors of the economy (courts, police, military, finance, health, and more).*

*Yeah, there's a spectrum with socialism at one end and total private ownership/control at the other end (anarcho-capitalism and other varieties of voluntary anarchism--e.g. communo-anarchism, syndicalism, etc.).

I understand all that. But I think Congresses can steer Presidents, especially when they have a majority. And Romney also ran on a platform of repealing Obamacare. I understand that does not mean he for sure would, but that would be what we sent him to do if he won, and I don't find it likely that Romney would rail against Republicans and side with Democrats, not on Obamacare. Even Democrats are jumping off that train now. That's what I was thinking of when I wrote the underlined. Obamacare expands government on a massive scale, and the spending...I think you understand that picture perfectly well.

Just like I understand there are a lot of things that Ron Paul says, and he believes in what he says, but there is no way in hell a Congress would be on board with certain things he might want to do, and I would hope Ron Paul of all people would respect the Congress. I believe he would, that's why I don't get freaked out by his position on foreign policy. I believe he would reduce it, but he probably could not come close to his ideal being realized, because of the checks and balances.

I never found the Repocrat v. Repocrat strategy to be productive.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Ok we are talking about Government hilarity. What had Obama done in the last 5-6 years of his presidency? Kill Osama-Bin-Laden? What else? LOLOL Obamacare is now hated by Unionists. Nothing has been done... Except the Debt limit has been Increased, as well as government spending and the unemployment rate. Ages 18-29 Have a 16% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE. 16%. Ridiculous.

[Phatscotty]

Ok we are talking about Government hilarity. What had Obama done in the last 5-6 years of his presidency? Kill Osama-Bin-Laden? What else? LOLOL Obamacare is now hated by Unionists. Nothing has been done... Except the Debt limit has been Increased, as well as government spending and the unemployment rate. Ages 18-29 Have a 16% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE. 16%. Ridiculous.

Seal team 6 killed Bin-Laden. Obama just gave the order. I think any president would do that, given the circumstances.

[Phatscotty]

I never found the Repocrat v. Repocrat strategy to be productive.

I think it can be, and right now I certainly think it is.

Just imagine for a moment, a Republican party like the ones under GWB. Clearly they were not fiscally responsible. Then imagine a new wave of Republicans stood up to challenge their own, hold their feet to the fire, hold them to their platforms, hold them accountable. Certainly there is going to be a lot of infighting. If not for that scenario, the party would never be fiscally responsible.

Why would that not be productive to one who strongly believes in living within our means? How could any party ever be made better without a grass roots change within itself?

[BigBallinStalin]

I never found the Repocrat v. Repocrat strategy to be productive.

I think it can be, and right now I certainly think it is.

Just imagine for a moment, a Republican party like the ones under GWB. Clearly they were not fiscally responsible. Then imagine a new wave of Republicans stood up to challenge their own, hold their feet to the fire, hold them to their platforms, hold them accountable. Certainly there is going to be a lot of infighting. If not for that scenario, the party would never be fiscally responsible.

Why would that not be productive to one who strongly believes in living within our means? How could any party ever be made better without a grass roots change within itself?

Yeah, they had an internal purge to restore the Repocracy to the Republicans. Where were you? I'm thinking you're delusional.

The Republicans weren't fiscally responsible when they dominated Congress and the presidency. They simply advertise themselves as such in order to capture greater votes. When they get back into power, it'll be Repocrats as Usual. I don't see how your strategy is in any way helpful.

[Phatscotty]

I never found the Repocrat v. Repocrat strategy to be productive.

I think it can be, and right now I certainly think it is.

Just imagine for a moment, a Republican party like the ones under GWB. Clearly they were not fiscally responsible. Then imagine a new wave of Republicans stood up to challenge their own, hold their feet to the fire, hold them to their platforms, hold them accountable. Certainly there is going to be a lot of infighting. If not for that scenario, the party would never be fiscally responsible.

Why would that not be productive to one who strongly believes in living within our means? How could any party ever be made better without a grass roots change within itself?

Yeah, they had an internal purge to restore the Repocracy to the Republicans. Where were you? I'm thinking you're delusional.

The Republicans weren't fiscally responsible when they dominated Congress and the presidency. They simply advertise themselves as such in order to capture greater votes. When they get back into power, it'll be Repocrats as Usual. I don't see how your strategy is in any way helpful.

I'm not delusional . I agree with everything you said there, in fact that's exactly what I said, only pretending it was imaginary for sarcasm purposes, and I was vocal about it at the time. That's how I got labeled a Liberal, for not towing the line and disagreeing with much of what Bush said and did as well as the Congress along with it.

The Republicans now are having a battle, and if the Tea Party wins I believe Republicans will be more fiscally responsible. If Boehner's side wins, then the Republicans will not have hardly changed at all.

You don't think it's helpful, but that's based on your speculation of what would happen. You could be wrong. As for me, I'm not giving up on America.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's not about "giving up on America." It's about realizing how dumb each party is, and then promoting substitutes. You just vote for stupidity. I don't get it.

The Tea Party has been marginalized, and much of it is merely rhetoric (fiscal responsibility for now, government spending when they get in power). Come on...

[Phatscotty]

It's not about "giving up on America." It's about realizing how dumb each party is, and then promoting substitutes. You just vote for stupidity. I don't get it.

The Tea Party has been marginalized, and much of it is merely rhetoric (fiscal responsibility for now, government spending when they get in power). Come on...

I know you don't get it. I have realized the parties are dumb. I and others like me are just actively trying to do something about it. It's the only way anything could possible change. If nobody does anything, then not only will nothing change, it will get worse, and by not participating or taking a stand against something, we are de-facto endorsing it.

If you believe there is no way possible to improve the parties, as you seem to suggest, then I wouldn't blame you if you did give up. I would love to hear any theory's about how you think the problem could be addressed, if you do think it's possible, or if you do in fact think we are screwed forever and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

You are welcome of course to your own opinions on the Tea Party, but your predictions about what they would do if in power are speculative. I would venture to guess that you don't follow the Tea Party very much, but I do, and I speculate much more optimistically. It's okay if we disagree.

Only time will tell. To me, the Tea Party is the best realistic shot America has at doing something about the debt/spending situation. If you have a better idea that is also realistic, I'm all ears.

As for me, I'm with these guys.

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh, you're overestimating your ability to change a party which faces incentives that are resistant to the very change you seek. Sure, makes sense.

[Phatscotty]

Oh, you're overestimating your ability to change a party which faces incentives that are resistant to the very change you seek. Sure, makes sense.

I see you either missed or just don't want to touch my questions about what is better, or if anything can be done at all, and if so, what... I think you have given up. like I said I understand if you have. I am fully aware that one day in the future I may give up as well, and maybe whatever it is you are so certain about I just have to learn for myself, and I'm fully ready to spend the time and go through the motions and accept that, but I have been going strong for over a decade, and I truly believe the Tea Party philosophy that has taken hold can be grown, and their Libertarian leaning fiscal and social policies can at least expand in the right direction. Certainly at least those conversations have been had, and those conversations are being had in the House of Representatives and the Senate now, as opposed to the third party debate on C-Span 4.

As for me, I'm all in, and it's not the 30 year plan, it's the Rand Paul for president in 2016 plan.

[Woodruff]

and I truly believe the Tea Party philosophy that has taken hold can be grown, and their Libertarian leaning fiscal and social policies can at least expand in the right direction.

Their social policies are just Republicanism in sheep's clothing. There is little difference between the Tea Party and the Republican Party as far as social policies. Those social policies are why Libertarians are unlikely to ever fall in line with the Tea Party and support it, despite the claims by the Tea Party that their fiscal policies are what Libertarians want (which there's not a lot of evidence for either).